Media

Social media and telecom companies vague about their response to January 6 committee – CNN

Published

2 years ago

September 10, 2021

Harry Miller

(CNN)A wide range of telecommunications and social media companies are still grappling with how to respond, if at all, to a request by the House Select Committee investigating the January 6 attack on the Capitol to preserve the records of several hundred people that could play a role in their investigation.

The uncertainty around how they will respond comes against the backdrop of what is expected to be a protracted legal battle once the committee begins the process of formally requesting records be turned over as part of their investigation. The likelihood of litigation increased when House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy and several of his fellow Republican members cried foul over the committee’s request.

An official at one of the companies that received a request from the committee told CNN that McCarthy’s warning last week was interpreted as a “shot across the bow” for phone providers, in particular. Still, many of the companies have indicated they still intend to work with the committee but the responses were overwhelmingly vague as far as what that would entail.

In addition to the preservation of records requests, Thursday was also the deadline for 15 social media companies, many of which were also on the preservation of records request list, to turn over a range of records related to company policies dealing with extremism, misinformation and foreign influence. Thursday also marked the deadline for various government agencies to comply with the committee’s request.

A spokesperson for the select panel said in a statement Thursday night that “with several hours to go before today’s deadline, the Select Committee has received thousands of pages of documents in response to our first set of requests and our investigative team is actively engaged to keep that flow of information going.”

“These records supplement the material we’ve received from other House Committees related to their earlier probes of January 6th. The Select Committee is also aware that the National Archives has undertaken the process required by law for review of presidential records,” the statement continued.

A spokesperson from the National Archived told CNN it had received the request from the committee and “will respond to it in accordance with the Presidential Records Act.”

The preservation requests that were sent to 35 companies were not for these companies to turn over any of these records, but just to preserve them in the event the committee’s investigation leads them to ask for them to be handed over. In their letters to the companies, the committee went to great pains to point out that the request should not be interpreted as the subjects being the targets of the investigation or being accused of doing anything wrong.

“Inclusion of any individual name on the list should not be viewed as indicative of any wrongdoing by that person or others,” the letters reads. “The document identifies individuals who may have relevant information to aid the factfinding of the Select Committee.”

The committee had sent the request to the 35 companies asking them specifically to contact the panel if for some reason they were unable to comply with it.

The complex and extensive requests coupled with the unique nature of the committee’s work seems to have left many of these companies in a difficult position. CNN reached out to all 35 companies to see how they plan to respond. Most did not respond at all and the ones that did offered diplomatic responses that did not give much insight into how they plan to comply.

“We strongly condemn the violence that took place on Jan 6 at the U.S. Capitol,” said Clint Smith, Chief Legal Officer for Discord, in a statement. “We have been contacted by the House Select Committee and intend to cooperate fully as appropriate.”

While Smith makes it clear that Discord, an instant messaging and digital distribution platform, wants to cooperate with the investigation, the company could not describe at what level they plan to comply.

Discord was not alone. Much bigger tech giants like Facebook and Google chose not to go into detail about their work with the select committee.

“We have received the Select Committee’s letter and are committed to working with Congress on this. The events of January 6 were unprecedented and tragic, and Google and YouTube strongly condemn them,” said a spokesperson for the company. “We’re committed to protecting our platforms from abuse, including by rigorously enforcing our policies for content related to the events of January 6.”

Meanwhile, Facebook chose only to acknowledge they had received the committee’s request, but not how they planned to act. “We have received the request and look forward to continuing to work with the committee,” said a company spokesperson. The spokesperson referred CNN to the committee when asked what specifically the company turned over.

The same can be said for Zoho, an online office suite provider, which told CNN they had no comment beyond confirming they received the committee’s request.

While the companies that responded seemed reluctant to provide many specifics around their plans, few went out of their way to challenge the committee’s authority. Rocket.chat, an integrated messaging platform, told CNN they planned to do all they could to help the committee’s work.

