17
22 Comments

The ethics of banning users from platforms.

The internet and especially big tech have become crucial parts of life and permanently banning someone doesn't seem very ethical.

Imagine being permanently banned from Facebook and not being able to join local Facebook groups or follow your friends/family. Or even worse, being banned from Upwork or LinkedIn and not being able to get a job. Especially without any recourse to appeal or transparent reason you were banned.

What are your thoughts on platforms banning users? Do you think that big tech bans should be regulated in any way?

  1. 3

    I guess this is the age old: you either die a hero or live to become the villain situation. Sure you can ban a person who might legitimately be a menace to society but who defines what a menace is? Then again, @Primer makes a pretty good argument. It's complicated...

  2. 3

    Funny to read this post right after https://www.indiehackers.com/post/suspended-from-gumroad-for-fraud-27325d537e

    I’m certainly going to be watching how Elon Musk directs Twitter with regards to free speech and bans. One solution I’ve heard discussed is applying the “Common Carrier” standard.

    Quite frankly, the occasional stories from YouTube, Gumroad, and others about being banned with no recourse are simply terrifying.

    1. 1

      This comment was deleted a year ago.

      1. 1

        Here’s an article on it. Personally, I am more interested in seeing that rule applied to bedrock services like AWS or Stripe, than social media. Though, I cannot engage in further discussion on this political topic.

  3. 2

    Free speech should be allowed.

    Hate and racism - no chance.

    1. 1

      Everyone deserves a second chance.

  4. 2

    If the government regulates Big Tech, government is regulating free speech.

    If Big Tech bans users, Big Tech is regulating free speech.

    Neither is the answer.

    The answer is to turn Big Tech into Small Tech.

    Get off your damn phone.

  5. 2

    I'm going to post my "less progressive" opinion here:
    Banning a U.S. president who had a lot of votes was an extreme step made against free speech, and it stinked from political interests. It doesn't matter who was the president, at all.

    It was predictable that this was not going to be the end, and it wasn't. People talking about the Covid lab theory were banned as well, etc.

    If people think they can support bans like this and turn a blind eye, while keeping the freedom of speech, they are dead wrong. If Twitter's tyranny would've continued, those same people over time would've got warnings and bans themselves due an unpopular opinion they expressed here and there.

    The other bad side effect is how counter productive those moves are, as Trump as a result set up his own social network, and now networks like Twitter which of course strive to monitor and process the discussions are going lose a lot of users.

    The rules should be very strict and very clear against topics such racism, hate speech, etc, and beyond a certain point of unclarity shouldn't intervene.

    1. 3

      This comment was deleted a year ago.

      1. 2

        Oh, and who would be the judge of what is true or not?
        I'm sure that he was the only president who ever bluntly lied in the history, sure. Welcome to politics... he has the freedom to say the elections were stolen as well as you have the freedom to say he is a lowlife human being.

        You think what you've said is very simple, but it is indeed very complex. Humans are inherently biased.
        If you think that it's ok to shut someone up because he believes the elections were rigged and expresses it, then it won't stop you from banning people who:

        • think or not think that abortions are ok
        • think or not think that Covid was made in a lab
        • think or not think that being a female and a male is a biological thing
          / name your controversial topic here /
        1. 2

          This comment was deleted a year ago.

  6. 1

    I agree that banning people only because of their ethnicity, gender, or differing viewpoints is unethical.

  7. 1

    I've spent a lot of time thinking about this, specifically thinking about it in the context of Trump. The argument that Twitter makes is that Trump does societal damage through its platform, but at the end of the day, the motivation for removing him came from a fear of consequences from damaging tweets being shared on Twitter's platform.
    If we were to think of Twitter as the government, for example, then Twitter would simply be an extension of the right to free speech. Banning people from it wouldn't be unethical, it would be illegal, no matter the consequences of what they said.
    Do I like this? No. But the alternative sets a much, much worse precedent.

  8. 1

    This is no different than a public store refusing the right to provide service to a customer. Banning is completely okay and only the ones who deserve it receive it.

  9. 1

    What you say is fair but consider this

    • 1 person of influence spreads misinformation on social media, their network shares that misinformation to their individual networks and so on forming a spiderweb of misinformation. The damage has been done. Banning that person does not reverse the damage. But if we do not have any repercussions, then more people can start their own webs of misinformation. And like the US capitol building/Indian elections/Philippine elections have shown, misinformation leads to unfortunate and dangerous outcomes.

    • While we advocate free speech, free speech does not come without conditions, I am not a proponent of hatred/racism, these are learned and stick with many people, but think about it. No one has total freedom of speech, NO ONE. There are varying degrees and some have more free speech than others but even those people have limits of free speech. Being banned by big tech is proof of this, you say racist shit, you get banned. Imagine if we had total freedom of speech, it would be basically a verbal purge like community, where people would say what they want without fear of retaliation/punishment. These limits (TO SOME EXTENT) keep society civil. i.e. telling people not to make fun of others/not to be racist

    Given that total freedom of speech cannot exist and that repercussions for misinformation should exist, a user should be made aware when they join these platforms that their posts can affect others and that anything that incites dangerous behaviour will result in banishment.

