zlacker

>>hugoda+(OP)
We really need some law to stop "you have been banned and we won't even tell you actual reason for it", it's become a plague, made worse with automated systems giving out a ban

>>Punchy+4C1
Do we though? It’s an important question about liberty - at what point does a business become so large that it’s not allowed to decide who gets to use it?

There was a famous case here in the UK of a cake shop that banned a customer for wanting a cake made for a gay wedding because it was contra the owners’ religious beliefs. That was taken all the way up to the Supreme Court IIRC.

>>urband+PK1
I don't think the parent comment was about banning bans based on business size or any other measure, for that's obviously a non-starter. I think it was more about getting rid of unexplained bans.

To that end: I think the parent comment was suggesting that when a person is banned from using a thing, then that person deserves to know the reason for the ban -- at the very least, for their own health and sanity.

It may still be an absolute and unappealable ban, but unexplained bans don't allow a person learn, adjust, and/or form a cromulent and rational path forward.

>>ssl-3+bN1
It is more than that, as there is cold comfort in having an explanation that is arbitrary and capricious, irrational, contrary to the stated rules, or based on falsehoods, if there is no effective means of appeal - especially if there are few or no viable alternatives to the entity imposing the ban.