zlacker

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+(OP)
Judging by his EUR currency the guy is from EU, so he HAS law available for him to protect himself.

Recital (71) of the GDPR

"The data subject should have the right not to be subject to a decision, which may include a measure, evaluating personal aspects relating to him or her which is based solely on automated processing and which produces legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her, such as automatic refusal of an online credit application or e-recruiting practices without any human intervention."

https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-topic/data-protection/r...

>>Punchy+(OP)
Actually, there are law to stop banks telling their client why they are flagged for money laundering

>>Markof+u1
It is not '...automatic refusal of an online credit application or e-recruiting practices'.

>>j16sdi+G2
Those are just examples. The real question is whether the ban produces "legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her". Maybe someone with legal expertise could weight in here?

>>Punchy+(OP)
IMO every ban should have a dedicated web page containing ban reasons and proofs, which affected person can challenge, use in court or share publicly.

>>Punchy+(OP)
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+L8
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.

>>urband+L8
Yes, it is not too much to require that that if you offer something to someone that the receiving party is able to have a conversation with you. You can still reject them in the end, but being able to ask the people involved questions is a reasonable expectation — but many of these big tech companies have made it effectively impossible.

If you want to live life as a hermit, good on ya, but then maybe accept that life and don't offer other people stuff?

>>urband+L8
For me the liberty question you raised there isn't so much about whether the business has become large, as whether it's become "infrastructure". Being denied service by a cake shop may very well be distressing and hurtful, but being suddenly denied service by your bank, your mobile phone provider, or even (especially?) by gmail can turn your entire life upside down.

>>urband+L8
While I still object to them having a say in that matter (next thing is; we don’t serve darkies) - that is different. There are hundreds of shops to get that cake from.

But Anthropic and “Open”AI especially are firing on all bullshit cylinders to convince the world that they are responsible, trustable, but also that they alone can do frontier-level AI, and they don’t like sharing anything.

You don’t get to both insert yourself as an indispensable base-layer tool for knowledge-work AND to arbitrarily deny access based on your beliefs (or that of the mentally crippled administration of your host country).

You can try, but this is having your cake and eating it too territory, it will backfire.

>>urband+L8
That case was in the US.

>>pseudo+je
The Catholic Church has been doing this for hundreds of years. I'm sure it'll eventually backfire on them, but I doubt any of us will still be alive for that.

>>qcnguy+ze
Both countries had gay cakes.

>>Markof+u1
More recent, the Digital Services Act includes "Options to appeal to content moderation decisions" [0]; I believe this also covers being banned from a platform. Not sure if Claude falls under these rules, I think it only applies to 'gatekeeper' platforms but I'm reasonably confident the number of organizations that fall under this will increase.

[0] https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/digital-se...

>>fragme+4f
Atheism has never been more popular. It has backfired.

>>9rx+kc
Most countries have laws about a minimum level of customer support for things you pay for.

>>Markof+u1
The company will refuse under 12(4)

"The right to obtain a copy referred to in paragraph 3 shall not adversely affect the rights and freedoms of others."

and then you will have to sue them.

>>fragme+4f
The Catholic Church has been doing what exactly for hundreds of years? Can’t wait to hear it.

>>robins+fe
Yes I’d tend to agree with you there. But being able to define that tipping point where something becomes “infrastructure” even if it’s still privately owned and isn’t a monopoly, is a difficult problem to solve.

>>krzat+s7
Try moderating something sometime

>>urband+L8
> at what point does a business become so large that it’s not allowed to decide who gets to use it?

It's not about size, it's about justification to fight the ban. You should be able to check if the business has violated your legal rights, or if they even broke their own rules, because failure happens.

> 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.

I guess it was this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_v_Ashers_Baking_Company_Lt...

There was a similar case in USA too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora...

>>urband+L8
You missed the 2nd part "and we won't even tell you actual reason for it".

The cake shop said why. FB, Google, Anthropic don't say why, so you don't even know what exactly you need to sue for. That is kafkaesque

>>ssl-3+7b
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.

>>j16sdi+w2
Yeah, the Bank Secrecy Act is probably one of the most anti-democratic laws out there.

Worse, the controls that governments have over financial systems are being viewed as a model for what they should have over technology.