[qzx_pierri]

The internet is not real life. It seems a lot of people who hold your opinion are in the 18-24 age range. Those people who grew up thinking the internet is the only way to communicate or “make things happen”. But I assure you these private companies do NOT have to let you use their services, and common excuses such as “Online communication is like a public square!” is not rooted in the desire for free speech, but is rooted in the desire for instant gratification.

Yes it’s easier to gain a following online, but throughout MOST of history, people started these movements/conversation offline. Don’t let these companies trick you into thinking you don’t have a voice, or power, without voicing your thoughts on their “platforms”. You have a voice, and you can use it. You’ll just have to get out the house and start talking to people face to face.

Edit: I didn't mean to establish a condescending tone with the second sentence - I was simply making an observation.

[horsawlarway]

I'm 33. I think you're wrong.

I suspect you're older - imagine the US without a public highway system. Imagine every highway is private. Imagine what arbitrary bans from those highways would do to impact how you live. Talk to me about how well we should communicate face to face in that situation?

Idea not that appealing? That's what you're advocating for today.

A complete loss of a highway system that has no public replacement. By the way - those "18-24 age range" are all being forced to help pay for those "private highways" with their tax dollars anyways, in the form of govt subsidies to private cable companies.

Should we discount the ability to still communicate face to face? Nope. Damn well shouldn't.

Does that make this ok? Nope, Damn well doesn't.

[qzx_pierri]

> I suspect you're older

No, I'm younger than you.

> Imagine every highway is private. Imagine what arbitrary bans from those highways would do to impact how you live. Talk to me about how well we should communicate face to face in that situation

First off, this is a flawed argument because my taxes don't pay for the servers running Discord or other similar services.

Also, your response is proving my point. I said in my original comment that your entire argument is based on the desire for instant gratification through through the use of private services that can boost your voice/reach online - These are private services, and you are not entitled to them at all.

I understand you want faster results (in a time where you can go online), but it's still very possible to get results face to face - That was my response. This is a fact that doesn't lean on any quasi-moral bulwarks to manipulate the conversation.

Your example ignores the fact that you can get anywhere using public roads instead of highways - Which would take more time, but are still very functional. This reinforces my original point. Additionally, beginning your response with made up scenarios is generally a low quality way to frame an argument to your liking, but I'll give you a pass on that.

> Does that make this ok? Nope, Damn well doesn't

Says who? You aren't entitled to any private service. Mind you, you're the one using words like "shouldn't" that don't fall under any moral authority other than the owner of the platform itself.

[horsawlarway]

You keep assuming that "private" means they are not accountable to the general public, and that they are (fantastically) standing alone without leaning on the resources that all of us are providing.

And that's simply a complete mistruth (I'd call it delusional - in the case of tech companies). They might be private companies, but they cannot (literally - full stop, without room for debate) exist without the infrastructure that we are providing them.

From the roads that they use to provision their datacenters with equipment, to the power we generate with power plants under government supervision, to the police/lawyers/judges that ensure their property rights, to the firefighters who deal with their emergencies. To the cable companies that we subsidize to provide them internet, and connect them to their customers. To the trash we collect from them, the water we provide, the clean air their employees breath.

I don't understand how you keep missing this point. "Private" does not mean self-sufficient, and it is an insufficient standard to claim that being "private" means you have carte-blanch control of how you operate.

This is why we have regulations over all sorts of industries. Do you think private companies are free to ignore accessibility laws? Or that they can violate discrimination laws? Or that they enter into any contract, regardless of the clauses?

Basically - "Ownership" is only a concept that exists BECAUSE we enforce it. There is no such thing as "ownership" without the participation of all of us in this make believe game.

---

So in this case - it's complicated. I think in general I don't mind private companies being allowed to remove users from their platforms, but I think it matters quite a bit what sort of impact that has on the user, and what sort of actions provoked that removal.

Should a store be allowed to remove a jewish person because they are jewish? Nope - damn well shouldn't.

Should a store be allowed to remove a jewish person who is breaking shit and making a mess? Sure.

Should discord be able to ban malicious users spamming other customers? Sure

Should discord be able to ban a user because they changed email addresses? Probably not.

Intent and actions of both parties MATTER.

And simply claiming that it's "Cost efficient" to not deal with problems that are trivial to a company, but utterly life changing to an individual (such as loss to a primary communication channel) is not acceptable. It's cost efficient for the company, and debilitating to the individual - they are harmed immensely so the company can save pennies.

We've long had established law around unequal bargaining power (it's where roughly all of our labor laws come from...) and it's been a concept for literal centuries.

So I'm inclined to say this on the matter:

Just because they currently "can" remove a user for this, doesn't mean that - ethically - we should allow that practice to continue.

It just means our laws are woefully out of date for this application, and technological progress is outpacing political progress.

Edit: Basically - I'm claiming complete and utter rubbish on this

> First off, this is a flawed argument because my taxes don't pay for the servers running Discord or other similar services.