“Rocket.Chat has always complied with such requests and has kept a close relationship with the authorities to communicate/share anything possible to help in these types of cases,” said Sana Javid, a spokesperson for Rocket.Chat.

But there were some companies that took a more defiant tone, in part because their businesses are located overseas and because the services they provide make it impossible for them to supply the committee with all they are requesting. Proton, a Switzerland-based encrypted e-mail provider told CNN they won’t comply unless forced to by the Swiss government.

“Our use of zero-access encryption means that we do not have access to the message content being requested,” said a company spokesperson. “Proton only complies with legally binding orders that are initiated or approved by Swiss authorities and therefore meet Swiss legal standards.”

The social network Gab, which is known as a platform widely used by the alt-right and white supremacists, publicly posted a point by point response to the committee’s request for information. They claimed they did not have much of the information the committee had requested. Furthermore Gab told the committee they respond only requests from law enforcement, when compelled by subpoena. They argued that the “Stored Communications Act” prevented them from providing what the committee was asking for.

The major phone providers, like AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile, which some consider to be among the most consequential for lawmakers who were named as part of the request, overwhelmingly did not respond to CNN’s questions about their plans to comply with the committee.

Part of why the companies seem unwilling to publicly reveal how they plan to respond is likely because the issue is almost certainly headed to court.

“I think it’s very unlikely that any of the companies are just going to produce the documents without somebody going to court,” said Justin Antonipillai, an expert on data privacy and the former Acting Undersecretary for Economic Affairs at the Commerce Department during the Obama Administration.

Republicans have already gone out of their way to suggest the requests are inappropriate. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, whose name CNN has reported is on the list of people the committee is interested in, suggested that companies that comply could be in violation of the law.

Antonipillai said that he expects most companies will preserve the records to be safe, but won’t turn those records over until the matter is settled in a court of law.

“You can already see that the congressional Republicans are laying the foundation to say that the congressional committee has no authority to issue the subpoenas, and then they will argue that it’s overboard and that the amount of data that’s being collected is unnecessary,” Antonipillai said. However, he said the courts have historically given the committees like these wide latitude to execute their subpoena power.

“I think it’s going to have broad leeway and if history holds true, courts are going to give this congressional committee a pretty wide berth to go in and pull in the records that they’re asking for,” he added.

The committee has accused McCarthy of attempting to intimidate the companies so they will slow-walk their compliance because of fears of legal repercussions.

“The Select Committee is investigating the violent attack on the Capitol and attempt to overturn the results of last year’s election. We’ve asked companies not to destroy records that may help answer questions for the American people,” committee spokesman Tim Mulvey said in a statement to CNN. “The committee’s efforts won’t be deterred by those who want to whitewash or cover up the events of January 6th, or obstruct our investigation.”

Despite McCarthy’s interference, Antonipillai said the chances of the minority leader being charged with obstruction of any kind is unlikely.

“I think it’s really unlikely that it would rise to the level of an obstruction of justice or obstruction of an investigation, just to send a letter like this,” he said referring to McCarthy’s statement about the committee’s request to preserve records. “I think if it escalated or they did something outside of the normal channel maybe, but I don’t see this rising to the level of that.”

This story has been updated with a statement from the House select committee.

Adblock test (Why?)

Source link

Media

Inside the Very Tough Business of Trying to Disrupt Media – Vanity Fair

Published

3 hours ago

March 29, 2023

Harry Miller

Inside the Very Tough Business of Trying to Disrupt Media

Grid News, a one-year-old start-up, shuttered this week after getting acquired by The Messenger, which launches next month. Grid promised a different kind of news. The Messenger has even loftier ambitions. Will this media marriage work?

By Charlotte Klein

March 28, 2023

On Monday, Grid News, a one-year-old online news start-up, went dark; its articles and teal branding disappeared, and its web address redirected to a navy blue page with bright yellow text that read: “Grid has been acquired by The Messenger.”

