5 ms·

> they really should quote a specific violation of specific TOS when they close your account. I suspect this ends up being impractical, due to helping the bad

> they really should quote a specific violation of specific TOS when they close your account. I suspect this ends up being impractical, due to helping the bad actors too much. I think moderation being so inconsistent/unclear is mostly because moderation is difficult.

poszlem 4y ago
And yet it's the minimum we expect from our legal system, I don't understand why we are okay with corporations being exempt from that.
- bunbun69 4y ago
  Using GitHub is a privilege, not a right You should do your business elsewhere if you don't agree with GitHub TOS
  - poszlem 4y ago
    I am not talking about the current situation. I am saying that it should not be legal for companies to refuse to server a customer without giving a clear reason why they do so. Unless you think it would be fine, for example, for corporations to refuse serving minorities citing their TOS?
  - maximus-decimus 4y ago
    If it's not a right, does that mean GitHub could ban every black user if they wanted to? I doubt it. Could they ban every Russian (or people of specific nationality in general)? Can they ban everybody sharing an idea? I'm really curious where the line is drawn.
    - bunbun69 4y ago
      Yes they can. What’s your point
    - numpad0 4y ago
      They can in the current state of the Wild West that is the WWW, and also in the payment processing networks, and it's wrong.
- pca006132 4y ago
  Our legal system is really expensive, not sure if it is a good alternative to this. And perhaps you can hire a lawyer to sue them when they ban you, they will have to explain the exact TOS violation in the court I think?
vintermann 4y ago
> I suspect this ends up being impractical, due to helping the bad actors too much. Somehow states get by, despite letting criminals know what they did wrong. Sure, people probing you to see what they can get away with is annoying, but in the long run, it's far more "impractical" to have opaque justice.
maximus-decimus 4y ago
Imagine if we used the same logic for law enforcement. "We can't tell you what's illegal because that would help bad actors. Also, not knowing the law is not a defence for violating it."
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

poszlem 4y ago

And yet it's the minimum we expect from our legal system, I don't understand why we are okay with corporations being exempt from that.

bunbun69 4y ago
Using GitHub is a privilege, not a right You should do your business elsewhere if you don't agree with GitHub TOS
- poszlem 4y ago
  I am not talking about the current situation. I am saying that it should not be legal for companies to refuse to server a customer without giving a clear reason why they do so. Unless you think it would be fine, for example, for corporations to refuse serving minorities citing their TOS?
- maximus-decimus 4y ago
  If it's not a right, does that mean GitHub could ban every black user if they wanted to? I doubt it. Could they ban every Russian (or people of specific nationality in general)? Can they ban everybody sharing an idea? I'm really curious where the line is drawn.
  - bunbun69 4y ago
    Yes they can. What’s your point
  - numpad0 4y ago
    They can in the current state of the Wild West that is the WWW, and also in the payment processing networks, and it's wrong.
pca006132 4y ago
Our legal system is really expensive, not sure if it is a good alternative to this. And perhaps you can hire a lawyer to sue them when they ban you, they will have to explain the exact TOS violation in the court I think?

vintermann 4y ago

> I suspect this ends up being impractical, due to helping the bad actors too much. Somehow states get by, despite letting criminals know what they did wrong. Sure, people probing you to see what they can get away with is annoying, but in the long run, it's far more "impractical" to have opaque justice.

maximus-decimus 4y ago

Imagine if we used the same logic for law enforcement. "We can't tell you what's illegal because that would help bad actors. Also, not knowing the law is not a defence for violating it."

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]