Our taxes DAMN WELL DO pay for discord to be able to run their servers. We pay with our taxes, our time, sometimes our lives - so that the environment in which discord runs their servers can exist at all. Just because discord happen to be paying the costs for the servers themselves is almost immaterial. Society is an organism. We are all part of a whole.

[qzx_pierri]

There are so many flaws in this response. I don't even know where to begin. But I respect your opinion. I'll leave it at that.

[vel0city]

In your example of the highways though, Facebook and Discord aren't the highways. They're the private clubs you take the highways to. The highways are the telecom companies, the ones where you're incredibly limited on which ones will service your area, where you realistically don't have multiple choices.

Discord isn't the only group chat platform on the internet. WhatsApp isn't the only text message service out there. As long as you can get on the internet, the highway, you can drive to another club. You can use Matrix. You can use Mastodon. You can use tons of other services out there.

[ncmncm]

The people you need to communicate with are not on Matrix or Mastodon.

"Private" clubs and golf courses banning only Jewish and black people are not allowed anymore, for reasons.

[nonameiguess]

Private clubs still exist, though, and they can still ban you even if all your friends are there. I'm also reasonably sure Discord can't ban you for being black or Jewish. They can, of course, ban you without giving a reason at all, but so can physical private clubs.

[ncmncm]

Discord can automate it; and their membership is worldwide, encompassing a radically wider network effect.

Ejection from Willowdale Odd Fellows does not keep you out of Springfield Odd Fellows.

[vel0city]

But you're essentially arguing that Willowdale Odd Fellows shouldn't be able to choose their membership, that everyone has a right to join the meetings.

[ehutch79]

A private company didn't 'build' the highways. (yes i'm sure a private company laid the asphalt, but at the direction of the government)

[TakeBlaster16]

https://web.stanford.edu/~mrosenfe/Rosenfeld_et_al_Disinterm...

Most couples now meet online. Good luck convincing them all the internet is not real life. And those stats are from 2017. Given a few years of lockdown the trend has surely accelerated.

Discord is how a lot of young people talk these days. If you're banned from Discord, it's not very comforting to hear "you don't need Discord son, in my day we didn't have Discord and we wrote to our pen pals. I'm sure you'll make some new friends."

[qzx_pierri]

> it's not very comforting to hear "you don't need Discord son, in my day we didn't have Discord and we wrote to our pen pals. I'm sure you'll make some new friends."

>it's not very comforting

That's the problem. Your comfort doesn't matter. If you want comfort, go buy a hammock. If you want to boss companies around with overreaching regulations, then get into politics.

The fact is, companies can do what they want (within existing regulations). "They should" or "They shouldn't" arguments are outside of both of our control.

[vel0city]

Lets use your example of a dating app. Lets say someone makes a Catholic-focused dating app. People make their bio state "Mary was a prostitute! Jesus is a lie!" What should the platform do?

[TakeBlaster16]

The platform should ban the user, with an explanation written by a human being explaining what rule they broke. And no, "our shiny new machine learning algorithm flagged your account" doesn't cut it. Arbitration should be an option. I could write a lot more, but hopefully you get the idea.

[vel0city]

Ban the user? But how would that person ever find a match with a dating site banning them? It's completely socially ostracizing for that user to not be able to use the app. How would they ever be able to function in society without access to the Catholic dating app?

[TakeBlaster16]

Don't forget that we're comparing:

1. someone who broke site rules

2. someone who did not break site rules

I advocate group #1 suffering the consequences for their actions. I do not advocate group #2 losing access due to factors outside their control. Not sure why you're getting the two confused.

[vel0city]

The person in this original post broke Discord's posted rules. So this whole debate entirely falls under the category of #1. That's why I'm confused here.

So I'm glad to see we agree. When you break the rules, it's OK for the site to ban you. So in this instance, Discord did nothing wrong, they banned someone who broke the site's rules.

[conradfr]

Losing my gmail account would have way more effect on my "real life" than if I had suddenly no letter box.

Why can't it be regulated? Phone is and it's provided by private companies. The law even allows me to port my number between them.

[qzx_pierri]

> Losing my gmail account would have way more effect on my "real life" than if I had suddenly no letter box

Yes, due to your own lack of contingency planning.

I respect your intentions, but government regulation is not always the answer. At some point, we have to admit that we are far too reliant on these services (that many luddites refuse to use, and live a normal life).

My second sentence is true as of now, but maybe things could change in the future. However, I only base my arguments on present circumstances.

I do agree that some of these companies need to at least offer some sort of human support team or call center available to serve users that were falsely banned or randomly booted. However, forcing the hand of these companies is not only unfair, but pretty entitled.

Gmail is a free service.

[achenatx]

you absolutely shouldnt rely on a single email provider. Instead own a domain and use that domain to forward to whatever email provider is most convenient.

[conradfr]

I can, and actually have <my-name>.com, but you can't expect the general population to do the same.

[kemiller]

For the record, I'm 46. I clearly remember what it was like before, during, and after the internet revolution and I've seen how things have changed. I actually partially agree with you that part of the solution may be to simply stop relying on these new media quite so much and rediscover more analog ways of relating to one another, and I actually see signs of a movement to do just that (among young people!) but that doesn't change that they are very useful and here to stay, and for better or worse a vital part of how we relate to people near and far.