It all happened suddenly. Last Wednesday, Grid staff got on a Zoom meeting for what some expected to be an announcement of new hires. Perhaps executives from IMI, the Abu Dhabi–based majority investor, had found a new chairman to replace Grid CEO and cofounder Mark Bauman, who departed back in November. Instead, they would learn, IMI had found a new owner: the yet-to-be launched news site by media entrepreneur Jimmy Finkelstein.

Finkelstein joined the meeting, as did his politics editor Marty Kady, but they didn’t take questions. IMI would make a minority investment in The Messenger, which is set to launch in May, as part of the deal. The acquisition came as a surprise to Grid staffers, who said they had been told their start-up, which had roughly 50 employees, had a two- to three-year runway. One staffer I spoke to hadn’t yet heard of The Messenger, the latest media start-up pitching itself as a nonpartisan alternative to what’s currently out there in a glowing announcement in The New York Times. The Gray Lady gave Grid a similar treatment when it launched last January, when the cofounders said they wanted to give readers a “fuller” picture of the news than mainstream media offered.

By the time staffers signed off the Zoom, the acquisition had already been announced to the public; Semafor’s Max Tani tweeted the press release of the deal minutes into the 10 a.m. staff call. Thus commenced roughly 72 hours of chaos: Some in the Grid newsroom left the meeting unclear whether they’d have jobs at The Messenger, or when to stop publishing, or why the acquisition was happening. Grid cofounder and executive editor Laura McGann was on the Wednesday call, but she didn’t say anything, according to two staffers. She made no public statements after the announcement, either—no one from Grid’s management did—raising some eyebrows in the industry. “My priority is figuring this out for the staff,” McGann told me. “I am not up to speed on every detail of this merger, and certainly wasn’t when it was announced, and I’m not going to put myself out there as an authoritative voice when I don’t have all the answers. Certainly the business side was taking the lead.”

Finkelstein and Kady came to Grid’s DC offices the following day to take questions; Grid staff said new leadership emphasized that their idea of a successful news model was one that’s scoopy and fast—neither of which, staffers noted, were consistent with Grid’s focus and intended mission. Some writers spent Friday downloading their articles, not knowing when they’d become inaccessible. By this week, some Grid staffers were still unclear on what they should be doing, with little to no communication from leadership at The Messenger.

Come Monday, the weekend’s episode of Succession—in which the Roy kids plan to launch a “high-visibility, execution-dependent disrupter news brand” and “bespoke information hub” called The Hundred, only to promptly abandon their start-up at the opportunity to buy a legacy media brand—felt all too poignant. (You’ve probably heard Kendall’s description by now: “Substack meets MasterClass meets The Economist meets The New Yorker.”) Grid’s end feels like a critical point in today’s venture capital–funded media landscape. There’s no shortage of media start-ups claiming to shake up the industry, getting tens of millions in funding, and building full-fledged teams. Now, the snake is starting to eat itself; left unclear is what happens to the journalism, and the writers who produce it.

Grid launched with about $10 million in first-round funding from IMI and the tech executive Brian Edelman, at a time when a flood of other start-ups**—**like Semafor, the buzzy site from Ben and Justin Smith; Punchbowl, the Congress-focused outlet launched by a group of ex-Politicos; and Puck, the media start-up boasting lots of big-name writers—with similar ambitions to disrupt the digital news landscape, had emerged. But it struggled in its first year with slow revenue and audience growth. “I don’t think that Grid ever reached a point where somebody would say, ‘This is what Grid does.’ And successfully starting any new media operation is a near impossible needle to thread if you don’t have a very clear mission that distinguishes you from current offerings,” said legal journalist Chris Geidner, who worked at Grid for about six months before leaving to launch his own Substack. The sentiment was echoed by several former staffers, who painted the picture of a newsroom operating without clear “marching orders” and that “didn’t have a super strong mandate.” “Exactly who our funders were and what they wanted was always kind of hazy,” said one. The early months appeared to be for experimentation, only to land writers in “a big meeting where we all got chastised” for not meeting expectations, another former staffer recalled. It was in that meeting, per audio reviewed by Vanity Fair, that writers were told they would be held to publishing goals, be given access to how much traffic their pieces drew, and that they weren’t hitting targets. “It is not enough to come in and spend the day on Slack, and on Twitter, and sort of thinking, maybe reading,” McGann said in the recording. “Your job is not to be on the internet every day. Your job is to contribute to Grid and do the work. Was your day fundamentally about building Grid’s business?”

