[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.

[ncmncm]

The impact of Willowdale discovering you are gay and ejecting you is limited specifically because they (I assume) don't maintain a blacklist in coordination with Springfield.

[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)