Orgs like Canada Proud are political operatives that work on behalf of parties. They are deliberately manipulative and misrepresent themselves as normal people, rather than political hacks. They game social media algorithms for klout, so they can skirt advertising rules. Worse, they post stuff that is demonstrably untrue to manipulate the public.

I'm not aware of unions deploying deception or trying to manipulate the public. Generally, their advertising is earnest and states exactly who they are.

You're right; manipulation, no matter the intent, is assholery and should be called out. No one should forgive bullshit done for "the greater good".

A significant issue here, and what's specifically highlighted in this post, is that this group has strong and direct ties to the CPC leader, and so its status as "third party" is questionable.

Plus the blatant and flagrant lying about things and people.

Like, if the union heads had worked on Carney's leadership campaign and then started running ads saying that Poilievre was a habitual cat rapist, all as a means to create the false perception that there were multiple independent groups opposing PP...

But sure, the situations are totally symmetrical.

For what it's worth, I don't do that -- at least not deliberately. I think we all tend to be a little less vigilant about scrutinizing information that confirms our biases; It's a natural human failing worth first inward attention and second consideration when accused of it. I actively guard against it, but cannot guarantee I never slip.

It's also super tiresome when people discover it's a magic trick to disingenuously waste thoughtful people's time. That's a tactic employed very unequally across the political spectrum.

More to your specific concern, I very much dislike political ads not endorsed by the party they support, especially if they're deliberately obscuring their motives. Messages from unions tend to be motivated by values that align with mine, which makes it all the more frustrating when they employ the very tactics people like me spot as discrediting. It's like having the truth on your side but instead lying or misrepresenting facts just to take a more extreme position -- and all it does is abandon the high ground and strengthen the resolve of dissenting views.

You can't reach reasonable people with unreasonable tactics, and you can't reach unreasonable people period. The latter are going to blindly accept or invent whatever empowers their motivated reasoning. Until you have the power to change their motives, it's a lost cause.