8 ms·

Should the terms of service of a tech platform apply to all public activity a person conducts? Would it be fair for TikTok to ban me because I posted nudes on

Should the terms of service of a tech platform apply to all public activity a person conducts? Would it be fair for TikTok to ban me because I posted nudes on instagram? Or execution videos on Telegram? Or angry comments about my local Starbucks on Facebook?

perihelions 2y ago
Private websites are free to ban whoever they want, for whatever reason they want. ToS aren't contractual guarantees of service.
- nolok 2y ago
  > for any reason they want Actually, unless there is a clear disconnect between how discrimination laws work here and in the US, no they can't. They can't ban you for being black, or homosexual, or christian, or ... They CAN ban you for no reason at all, just because they feel like it. It might seem to be the same, but it isn't.
  - perihelions 2y ago
    None of those laws are applicable to internet forums; they are not "public accommodations" in the sense of the Civil Rights Act [0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_accommodations_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_accommodations_in_the_U...
    - nolok 2y ago
      Well I guessed I learned something new, that is very surprising to me in France this wouldn't fly at all
- soulofmischief 2y ago
  Eventually we'll have to reconcile a few key issues: - People deserve to consensually communicate between themselves however they see fit, as long as just laws are not being broken. - The world wide web now represents a dominant form of communication. - The "web" as the average, non-tech person perceives it, predominantly consists of a mixture of large tech conglomerates with major conflicting interests between what's best for their users and what's best for their shareholders. - These tech conglomerates have adopted a strange combination of conservative politics, liberal politics and an extremely restrictive and prudish system of rules for what kind of communication may take place. Navigating this system is entirely arbitrary and once you're out, you're out, with no recourse, unless you engage in further TOS-breaking by creating alternate accounts. - Switching to an open platform is not enough; if none of your peers are on the platform, or it doesn't support open protocols, then you still can't communicate with them. Without some form of (people-led!!!) government intervention I see no way to reconcile all of these issues. Perhaps it involves tax breaks, or only applies to platforms meeting certain thresholds, such as conglomerates or subsidiaries of them. The details can be worked out, but the fact remains that something needs to be done.
  - ToucanLoucan 2y ago
    I mean all of these issues basically boil down to that these services and platforms that now constitute whatever can vaguely pass as if you squint your eyes enough a third place, though if you analogize it to a park, it's a park where like 6 marketing people follow you around and make note every time you stop to look at a flower, but that's a different conversation. People are entitled to express themselves in any way that's not illegal per the first amendment, but because all these companies are entirely, 100% beholden to advertisers to continue to exist, that expression is necessarily limited to suit the tastes of those advertisers. Perfect example is Twitter. They've adopted much looser restrictions on content and as a result, the company is worth about a fifth what it was when it was purchased by Musk, and the ads in that time have shifted significantly from prominent, respected brands and being... ubiquitous, but not to an extent that it felt so, to being virtually every third or fourth post, and completely unknown companies hawking all manner of unimpressive goods, crypto schemes, dude wipes, and of course weight loss drugs and dick pills. Basically the exact kinds of ads you'd expect to find on crank conspiracy websites circa 2010 (and probably today) and a shitload MORE of them, because they're trying desperately to keep the company financially solvent. The government intervention would probably be something like these various networks (or a new one) that is owned and operated by the public, like a utility.
    - soulofmischief 2y ago
      It's an interesting problem because we do see innovation from private companies (tech, scaling, UX, etc) that I don't think we'd see in a publicly/government-owned platform. But the fact that it comes at the cost of hiring the world's top minds to figure out how to generate more ad clicks at any cost (mind control, teen suicide, etc.) is just unacceptable. Whatever way out we might choose, I hope that it doesn't impact indie hackers and people who want to try new things. We have to make sure that the root of the problem, advertising, is properly captured in the letter of the law, and that any legislation doesn't get disemboweled by corporate interests on the way out the door.
      - ToucanLoucan 2y ago
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  Large private entities are basically like government agencies, or at least utilities.
ToucanLoucan 2y ago
> Should the terms of service of a tech platform apply to all public activity a person conducts? I don't see how this could possibly function in law. If I get a job with Facebook that says I'm not allowed to discuss my salary, could I then be contractually forbidden from filing taxes, because I would necessarily have to inform the IRS of how much I made? Or apply for credit, because I would have to tell Experian?
PittleyDunkin 2y ago
Yes, absolutely. Nobody is entitled to service.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

perihelions 2y ago

Private websites are free to ban whoever they want, for whatever reason they want. ToS aren't contractual guarantees of service.

