[ianburrell]

The legal system has a much higher bar to put people in prison for crimes. Organizations have a much lower bar for deciding not to associate with people. Their goal is to protect their members.

Also, there are lots of things that are problematic but not crimes. "Sexual misconduct" could mean sexual harassment, which isn't a crime but shouldn't be allowed in organization.

[nonethewiser]

But Lichess has neither the means nor interest in uncovering the truth. So why active as a judge?

[ajross]

> But Lichess has neither the means nor interest in uncovering the truth.

I don't see how that follows at all? Obviously they have interest. As for means, what more do you want? We have a public accusation from a victim in her own words under her own name. Maybe you choose not to believe her, but that's absolutely admissible as evidence. Why doesn't it count here?

The subtext to all of this pontification is clearly not about whether or not private organizations can police their own members. Clearly they can. You don't need to be convicted in court to be fired for stealing soda from your work fridge. This is no different.

What's bugging people in this thread is the same culture war fight we always get into: you tend to disbelieve sexual assault accusations from women, and Lichess tends to believe the accuser. And so sides are drawn up and strawman arguments are prepared. But it's just culture war.

[dkiok21k]

As a male who was wrongfully accused of sexual assault by a covert narcissist, and basically expelled from communities I've been part of for all my life, I find it hard to see this as merely a "culture war". I used to instantly side with the "victim", because I couldn't imagine that someone would invent claims in such a sick and cruel way.

I am not saying that this happens often, there's just no way to know. And maybe it's still better to "play it safe". It's hard, but I've personally grown to accept that I have to live with "being the perpetrator" in the eyes of most. I lost most of my what I considered to be my friends, and my professional career. But the few remaining ones who believe me I now know I can fully trust.

[rtkwe]

How so? They can gather evidence and hear testimonies as well as anyone else can. They don't have the power of the state to compel testimony but tempered by the lower consequences of an incorrect decision.

[arrakeen]

who, then, should decide what organizations and people Lichess associates and works with?

[tptacek]

Because they've decided that doing so furthers their aims.

[ethanbond]

Notice that courts don’t really “uncover the truth” either, not even on paper. They just establish likelihood of guilt — just like any other org could.

[compiler-guy]

Because it is a question of probability. Not of certainty. And protecting their members is more important than the competing interest of the accused.