Seriously, do you feel the private organization should be able to choose who can be a member or not? Generally speaking, not trying to bring any particular protected class.
Say the Odd Fellows club did ban me, globally. Maybe I had friends I knew through the club. Does the fact I have friends who meet in the club let met petition the government to do violence against the group to enforce my ability to go to the meetings despite the leadership of the group not wanting me there?
Should a church be required to accept everyone in their services, even if that person is running around the room screaming "God is a lie! God is a lie!" Should a restaurant be required to seat every potential customer, even if that customer orders an ice water and starts screaming profanities and making other customers uncomfortable?
Why can't Discord decide to exclude those which abuse their platform?
Another user talking about being banned from Discord was supposedly involved with a server trading child pornography and then continuing to get banned by creating additional accounts which is once again against Discord's terms.
I'm not seeing a lot of examples of people truly getting banned for no reason. It's not my place to tell Discord what is and isn't abuse of their platform. They're allowed to make their own membership rules.
But please, answer my question. Is discord allowed to exclude those who they feel abuse their platform? That's kind of the key point here.
Does that mean they cannot "exclude those who they feel abuse their platform"? That is a tendentious, disingenuous question.
Does that mean they should be obliged to have a legitimate justification for such action, and offer an avenue to challenge it? Yes.
Does it mean the list of justifications should be subject to public review? Yes.
Does it mean that permanent bans for trivial, correctable reasons should not meet the standards of such public review? Yes.
