[syshum]

I see no way that would be true, for example there should be no problem with a video platform telling a user that "Your Video @ 22:50 violated Section 5 of our TOS"

I am unclear how that would that would add a barrier to entry.

[foolmeonce]

Great, now if you are YouTube, that will cost 100m to automate, you won't notice this cost. If you are Vimeo you either declare bankruptcy or have more semi-manual processes to implement the same eating your slim profits each quarter and further limiting the competitiveness of offers you can make.

Your arguments are largely similar to putting regulations on a Telco monopoly to give a little back as if there were competition. We know how that works, it doesn't address the problem and certainly doesn't make competition appear.

[syshum]

It does not cost anything extra, if you are moderating content then you already have viewed and analyzed the content in some way either human, crowdsource, or automated review. The data is already there, the requirement is this data be provided to the user not hidden which is how it done today.

So again I fail to see how requiring a company to disclose to the user the exact reasons for their ban adds any additional burden on anyone. The company already knows the reasons, it simply refused to tell anyone under today's model

I think you have confused my statement with some kind of mandatory moderation scheme.

[Dylan16807]

I'm baffled that you got downvoted. Saying what rule someone broke when punishing them would cost millions of dollars??