[A4ET8a8uTh0]

I don't think it is that complicated. Either private groups can exist or they can't. Either I can choose my audience or I can't. Either I can say "No women." or I can't. In other words, internet becomes a set of private clubs or not.

Horrible people exist whether we are aware of them or not. If delineation is clear, enforceable it could work.

It would destroy current social media.

And that.. is not something I am ambivalent about.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

This is not really correct.

I can create a private group that excludes people who wear purple, because purple wearing is not a protected class under law. I can do the same for people who program in APL, or who have ever ridden a tricycle, or listen to "Freebird".

However, I cannot create a private group that excludes on the basis of any protected status (e.g. sex, religion, ethnicity, age).

[kibwen]

Worth noting that this is how you address the "tyranny of the majority" in a democracy, by enshrining a limited number of rights that even a simple majority cannot revoke, with the goal of protecting the fundamental rights of the minority.

[A4ET8a8uTh0]

I beg to differ. There are private groups in existence right now, who are excluding protected classes and everyone is perfectly fine with it ( sex ). I don't even have to troll 4chan. They are right there in the open[1]

Unless that kind of double standard is ok.

[1]https://verilymag.com/2020/08/women-only-find-your-tribe-gir...

[PaulDavisThe1st]

I will admit to not understanding the scope of the "discrimination" against protected classes that is barred by law. It clearly has some significant extent, but I've never really been able to find a clear description of where the edges are.