    Back to your question, being banned by Big Tech is not so bad, they created the network, they can make those rules. Be civil and you get access to their valuable networks, be a piece of shit, and that right/privilege will be revoked. It's like if someone comes to your house and insults you/is obtrusive to your friends & family, you kick them out. Your house, your rules, they lose the opportunity to socialise.

  10. 1

    I support the idea that brands should not ban and if they do so, it must be considered unethical. But the fact is that banning people who spread spam cannot be helpful. Spammers are all around and brands somehow mark themselves as safe by banning those bullshits. This is my point of view and you can disagree
    Regards
    Huntingwhiz https://huntingwhiz.com/

  11. 1

    I've been banned for life from Facebook and Instagram for helping people use Facebook less. This area desperately needs regulation and independent oversight. These platforms are so central to our lives that being able to use them -- particularly if you've done so for years and they are a primary communication tool for you -- is almost a human right. Businesses have a right to make choices for themselves only to the point where they are so large that they wield an unhealthy amount of power over society.

  12. 1

    Absolutes like this are difficult haha.

    The thing is, I believe businesses have a right to make choices for themselves and imbue their values into their product. And I believe the market will correct itself if businesses don't shape up.

    However, this is contingent upon users' willingness to leave platforms they feel have violated their trust.

    No one forces you to use Twitter, Instagram, Fiverr, Upwork, or any other platform. It's on users to spread the word and get things to change. No platform can survive with a disgruntled and absent user base.

    Closing point: let the asshole companies be assholes and leave until they change. Take as many people as you can with you.

    1. 2

      Upwork, Fiverr, Instagram, etc are monopolies though. If you want to freelance online and are banned from Upwork/Fiverr then you really have no other options aside from crappy knockoff sites with bad clients.

      Hard to base it on trust when 99% of people use the platform just fine, but the 1% who are banned are a tiny disgruntled minority who are blamed for their own issues.

      An example is someone I know is banned from Stripe for some reason and has to use some alternative sketchy credit card handler that drastically reduces his conversion rate. Me along with 99+% of people have no issues with Stripe, so as a whole nobody really cares (until it happens to them).

  13. 1

    Needs regulation. Rules need to be applied consistently to everywhere without bias.

  14. 1

    I run a social platform called Snapzu. We have rules for all users. We only ban people not following the rules and only after a few warnings. It's not too complicated on our end.

  15. 1

    I think getting banned for specific reason in a specific platform is okay until it's a very severe offence.

    When people get banned from a platform for littlest mistakes is where things get complicated.

    So

    Extremely unforgivable offence = ban ✔️
    I haven't even cursed once = ban ❌

    1. 1

      Platforms should ban people because they aren't a good fit. What I mean is that Twitter should ban you not for being "bad" because it's not their job to decide good from evil. It's their job to create a community that helps people love each other. The reddit model is the best. Allow different communities. Yes Reddit bans people, but that's inappropriate. Platforms should not ban anyone for anything. Instead they should limit such users to areas where they will be appreciated, such as with other racists.

      This sounds like a terrible idea, but you have to realize, racist people are racist because they never learned that people have value. They do not understand how valuable a black person is, for example.

      So here's my solution. Ban the user to a community of racist people. Let them share with all the racist people all their racist thoughts. Forgive them. Eventually they will realize how stupid they are. But it's not our job to make them. It's our job to love them.

      When people do evil things, we should forgive. Sometimes we have to take actions to protect ourselves. But if people are just speaking, we should let them speak. When you suppress something, it grows stronger. It produces hate. It fuels revenge. Our country can find healing quicker if we let people say stupid things, just move them into an area where others want to hear it.

      That's my opinion. I know it's unpopular. I just think that we should be kind to bad people, because that's the only way to teach them how to live. If our truth is so much better, why do we have to hurt people in order to get them to change? We should have better methods besides muzzling them (which a ban is, in effect). Property is smart. Have people talk on their own property to the people they want to. It should be a microcosm where people can leave or enter communities when they want to. If you hate racist communities, just hit "filter" and you won't see anymore racist content.