Grid wanted to distinguish itself “through the journalistic equivalent of multidisciplinary work,” Geidner said, pointing to its 360 format, where the newsroom would team up to analyze a single topic from different angles, which the Times hailed as Grid’s “magic bullet.” There were many talented journalists at Grid doing good work, but the 360 format and broader multidisciplinary aims ended up being, among other things, a logistical challenge, Geidner said. Grid ended up publishing only a few 360s a month. More often it was publishing single-bylined stories, much like other news outlets. The idea behind Grid, ultimately also ran into a bigger issue. “I think they had this model of: Let’s look differently, let’s be thoughtful, dive into the news and give people what they aren’t getting,” said a current Grid staffer. “They held true to that mission. The question they were trying to solve is just, when you’re doing non-clickbait, how do you make sure you can monetize that?”

McGann said Grid’s daily newsletter had amassed more than 200,000 subscribers by the time it was acquired, and they were thinking about expanding it further. (McGann, who started Grid after six years at Vox, declined to offer specifics on what’s next for her other than being in talks with The Messenger.) “I don’t think we are being sucked into the ether,” she said when I asked her what Grid’s story says about the broader media start-up landscape. “I think that we built something really good, and someone with a lot of money who’s building something even more ambitious sees value in what we built, and wants to expand and grow in other directions. And that’s the point of all this.”

The Messenger has set lofty goals: It wants to be free but generate more than $100 million in revenue next year, mostly through advertising and events; is anticipating more than 100 million monthly readers; and expects to hire about 550 journalists in a year, according to the Times—ambitions that struck some as absurd. Acquiring Grid seems to be, more than anything else, a way for The Messenger to scale quickly. Executives told the Times that the site will launch this spring with at least 175 journalists across New York, Washington, and Los Angeles. A company spokesperson said that the “vast majority of Grid’s editorial team will join The Messenger.” Finkelstein is pitching what he claims is a bygone era of unobjectionable news: “I remember an era where you’d sit by the TV, when I was a kid with my family, and we’d all watch 60 Minutes together,” Finkelstein, who sold The Hill to Nexstar for $130 million in 2021, told the Times. “Or we all couldn’t wait to get the next issue of Vanity Fair or whatever other magazine you were interested in. Those days are over, and the fact is, I want to help bring those days back.”

What that means functionally is more opaque. “I think we have learned that if people with enough of a pedigree make a pitch to rich people about ‘unbiased media’ that will present the ‘straight news,’ those people can still convince themselves that they will be the ones to do it properly,” Geidner said of the broader start-up media environment.

There are lessons to be learned from Grid in that regard. “There seems to be a feeling that there’s a huge market out there for people who don’t want Fox and don’t want MSNBC and just want a straight newsfeed. More power to them, if it’s true. The question is, how do you find the market and how do you monetize it?” said Columbia Journalism School professor Bill Grueskin. After all, CNN has been trying to do this, and “is finding it pretty hard.”

Daniel Andrews’ media-free trip tells us something about China – and a lot more about journalists and the premier – The Guardian

Published

4 hours ago

March 29, 2023

Harry Miller

Sometimes minor events can be eloquent – a sign of the times and a demonstration of where we are at.

So it is that a visit by a provincial leader to the biggest trading partner of his province has become not only a news story, but the focus of innuendo and outrage.

I am talking about Victorian premier Daniel Andrews’ four-day visit to China, which started this week, and the bevy of articles suggesting that there is something shady about it – with that impression bolstered by his refusal to include a media contingent.

At the macro level the controversy says something about China, our region, and the difficulties of Australian foreign policy. Once, Australia’s main trade relationships were with our strategic allies. That time has long passed.

