Unless a user is paying money or otherwise in a legally binding contract that would be breached by a ban, I see no reason why a company shouldn't be able to ban them even on a whim. Having an account on a company's platform is a privilege, not a right.

▲

sbarre 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This might feel like a reasonable take in isolation, but if you take it in context of today's society, and how everything actually works, it's not reasonable or realistic. Nor is it empathetic in any way.

These social media companies have created an environment where they are the dominant, near-exclusive, medium for communication in our digital age. If you are running a consumer-facing business in 2026 you *must* be on these platforms.

Given that these companies have actively pursued these positions they now hold, do you not feel they have a responsibility to be fair, reliable and trustworthy? That they have some obligation to their users, paying or not. They are choosing to offer the service for free, and they do make money on you regardless.

Losing your business accounts on Meta or Tiktok or Youtube can have catastrophic real-world consequences. And mistakes happen all the time, so you can't realistically assume every ban or cancellation is justified or correct.

	▲	skeledrew an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		In any case it's the users who built these companies by using their platform. It's users who need to rally and migrate away in solidarity with those being banned or whatever it may be. I'd say expecting companies to not do whatever they consider is in their best interest is what's not reasonable nor realistic. A company exists to make money; if banning certain users advances that mandate then it's free and expected to. Again, unless there's some legal basis to counteract that decision.
	▲	Barbing an hour ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		It’s hard to wrap up the past couple decades of tech building out their utility-like selves, showing how it breaks a heuristic of “it’s their business-just don’t use it”, so I’m impressed how well you’ve done it.
	▲	jmye an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> do you not feel they have a responsibility to be fair, reliable and trustworthy? What an odd question. Of course not. You've built your business on their platform and you've (for lots of non-specific, general "you"'s) decided to cede your business to their whims. Plenty of businesses exist just fine with no social media presence and plenty of people are not too brain-rotted to find them. But more to the point, I don't feel Meta has any responsibility to anyone. I feel the government in my country has a responsibility to regulate them and to levy devastating and potentially existential fines if they break those regulations. It's absurd to think these companies have any obligation to you (you in general, not you specifically) just because you can't figure out how to function without them.

▲

EarlKing 2 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The user and Service are bound by their terms of service which is perfected into a contract by the valuable exchange of their eyeballs against advertising for the provision of the service in question. Valuable consideration does not have to mean "money". So, no, they don't get to ban people on a whim.

▲

drtz an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Having an account on a company's platform is a privilege, not a right.

Businesses can lose a lot traffic by not being present on Facebook and Instagram, so being unjustifiably banned is doing measurable financial harm in many cases.

Even as an individual it can be a huge pain to not have Facebook. The local individual sales market (e.g. classified ads) is dominated by Facebook Marketplace now, for example, and not having access to that market makes it difficult to sell things.

Meta has a responsibility to the community because of their position as the de facto platform for many activities. They've even intentionally positioned themselves to dominate. Having laws requiring them to act responsibly is totally justifiable.

	▲	skeledrew an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Regulatory laws can always be made of course, but it's unrealistic to expect that Meta, or any other company, will do any more than is required to ensure they're turning a profit.

▲

TheOtherHobbes 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Then there's no reason why a government shouldn't regulate these companies, and use sanctions of all kinds - including fines, and the potential for an outright ban - to enforce those regulations.

	▲	skeledrew an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Sure, a government is free to make/modify laws and regulations that apply to any entity within its jurisdiction.

▲

dgellow 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

From what I understand nothing in the EU regulation prevents a company from arbitrarily banning people. You can read it in full here: https://www.eu-digital-services-act.com/Digital_Services_Act.... It basically just establishes how the dispute should be handled between the parties

▲

suburban_strike 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

"Whims" skew discriminatory.

Enough of the real world interfaces with online services that arbitrary bans cause actual damages, more harm than banning an annoying player from your obscure MUD.

	▲	Barbing an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Disabled passengers who take a long time to load into rideshare vehicles are an example here where we want oversight on platform bans. Getting banned from both Uber & Lyft in the US with no recourse, even no human review, can disenfranchise.

▲

john_strinlai 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

i would support this if local/state/provincial/federal governments were not allowed to post exclusively on social media. other companies should also not be allowed to use social media as their only method of customer support.

▲

exe34 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Then there should be a law that requires the platform to interoperate with independent clients. You can't have both. The social network is a common good. If you want to benefit from it, then you need to treat people fairly.

	▲	skeledrew an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> The social network is a common good. Not if it's managed by a company, in which case it's a means to turn a profit. A common good needs to be managed by the community to which it's providing said good, or by an entity that's legally bound to ensure it remains "good" for the community.