[GonzaloQuero]

Sorry, but no, you don't get to play a discrimination card here, because if we do, we're almost mocking people who are under real discrimination.

You don't agree with Discord's practices and lack of privacy, something which, by the way, I agree with you, and as such, decide not to use it. They are not discriminating against you, you're the one deciding not to use their service. To me, it sounds the same as if you don't like McDonalds because it's unhealthy, then accuse them of discriminating against you because they won't serve you some lean chicken salad.

[sneak]

The people doing the discrimination are the groups that choose Discord as their communications tool.

They are excluding all users who can’t get Discord accounts, such as those who can’t agree to the Discord TOS, for example. Free software projects and other public benefit groups should not be discriminatory.

They’re also banning political cartoons within their group’s communications, by implicit inclusion of the Discord TOS which bans several common, normal, reasonable types of communication.

I’m a paying member of a local nonprofit organization; they use Discord exclusively to communicate. I am excluded from all of the discussions as a result of my not being able to safely get a Discord account. That’s discrimination whether you like to acknowledge it or not.

[GonzaloQuero]

But that's the thing: You CAN agree to the TOS, you just choose to not, unless I'm severely misunderstanding your situation and you're in real, physical danger if you create a Discord account. For the sake of a better argument, can you clarify if you're in danger, or physically unable to create an account, or if it's a privacy choice, please?

[sneak]

Let’s set aside my personal circumstances: why must someone be in imminent physical danger for it to not be discrimination? Everyone has a human right to privacy, regardless of whether or not they are a famous person with a stalker who wants to track them down.

The presence or absence of threats against one’s person does not legitimize or delegitimize their insistence upon personal privacy.

[GonzaloQuero]

I agree that it doesn't delegitimize your insistence upon personal privacy, and in fact, I'm in your camp with that, privacy is vital. My issue with the term is that, when you think in historical terms about discrimination, it's people being forced out of places/positions/society because of who they are.

The difference, in this case is that you're not being forced out of participating in conversations because you're, let's say, black. Instead, you, on your own, are opting out of communication channels because of your own beliefs.

[sneak]

Lots of discrimination happens based on belief. Religious discrimination, for example.

We’re way down in the weeds here. If you’d like to continue this discussion further, please just email me.