[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.

[vel0city]

I mean, they might ban someone, and as long as their reasons don't pertain to protected classes does it still matter? Do you have a right to go to any Odd Fellow meeting, anywhere? Or do they have a right to choose who they consider to be members? I don't really know much about Odd Fellows, if they did have national/global membership rosters, would that then change this scenario to you?

Seriously, do you feel the private organization should be able to choose who can be a member or not? Generally speaking, not trying to bring any particular protected class.

Say the Odd Fellows club did ban me, globally. Maybe I had friends I knew through the club. Does the fact I have friends who meet in the club let met petition the government to do violence against the group to enforce my ability to go to the meetings despite the leadership of the group not wanting me there?

Should a church be required to accept everyone in their services, even if that person is running around the room screaming "God is a lie! God is a lie!" Should a restaurant be required to seat every potential customer, even if that customer orders an ice water and starts screaming profanities and making other customers uncomfortable?

Why can't Discord decide to exclude those which abuse their platform?

[ncmncm]

You seem to miss that Discord is excluding people who are not abusing their platform.

[vel0city]

This original post is someone using their phone number for two accounts. Having multiple accounts is against their rules, so it's abuse of their platform.

Another user talking about being banned from Discord was supposedly involved with a server trading child pornography and then continuing to get banned by creating additional accounts which is once again against Discord's terms.

I'm not seeing a lot of examples of people truly getting banned for no reason. It's not my place to tell Discord what is and isn't abuse of their platform. They're allowed to make their own membership rules.

But please, answer my question. Is discord allowed to exclude those who they feel abuse their platform? That's kind of the key point here.