How reddit is affecting REAL policy in Canada. Free Speech shouldn't be restricted anywhere.

How places like reddit ARE IN REALITY affecting REAL policy in my country of Canada. This is why Free Speech shouldn't be restricted under the guise of a "corporate infrastructure" that has the right to infringe on your rights, and pretend they aren't.

Cast a wide enough infrastructure and you've eliminated all human rights apparently.

And most people seem content to happily defend this. Likely one of the first social programming measures was to ensure the sheep are pro-censorship...

I find it to be a specific mentality that reacts this way, rather than people in general... This mentality I believe to be a minority, but a vocal one. Echo-chambers are designed to exploit this mentality, and catch free-thinkers in chambers that lack of a second opinion... It's so gross. It's mass-brainwashing. Not "accidental mass psychosis", we are seeing all around us today.

I believe it is the government intentionally manipulating people who turn to a more theistic psychology in times of fear. A psychology that comes with a way of organizing your thoughts and feelings, resulting in a protected and over-inflated ego, fueled by self-assigned-virtue. Giving rise to nearly impenetrable layers of cognitive dissonance... Because the more inflated the virtuous ego is, the more delicate it is, the more protection it needs... It creates a cycle of judgement and ego inflation.

Copy/Pasting an idea I had in another thread; Anyone interested chime in with criticisms of this idea:

The solution is FORCED TRANSPARENCY!

As it stands. Mods don't even have to tell the person they ban why they did it. And Reddit's ToS is meaningless because they can just ban you for having a different opinion and tell you any excuse they want, or not... Leaving the position wide-open for exploitation and corrupt social engineering... Which is messed up.

The ToS needs to be clear, concise, and reasonably limited in length. It Should be seen as entering into a contract with the user, the purpose of which is to clearly define protections and rights for both sides of the contract... Instead of simply allowing one side total domination over the other. In the least transparent way possible.

The principle that supports the law, which grants us the right to Free Speech, is the thing that you should care about. Don't play into that bureaucratic bullshit people try to pull, telling you "private companies have the right to violate your individual rights, within their own infrastructure.". When someone says this, I always hit back with "BUT, should they have that power?, Is it a net-positive thing? If not? Why not take steps towards fixing?"

If a corrupt MOD is censoring people for personal benefit that is corruption. And a direct violation of the principle that the laws of free speech were written to protect.

If their argument is: It doesn't violate the law... Yours should be: No shit, that's why the law needs to be amended to extend free speech protections in order for society to continue running smoothly.

Nobody can possibly understand the severely detrimental, long-term effects that this echo-chamber culture is having on debate and rationality.

And the laws/protections these social-media giants hide behind, were written before internet and social media existed as an idea or concept at all... things with societal impacts the original writers of free speech protections couldn't foresee.

Discourse on these sites is no longer an option for any of us. But more of a necessity. Therefore more protection to simply help promote a more healthy discourse I believe is desperately needed. Protection from manipulation of individuals, through invisible social programming tanks, can be achieved in more ways than simply banning the ban-hammer itself...

The protection I'm suggesting in this case isn't for the individual who would be excommunicated from a sub. The protection is for the people who remain in the sub. By which I mean, currently there is no way to realize you are in an echo-chamber, which is the real crux of this issue. But if every single Ban, and reason for each were transparently disclosed publicly, mod manipulation suddenly isn't all powerful. But at the same time nobody can say the moderation is less effective.

So couldn't the government put forth a speech protection bill, Mandating: For any online group with a moderator who will curate the user-base, all moderating actions have to be 100% transparent and fully disclosed to the user-base.

And easy as that, the huge problem we have with echo-chambers just became less dangerous and less effective at spreading misinformation and the like. One might even say completely ineffective.