Now we must manage a trade relationship with an autocracy, and an increasingly aggressive strategic rival to our main ally, the US.

And at the micro level, the dispute tells us something about the dire state of relations between the media in Victoria and the premier. And this trip is a convincing demonstration of another kind of democratic problem.

Let’s deal with the macro first. Once, a visit to China by a Victorian premier would have been unexceptional, and a cause for congratulations.

I was in Shanghai, working for the University of Melbourne, in 2011 when premier Ted Baillieu was also in town leading a delegation of businesses.

At a combined drinks function, Baillieu and academics chatted with local government officials and a large number of University of Melbourne alumni, who had returned home with the benefits of a Victorian education and were now working throughout government and business.

It was a celebratory affair. In university lecture halls discussion with students and academic colleagues was surprisingly free. There was great optimism that China would be liberalising, that relations between our countries could only improve to the benefit of all.

That was the year before president Xi Jinping became paramount leader, and bit by bit that optimism faded.

Some of those former students and academic colleagues are now much more cautious. Some of my former journalism students have even been detained, or banned from contact with people like me.

Sign up for Guardian Australia’s free morning and afternoonemail newsletters for your daily news roundup

Baillieu had a small media contingent with him – as have most if not all premiers who have visited China since, including Andrews on his previous visits.

But things are different now. China has changed, and not in the way the optimists hoped for.

The Albanese government has been working hard to stabilise relations with China, with good results. Another trip by a premier is therefore not surprising, and indeed a good sign.

And despite some weird, innuendo-laden articles in the Victorian media, nobody respectable has suggested that Andrews shouldn’t go. Rather, the disputes are about the lack of a media contingent to accompany him, a lack of transparency about his aims and whether he should raise human rights issues.

It’s not helpful that too many commentators are stuck in binary thinking – China good or China bad – rather than dealing with the more complicated reality that China is a major power and a major trading partner and we have to learn to live in a region where it will continue to be important, and perhaps dominant, without surrendering our national interests.

That takes a subtle approach.

In interviews and speeches, Australia’s foreign minister, Penny Wong, has made it clear that she is talking about “stabilising” the relationship with a deliberate use of language. “I don’t use the word normalise. I don’t use the word reset because … neither country is going back to where we were 15 years ago.”

Rather, she is pursuing “managed strategic competition” between the superpowers, and greater agency for the middle powers of the region, including Australia. She has talked about “guardrails” to prevent the inevitable competition between the superpowers escalating to war.

How does all that affect the visit of a provincial leader, such as Andrews?

When Baillieu and the University of Melbourne were hobnobbing in Shanghai, it was possible to believe that the economic aspects of the relationship could be separated from the strategic foreign policy.

That is no longer the case. China has demonstrated it is prepared to use trade policy as an instrument of wider foreign policy, and in particular to try to punish its critics.

skip past newsletter promotion

Australia has not cowed under that pressure, and things are getting better now, hence the unsurprising nature of another visit to China by Andrews. But Wong has made it clear that businesses should continue to diversify their markets, because China could once again restrict trade at anytime.

Andrews is certainly too intelligent not to “get” this context, but he is eschewing any suggestion he should let it get in the way of business.

Rather, he is performing the time-honoured role of state premiers – an entrepreneur and a hustler for his state, after money and business.

He has so far resisted raising human rights issues such as the detention of the Victorian journalist Cheng Lei, let alone acknowledging concerns that new trains for Melbourne’s railway network continue to be built with parts from a Chinese company accused of using forced labour from Uyghurs.

So what about the lack of a media contingent? Most trips by state premiers and indeed Wong’s own trip to China have included media. Not many get to go. Wong’s media contingent included just two journalists.

Journalists’ presence means that travelling politicians can clarify what they are doing and, perhaps particularly important in Andrews’ case, what they are NOT doing.

The idea that such a trip can be used as a major “holding to account” is a fiction. First, getting visas is increasingly complicated and not to be taken for granted. And, once in China, access to the local officials is negligible. The main person any travelling journalists would get to see would be Andrews.

