Interoperability is great, but I think we need more than that. We need a user's bill of rights that applies to all online accounts. We need legitimate appeals processes where companies can be forced to justify their decisions to block access to accounts.
This goes beyond social media. Consumers are being asked to "buy" content that is associated with a single account that can be banned at will. "Free" email accounts are a critical part of many people's online identity.
We need regulation that protects users from capricious bans and forces companies to be able to justify their decisions to ban and face consequences when they get it wrong. I'd be fine if such regulations also included consequences for users who abuse the appeals process.
There are already reasons that are illegal (i.e. member of a protected group that you can't descriminate against.) for ”Christian Mingles” to use to bad someone.
I am not proposing any further restrictions on what reasons an be provided to ban people.
I do think that plaforms that encourage people to become invested in them (email providers, social networks, online media "sales” patforms, etc) should have a legal obligation to explain the reasons for the ban and provide the banned user the opportunity to correct any incorrect information that led them being banned.
I don't know if a standardized arbitration process, and expansion of the civil court system, or something entirely different is the best way to approach this.
You tone comes off as very combative, like you are looking for a fight and making assumptions about my political stances that are both incorrect and detract from your ability to have a conversation.
I assume that you want more government control. Laws by definition always give the government more power over individuals. The last thing I want is government interfering with private enterprise when all people have to do is go to another website.
> Laws by definition always give the government more power over individuals.
Factually false. Some laws reduce that power. For example, a law that made it illegal for police departments to keep the proceeds of asset forfeiture would reduce the power of government over individuals, not increase it.
In this case, it does indeed create more government control, though it could be designed to limit the amount of additional control that is granted.
> all people have to do is go to another website
How does that help me when the email account I lost access to is already tied to most of my online life?
How does that help me when the music, books, movies or software I paid for is tied to the account that was banned?
How does that help me when the "website" is part of a market duopoly and losing access to it means my company will go out of business and I'll have to fire all my employees?
"go to another website" simply is not an adequate response to any of the above scenarios. Please proffer an alternative other than "it sucks to be you". The only other option I see is to make these companies common carriers and mandate interoperability / account portability. That seems like it gives the government far more power than simply mandating a fair dispute resolution system.
This goes beyond social media. Consumers are being asked to "buy" content that is associated with a single account that can be banned at will. "Free" email accounts are a critical part of many people's online identity.
We need regulation that protects users from capricious bans and forces companies to be able to justify their decisions to ban and face consequences when they get it wrong. I'd be fine if such regulations also included consequences for users who abuse the appeals process.