Consider the postal service — imagine if you could permanently lose the right to send things in the mail at the whim of an unaccountable customer service rep in the USPS. No trial, no recourse. Unthinkable. I suspect you CAN be banned if, e.g. you commit mail fraud or send something hazardous, but only after you're convicted with due process. That's the part that's missing. You can argue that the USPS is a government-owned entity and thus different rules apply... but again, that's the point. The carrier of last resort, at least, should be run in a way that is accountable, whether technically government or not.

[mistermann]

> The internet is not real life.

Ok, if the internet is not "real" life, then what is it?

Is it "in" reality? Do we interact with it? Does it interact with us, or within the ineffable, largely unseen soup of causality from which how things are/become in this world emerges? Does anything matter?

[sriram_malhar]

No, it isn't always about social media, or free speech, or 18-24 year olds.

An NGO I consult for runs its entire business on Google. All its documents are on Google docs, all digital assets on google drive, using google play store for their mobile app, using firebase on the backend ....

They work on children's education, and have lots of photos of children attending their workshops. My biggest fear is that Google AI will identify some photo as objectionable and shut the entire operation down in a hurry. Without recourse.

[qzx_pierri]

> An NGO I consult for runs its entire business on Google. All its documents are on Google docs, all digital assets on google drive, using google play store for their mobile app, using firebase on the backend

Sounds like an egregious lack of contingency planning. This situation is the fault of the engineer who stood up their infra. Your argument wouldn't exist if there were a Plan B and Plan C in place.

Do you believe it's fair that your client's lack of preparation is somehow grounds for overreaching government regulation?

[rini17]

Good luck trying to convince an resource-strapped nonprofit to implement contingency plan for this.

No government regulation means existence of these will for all practical purposes depend on Google's whim. I don't see any other viable option, you do? can you elaborate?

[qzx_pierri]

> I don't see any other viable option, you do? can you elaborate?

lol you're a consultant?

[rini17]

Why lol? I do have some nonprofit experience not as consultant but as voluntary admin and I did consider google dependence a problem. But there was no other easy option, that's why I'm asking.

[ruined]

the internet is, unfortunately, real life

[qzx_pierri]

I acknowledge your feeling that the internet is real life, and I respect your opinion, but I have to disagree. I'll repost part of a comment I made 5 months ago because I think it's very relevant:

"Don't forget that everything you see online is a facade. 15+ years ago, I fell in love with the internet because it's somewhere I could go to be something that I'm not. I could be LOUD, or I could say things I would normally never say away from the keyboard, and I think everyone bonded together online with this fact in mind. The internet was an escape.

Soon, people began to view the internet as a reality due to the rapid homogenization into 3-4 major websites which are controlled mostly by advertisers. But what I've noticed is that most of the opinions you read online aren't very honest.

Commenters on reddit will grift in the comment section for upvotes. Some commenters on HN will purposely avoid certain topics because their account is tied to their reputation in certain very partisan circles in California. Both of these examples are often the loudest and MOST SEEN (or unseen...) replies due to the low effort alignment with the popular opinion at the time.

Although the internet seems more real everyday, I truly believe it's never been further from reality. No one is truly able to say what they want due to the (seemingly) dire consequences of saying "F*ck it" and stating your true opinion (which isn't all the time, but the option no longer exists). And this even applies in the short term. If you aren't banned, you're downvoted (HN, reddit, Lobste.rs, every website with a comment section...) or filtered by an algorithm tuned to keep corporate sponsors and advertisers happy (Facebook, Twitter, YouTube)."

[falcolas]

Many government functions (unemployment, DMV appointment scheduling, etc) can not be accessed from any place but the internet. It's one reason that Public Libraries are so important these days.

That our government requires you to use the internet puts lie to the idea that you can live a complete life without the internet.

[vel0city]

Being banned on Discord does not prevent you from using the DMV's website.

[falcolas]

Discord, no (at least for now - some government contractor adding self-help via Discord or Slack is not hard to imagine). Your gmail account? Yes, it would prevent you from using the DMV's website.

[vel0city]

No, I don't use an @gmail.com address for important communications. If Google banned me I would still be able to communicate with the government on the internet.

It turns out there's more email providers than just gmail.

[ncmncm]

Yet.

[qzx_pierri]

Yes, but those government services are funded using taxes, so yes, you ARE entitled to those services. You are not entitled to the use of any private service.

[falcolas]

Effectively, the entire internet is privatized. To put another way, it is impossible to access those government websites without using a private service.

And since the government does not provide an email system, you still need to use a private service to access those public resources.

[qzx_pierri]

> you still need to use a private service to access those public resources

Unless you contact them through USPS, which is a public service.

[tsukikage]

> most of the opinions you read online aren't very honest

IME it is exactly the opposite. People are more honest and open with their opinions on the internet; in real life, they are more likely to stay quiet or lie where they feel their interlocutors may not be accepting if their true thoughts were to be expressed.