Alternate link: https://archive.is/20260131002226/https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-arlene-dickinson-amber-mac-cut-ties-canadian-startup-gander-social/#selection-2359.0-2359.88

Some excerpts:

Canadian media personalities Arlene Dickinson and Amber MacArthur were drawn last year to back an Ottawa startup called Gander Social Inc. that had a unique mission: To create a social network by and for Canadians.

At a time when social media platforms were being accused of aiding the spread of misinformation and hate, and selling user data without consent, Gander chief executive Ben Waldman promised something different. Built on the same open-source protocol as Bluesky, Gander, which is registered as a public benefit company in British Columbia, would ensure its moderation rules adhered to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, give users control over their experience, and keep their data in Canada.

Last June, Ms. Dickinson, a venture capitalist who stars on Dragons’ Den, told The Globe and Mail she was “both an investor and adviser,” drawn to a “timely, smart opportunity” that “has the value of Canadians.” Ms. MacArthur, host of The AmberMac Show on SiriusXM, wanted to support a company committed to online safety that was “better for Canadians.” She told The Globe she was “in the middle of getting the information and signing the documents” to invest. “Some of the details are still getting figured out.”

They never were. On Thursday, the pair announced on social media they were cutting all ties to Gander. Not only did they never sign advisory agreements, they also never invested, despite what Ms. Dickinson had said. In one post Thursday, Ms. Dickinson said she had been “in late stage discussions about an advisory role and a potential investment, which is why I spoke about it publicly. It became clear that my involvement was being treated as an endorsement more than a substantive advisory role.”

Ms. MacArthur interviewed Mr. Waldman on her show in January, telling listeners she’d been an adviser for months. On Thursday, she posted on Facebook: “We’ve had some disagreements on how things are being managed,” adding in a LinkedIn post: “I am pretty devastated that I’ve been left with no option but to leave” the advisory role. “I won’t back something that isn’t capable of meeting this need with total integrity and excellence.” Both wished Gander well.

Ms. Dickinson, Ms. MacArthur and Mr. Waldman told The Globe that after agreeing to invest in an earlier financing – called a “simple agreement for future equity, or SAFE – and join as advisers, delays ensued in formalizing both arrangements due to back-and-forth changes to the advisory deal’s terms and language. “It was dragging out, Ms. Dickinson said. “It was more busy-ness on both sides. I was late, he was late” but both intended to conclude the deal.

Ms. MacArthur and Ms. Dickinson had another concern. As advisers, they expected to view a prototype of the platform as it was being developed and to be involved in shaping how it would function and what protocols would govern it. “We kept asking for that,” Ms. Dickinson said, but to no avail.

Ms. MacArthur added: “Over the past few weeks it’s been pretty clear I wasn’t necessarily advising on anything because there was no product to look at. From my perspective, they have not been actively in touch with advisers along the way. That begs the question why you need advisers if you’re not getting them to advise.”

Without seeing the product, “it’s really hard to tell people they should continue to support and invest in this,” Ms. MacArthur said.

all 3 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 9 points 9 months ago

Aha, so that’s who was being referenced in their last email. For those interested that aren’t part of the newsletter group:

Hi friend,

We wanted to send a brief update directly to our early supporters.

Over the last few days, there have been some changes to Gander’s group of Strategic Advisors, and we took some time to reflect and gather our thoughts before sharing them with you.

As part of our initial fundraising from May to September of last year, two prospective investors did not complete their advisor agreements or investments by the original deadline, or within an extended timeframe.

Our equity crowdfunding campaign went live in October, and we recently offered them the same terms that every other investor had received through the campaign. When an agreement couldn’t be reached, we parted ways.

We’re grateful for all the advice and support that every single one of our advisors, past and present, has provided to us along this journey. Our focus today is exactly where it’s always been: building Gander with, and for, the Canadians who have shown up, believed in it, and helped make it real.

Today, we have Gander in the hands of hundreds of people who are posting, connecting, and testing the app. That number will continue to increase every week until everyone reading this email has been invited.

As always, thank you for being part of this with us. We’ll keep showing up, building with community, and getting Gander into the hands of more Canadians.

With gratitude,

Ben & The Gander Team

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (1 child)

    Ms. MacArthur added: “Over the past few weeks it’s been pretty clear I wasn’t necessarily advising on anything because there was no product to look at. From my perspective, they have not been actively in touch with advisers along the way. That begs the question why you need advisers if you’re not getting them to advise.”

    Without seeing the product, “it’s really hard to tell people they should continue to support and invest in this,” Ms. MacArthur said.

    Why in the hell would you think you had a right to see anything when you had failed to provide even 1 cent of funding????

    Jfc. Rich people truly believe they should get everything for nothing.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 15 points 9 months ago

    I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t provide funding without seeing a business plan and a prototype.

    In this case though, Fedican already provides a Canadian alternative, and all the structure is volunteered.

  • source
  • parent
  • 5 comments in c/buycanadian@lemmy.ca view that post
    [–] 13 points 9 months ago

    My problem with their whole funding model was that rich people with lots of money would get to be on an advisory role. Fuck that shit. You're already doing it wrong.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    The whole project just seems kinda pointless to me as a fedizen. Canadian fediverse instances already exceed the vision of gander. The only principle differentiating this thing from the rest of corporate social media is the maple-flavoured nationalism.

    I suppose it's good that they dodged a couple of VC bullets, but, like, why do they need that much funding to spin up a fork of bluesky, y'know?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago*

    I find all new social media that’s built to escape Twitter, Meta etc to be pointless unless it’s Fedi. It’ll all turn to shit (see BlueSky etc) like the others did. I mean as soon as algorithm meets money making (ads) it’s over. Let alone when somebody owns it who is a fascist or(and) tech bro/billionaire. Repeating the same thing won’t make a difference.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago
    [–] 6 points 9 months ago

    The valuation from the public raise seemed wildly high imo for something pre-revenue, pre-product, pre-user, and without any unique IP. Seems like basically they got caught in being overvalued at their crowd funding seed stage and put themselves in a jam where they either had the equivalent of a down round to bring in the advisors they wanted or to part ways with them in what was ultimately going to be a public situation because they're overvalued for the stage they're at and got ahead of themselves with communicating about the advisory relationship.

    I don't see much that's really damning though. It's maybe just getting out too far over your skis from lack of experience. Some of the comments are a bit rough in the article, but I wouldn't write them off from that.

  • source