Nevertheless, of course it would be better for Andrews to take some media. I agree that his refusal to do so is a worrying sign of increasing arrogance from this long-term, dominant premier.

But here’s the thing. Would they do a good job, or would it be all “Chairman Dan” binary thinking, innuendo and local political bullshit?

Andrews won his fourth term despite an extraordinary, fact-lite and vitriolic campaign by the Murdoch press in particular, including stories suggesting there was something suspicious about the 2021 accident in which he broke his back.

While this was the Murdoch press, some of the silliness has infected most Victorian media outlets, at least since the Covid-19 lockdowns and the Daily Dan press conferences, in which the premier exemplified the art of ignoring questions, using the journalists as props while speaking over their heads to the audience watching live.

Too many in the media engage in performative watchdoggery, not actual holding to account.

Would a media contingent travelling with Andrews do better than this? We have to hope so.

But clearly Andrews reckons he can snub the media without bearing a political cost, and he is probably right about that.

That is a worrying democratic deficit – but the blame for it cuts multiple ways.

Adblock test (Why?)

Source link

Media

From LinkedIn to TikTok: How newcomers are using social media to succeed in Canada – Canada Immigration News

Published

5 hours ago

March 29, 2023

Harry Miller

Published on March 29th, 2023 at 08:00am EDT

Aa
Accessibility

Font Style

<!–

Tags:

Canada immigration, Facebook, immigration, Instagram, Linkedin, newcomer to Canada, newcomers, Skype, Social media, TikTok, Twitter, YouTube, zoom

–>

Data from a 2022 survey by CBC’s Media Technology Monitor (MTM) indicates that nearly half (42%) of surveyed “newcomers who have consumed news within the last month cited social media as their go-to news source.”

According to the survey, over three-in-ten (31%) Canadian newcomers who use social media use “six or more platforms.”

Put simply, social media is a significant part of the lived experience for many Canadian newcomers. From finding job opportunities and building a support network to learning about Canadian culture and staying connected with loved ones back home, social media offers a wide range of benefits to new Canadian immigrants.

Discover if You Are Eligible for Canadian Immigration

There are many ways social media can help new immigrants succeed, both before and after they arrive in Canada.

Building a strong personal brand

In 2022, 256,000 permanent residents landed in Canada through economic immigration streams. As defined by the Canadian government, this immigration category focuses on choosing “skilled immigrants who are able to settle in Canada and contribute to [the] economy.” This contribution occurs, largely, because these immigrants arrive and find employment in Canada, which allows them to contribute to the economy by then spending money on goods and services.

It is vital that immigrants coming to Canada work hard to establish a strong personal brand, as doing so will help them during the job search and hiring process. Having an active social media presence means job seekers will be better able to market themselves and be accessible to recruiters or hiring professionals looking for an individual with their skills, qualifications, and expertise. In addition, as a job seeker looking for a good place to work, immigrants (and Canadians alike) can also get to know companies (values, culture, day-to-day activities) via their various social channels.

Social media platforms such as LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter can be imperative in this journey, as many employers perform online background checks to analyze an individual’s online presence when considering candidates for a job position.

In fact, nearly two-thirds (65%) of Canadian companies use social media as a means of screening applicants, and 64% of companies find this screening method effective. This is according to a survey by The Harris Poll published in January this year. More than 40% of surveyed employers who used social media for candidate screening “report finding content on a job candidate’s social media that caused the hiring manager not to employ them.”

Here are three tips for establishing a strong, positive online presence:

Be active and engaging: Part of creating a positive online persona is engagement. Find others in your field, experts in your industry, and regularly comment and engage with their content
Share relevant and informative content: Sharing informative and relevant content related to your industry can help demonstrate your expertise and passion for your work to potential employers
Keep your content clean and professional: Proofread your posts and captions, use a professional headshot as your profile picture, and avoid mixing personal content with professional content

Social media as a tool for employment opportunities

Once newcomers establish a strong personal brand, social media can be used as a tool for finding employment opportunities.

