[mytailorisrich]

Insurances assessing risk based on publicly available information (social media posts) is in no way comparable to a social credit system.

PatronScan looks potentially more dangerous, but the law in the US and UK (for example and afaik) is that you are free to refuse service to anyone you please as long as it is not illegal discrimination (e.g. in the UK, race or sexual orientation).

Once again what this highlights is the power gained by these online platforms. On the one hand as private companies they have no obligation of universal service, on the other hand some of them have so much power that being excluded has a real impact on people.

This reinforces my opinion that either these tech giants will effectively rule, or they will have to be controlled in a way similar to what China does in order to keep decisions on censorship, exclusion, and provision of service within public hands.

[mieseratte]

> but the law in the US and UK (for example) is that you are free to refuse service to anyone you please as long as it is not illegal discrimination (e.g. in the UK, race or sexual orientation).

There is more to discrimination law, including "gotchas" like adverse impact.

> or they will have to be controlled in a way similar to what China does in order to keep decisions on censorship, exclusion, and provision of service within public hands.

The Western nations seem more concerned with who and what is banned from a platform, the Chinese the opposite, banning speech the Party doesn't like and, perhaps more in line with the West, leveraging these companies as intelligence assets.

In this way, the Silicon Valley companies themselves are more like the Chinese whereas the current administration less so.

[mytailorisrich]

The point is that access to many platforms has become important enough that private companies should not be the ones calling the shots. This includes access to service and censorship.

I fear that we have opened the pandora box and now the alternatives are those I mentioned.

> There is more to discrimination law, including "gotchas" like adverse impact.

Not in the UK, unless mandated by law in specific industries.

[mieseratte]

> I fear that we have opened the pandora box and now the alternatives are those I mentioned.

I don't know that we've opened the box so much as we've built or otherwise inherited a system that allows for what we have now. No reason we can't legally preclude social-media companies from excluding based on their arbitrary and capricious criteria.

> Not in the UK, unless mandated by law in specific industries.

I was talking about the US, specifically. Honestly a bit weird to group the two together in the first place, being very different countries.

[mytailorisrich]

> No reason we can't legally preclude social-media companies from excluding based on their arbitrary and capricious criteria.

And thus social media, and other platforms, are controlled or at least heavily regulated by the government.

[enriquto]

> the law in the US and UK (for example) is that you are free to refuse service to anyone you please as long as it is not illegal discrimination

Just wondering what does it mean and how can this ever be enforced? Does this mean that you can refuse service to anyone as long as they are not part of any minority?

[eximius]

Race, gender, religion, disability... I'm probably forgetting a few other protected classes that you can't discriminate against.

That said, you only cannot discriminate on the basis of one of those listed above. There are unfortunately many people who will try to discriminate using a rule which indirectly singles out a group (I am intentionally omitting examples, use your imagination).

There are, perhaps more unfortunately, valid reasons to serve one cohort and not another that can have bias along these lines. Once again, the actions of some hateful few can ruin things for the rest of us.

[mytailorisrich]

In the UK there is a list of so-called protected characteristics that originates from EU law. It includes sex, race, age, sexual orientation, religion. It is not legal to discriminate based on those. In general it is legal to otherwise refuse service. I suspect the US are similar.

On the other hand, for example in France it is illegal to refuse service unless you have a good reason to.

So in the UK if I walk to a market stall with money in my hand they are free to refuse to sell to me (I suspect the same is true in the US), but in France they would need a 'good reason' to refuse.

[enriquto]

> So in the UK if I walk to a market stall with money in my hand they are free to refuse to sell to me,

But I do not understand how can this be enforced. If for example you are gay and are refused service, can't you claim that it is due to your sexual orientation? Conversely, if the shop wants to expel you because of illegal reasons, can't they always claim that it is due to some other, ridiculous but valid reason?

[mytailorisrich]

Yes you can obviously claim that, and yes they can obviously claim this was not the reason.

Then it's the usual job of the courts to try to uncover the facts.