      We should be kind to bad people and let them speak their mind. Then after a year or two, they'll get the toxins out and can move on from their racism. This is the best way to handle it because it heals people and helps them leave their racism, instead of just putting a muzzle on them. People have the right to speak. It's stupid to limit it. When we limit people's ability to speak we cause extreme pain in people who are already troubled. Think about it. People become racist because they grew up in a home where people were not valued properly. That's why people are racist. Because they suffered through years and years of poor treatment. They don't want to be at the bottom any more. So they push someone else there. The easy way to fix the problem is to treat people like their opinion matters so they'll stop hurting people. When you treat them that way they will come to learn that black people really are important. How? They will vent and get their anger out, then they'll be able to see that black people are normal people and forgive them. As black people forgive them, they prove that black people are, in fact, great people. But if you don't allow people to speak their mind, you don't give black people a chance to forgive. That forgiveness brings healing to the white person and makes change.

      This is a revolutionary concept. When you begin to understand that forgiveness heals people you stop getting angry when people do bad things. Instead, you see it as an opportunity to heal them through love. EVERYBODY KNOW SOCIAL MEDIA IS BAD FOR YOU. THE COMMUNITIES ARE MODERATED BY PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT HEALTHY. IT IS AUTHORITARIAN, NOT AUTHORITATIVE. They take on the role of a parent who tosses a bad kid in the closet because he cried. It is much easier to kill than heal, but healing is critical to getting where we want to be. When you ban a racist, he slinks back to his hate. But when you let him voice his opinion, people who are wiser than him can come along side and guide him into truth. They can help him learn to let go of the pain that he feels every day, that nobody loves him. They can help him learn that God loves him. And when I mean God, I mean whatever force created the world, whether that's Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, or matter. When people are kind, they help people think differently, and help evaporate racist thoughts.

      The danger with allowing people to speak is that they might convert people to their ways. I get that. It's a huge issue. We are all terrified of Hitler that we will allow another to come if we allow racist speech. However, Hitler could have been avoided if the European countries FORGAVE Germany for it's crimes. Nobody wanted Hitler, except the people who were angry about what the world had done to them. If the other countries had forgiven, Hitler would have been avoided.

      Donald Trump arose for four years because a minority was angry that no one heard them. The traditional white people were being treated like they weren't important anymore, and laws to hurt them were created (hate crime laws specifically criminalize white people. Or at least that's the intent. All murder is hate). When you silence a powerful minority, it will rear it's head and fight back. That's why Trump won. The whole fiasco of Donald Trump hurting so many people could have been avoided if people would have honored white people and forgiven. But instead the minorities got angry and attacked. Shockingly, Trump signed a criminal reform bill, indicating that he forgave minorities to some extent. However, he lost his second bid for office, because he did not forgive. Specifically Black Lives Matter was a test sent by God to see what he would do. He chose to be angry and promote law over healing. He got booted because Biden chose to promote healing over hate.

      We have to learn as a society that if we don't forgive, we won't be forgiven. People hate mods that purge evil. They aren't even right. Racism is a normal human event. Not being racist is a sign of extreme mental health. Most people aren't healthy. It takes a tremendous amount of effort to get people to look beyond family and kin. It's worth the effort though.

      Thank you for reading this long response. I hope it has blessed you. I hope we can learn to forgive. By waiting patiently we accomplish more than all the killing in the world because we give healing a chance. I love you guys (and gals) and I hope everybody becomes an Indie Hacker Hero!

  16. 2

    This comment was deleted a year ago.

    1. 1

      I agree. But someone should be able to say "I got banned because [insert reason]" and not "I have no clue why I'm banned". Close to every big tech company has 0 transparency as to why you're banned.

      I read a story almost daily of someone getting banned from Fiver/Upwork/Gumroad and losing an income stream and not even knowing why.

      1. 2

        This comment was deleted a year ago.

        1. 2

          Yeah but those are scenarios of trolls going around clearly being assholes.

          My post is more so referring to people banned from Gumroad, Upwork, PayPal, Stripe, etc who were banned for violating some obscure rule and have no clue what it was and has a financial effect on them. Imagine trying to make a living as an indie hacker without a freelance market or any way to process payments.

          These are some examples:

          https://www.indiehackers.com/post/suspended-from-gumroad-for-fraud-27325d537e
          https://community.upwork.com/t5/Freelancers/My-Account-has-been-suspended-with-no-reason/m-p/823062
          https://community.fiverr.com/forums/topic/213399-sellers-beware-fiverr-banned-my-level-2-account-for-no-reason-18000-they-also-gave-me-a-warning-for-no-reason-apologized-and-removed-it-now-they-banned-my-account-i-have-proof-and-they-refuse-speaking-with-a-lawyer/

          1. 1

            This comment was deleted a year ago.

Trending on Indie Hackers
Reaching $100k MRR Organically in 12 months 29 comments What you can learn from Marc Lou 20 comments Why would you NOT buy my product? 12 comments Worst Hire - my lessons 11 comments How to Secure #1 on Product Hunt: DO’s and DON'Ts / Experience from PitchBob – AI Pitch Deck Generator & Founders Co-Pilot 10 comments Competing with a substitute? 📌 Here are 4 ad examples you can use [from TOP to BOTTOM of funnel] 8 comments