nolok 2y ago
> for any reason they want Actually, unless there is a clear disconnect between how discrimination laws work here and in the US, no they can't. They can't ban you for being black, or homosexual, or christian, or ... They CAN ban you for no reason at all, just because they feel like it. It might seem to be the same, but it isn't.
- perihelions 2y ago
  None of those laws are applicable to internet forums; they are not "public accommodations" in the sense of the Civil Rights Act [0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_accommodations_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_accommodations_in_the_U...
  - nolok 2y ago
    Well I guessed I learned something new, that is very surprising to me in France this wouldn't fly at all
soulofmischief 2y ago
Eventually we'll have to reconcile a few key issues: - People deserve to consensually communicate between themselves however they see fit, as long as just laws are not being broken. - The world wide web now represents a dominant form of communication. - The "web" as the average, non-tech person perceives it, predominantly consists of a mixture of large tech conglomerates with major conflicting interests between what's best for their users and what's best for their shareholders. - These tech conglomerates have adopted a strange combination of conservative politics, liberal politics and an extremely restrictive and prudish system of rules for what kind of communication may take place. Navigating this system is entirely arbitrary and once you're out, you're out, with no recourse, unless you engage in further TOS-breaking by creating alternate accounts. - Switching to an open platform is not enough; if none of your peers are on the platform, or it doesn't support open protocols, then you still can't communicate with them. Without some form of (people-led!!!) government intervention I see no way to reconcile all of these issues. Perhaps it involves tax breaks, or only applies to platforms meeting certain thresholds, such as conglomerates or subsidiaries of them. The details can be worked out, but the fact remains that something needs to be done.
- ToucanLoucan 2y ago
  I mean all of these issues basically boil down to that these services and platforms that now constitute whatever can vaguely pass as if you squint your eyes enough a third place, though if you analogize it to a park, it's a park where like 6 marketing people follow you around and make note every time you stop to look at a flower, but that's a different conversation. People are entitled to express themselves in any way that's not illegal per the first amendment, but because all these companies are entirely, 100% beholden to advertisers to continue to exist, that expression is necessarily limited to suit the tastes of those advertisers. Perfect example is Twitter. They've adopted much looser restrictions on content and as a result, the company is worth about a fifth what it was when it was purchased by Musk, and the ads in that time have shifted significantly from prominent, respected brands and being... ubiquitous, but not to an extent that it felt so, to being virtually every third or fourth post, and completely unknown companies hawking all manner of unimpressive goods, crypto schemes, dude wipes, and of course weight loss drugs and dick pills. Basically the exact kinds of ads you'd expect to find on crank conspiracy websites circa 2010 (and probably today) and a shitload MORE of them, because they're trying desperately to keep the company financially solvent. The government intervention would probably be something like these various networks (or a new one) that is owned and operated by the public, like a utility.
  - soulofmischief 2y ago
    It's an interesting problem because we do see innovation from private companies (tech, scaling, UX, etc) that I don't think we'd see in a publicly/government-owned platform. But the fact that it comes at the cost of hiring the world's top minds to figure out how to generate more ad clicks at any cost (mind control, teen suicide, etc.) is just unacceptable. Whatever way out we might choose, I hope that it doesn't impact indie hackers and people who want to try new things. We have to make sure that the root of the problem, advertising, is properly captured in the letter of the law, and that any legislation doesn't get disemboweled by corporate interests on the way out the door.
    - ToucanLoucan 2y ago
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
Large private entities are basically like government agencies, or at least utilities.

ToucanLoucan 2y ago

> Should the terms of service of a tech platform apply to all public activity a person conducts? I don't see how this could possibly function in law. If I get a job with Facebook that says I'm not allowed to discuss my salary, could I then be contractually forbidden from filing taxes, because I would necessarily have to inform the IRS of how much I made? Or apply for credit, because I would have to tell Experian?

PittleyDunkin 2y ago

Yes, absolutely. Nobody is entitled to service.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]