According to a study by Toronto Metropolitan University, “those that use social media are 3.5 times more likely to be employed than those that use traditional media.”

Using Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn, newcomers to Canada can connect with potential employers, research companies, and learn about job opportunities. In fact, Twitter and LinkedIn can be used to follow companies and connect with individuals in industries/professions of interest.

In particular, LinkedIn can also be leveraged by newcomers to ask questions of their connections, find helpful career resources and engage in conversation around professional topics of interest. Connections made through this platform may ultimately help newcomers to Canada build relationships and expose them to job prospects they may not otherwise get. That is a significant reason why LinkedIn has become an increasingly popular job searching platform. In fact, 2023 data from social media management platform Hootsuite indicates that 52 million people use the platform to search for jobs each week. Every second, 101 job applications are submitted on LinkedIn globally and eight people are hired through LinkedIn every minute.

Note: LinkedIn also offers employers the ability to post jobs directly to the platform, further enabling newcomers to increase their employment prospects through this application

Building a support network by connecting with other newcomers

Apart from arriving in Canada and establishing a professional life, immigrants can use social media to connect with others and form a support network, helping them become more comfortable with life outside of work.

In other words, newcomers to Canada can use features available on traditional platforms like Facebook (groups) to find others in a similar situation as them. Examples of Facebook groups to join include “neighbourhood” groups, specific to an immigrant’s local community. These groups are often where people share information about community events, a good way for newcomers to connect with other locals and build a support network, potentially leading to new friendships and opportunities.

Other examples of platforms that are known for community-building are LinkedIn and Reddit, where users can connect and form bonds with others over shared experiences and challenges. Discussion forums like the CanadaVisa Forum also exist for newcomers to connect and discuss their questions, concerns and milestones throughout the immigration journey, both after they land and settle in Canada as well as before they arrive in this country.

Embracing Canadian culture and enhancing the Canadian experience

New immigrants to Canada can also use social media to discover cultural events and activities, stay informed about Canadian news and trends, learn about Canadian culture, and enhance their overall experience in Canada.

Twitter, for instance, allows users to stay informed about what’s happening across Canada. Following news outlets, journalists, and bloggers on Twitter also allows newcomers to participate in discussions on current events, just like over 7 million Canadians already do.

Note: Aside from Twitter, subscribing to Canadian news channels on YouTube can also help newcomers remain aware of what’s going on around the country

Here are other ways to use social media to become more connected with Canadian culture:

Use Instagram or TikTok to follow Canadian influencers who share insights and perspectives on Canadian culture
Subscribe to channels by Canadian travel vloggers or lifestyle influencers on YouTube for inspiration and ideas on how to get more involved with events and develop a social life in Canada

Influencers, whether they are newcomers themselves or they were born in Canada, will share ideas on activities to experience, places to visit, foods to try and more. Influencers who are newcomers themselves often also share things that helped them get settled or feel at home when they first came to Canada.

Vloggers, meanwhile, often take their viewers on a journey through video, including to different parts of this country. This can help newcomers experience areas of Canada that they may not know about and learn about the general way of life in different Canadian communities.

Staying connected with friends and family back home

While it is crucial for immigrants to embrace their new environment, it is also important that newcomers to Canada do not completely lose touch with the friends and family they may be leaving in their home country. The power of social media makes staying in touch with friends and family back home easier and more accessible than ever before.

In addition to traditional video conferencing tools such as Skype and Zoom, social media platforms like WhatsApp, Telegram, Facebook Messenger and Instagram offer a range of inexpensive international communication options. From free messaging to voice and video calling, these platforms provide newcomers to Canada with an easier way to stay connected with those back home no matter where they are in the world. Additionally, many social media applications enable users to share updates and photos, giving family and friends another way to stay connected with the newcomer’s life in Canada and vice versa.

Discover if You Are Eligible for Canadian Immigration

Adblock test (Why?)

Source link