In law there is a concept of due process, a burden of proof, an independent adjudicator, and an ability for both sides to present presence, and (generally) a pr

In law there is a concept of due process, a burden of proof, an independent adjudicator, and an ability for both sides to present presence, and (generally) a presumption against the accuser, who is required to prove their case. All of this is absent. A government cannot shut your company down without proving (to the extent necessary to satisfy the appropriate legal burden of proof) you have done something irreparably wrong. Google and Apple have removed the due process, removed the burden of proof, and decided to appoint themselves as sole arbiters of any allegation. Allegations are by default upheld without evidence or even accuracy. Maybe we need a middle ground, bringing in due process and independent oversight, with an independent adjudicator? Arbitration already allows for this, helps keep costs low, and ensures a burden of proof is met by the accuser. It strikes me there's many many more shades of grey here around the extent to which being blocked from a service should prevent being able to read or access existing content, or download purchased content, as opposed to uploading new content (after being banned). When the accuser is at Apple or Google's scale, the EU talks of them as gatekeepers, and that seems an apt term - these are economic gatekeepers, and ought to be accountable to others. As it stands, their unaccountability is helping the antitrust cases against their stores and platforms. I don't think they can have it both ways.