anti-social behaviour can be anything. A few years back it was homosexual sex. Anti-social behaviour simply means "things that most people disprove" - which includes all kinds of victimless crimes. Even worse, this specific case is not based on "things that most people disprove" but more like "things that this company does not want you to say".

Do you think that a 3rd party should be able to judge and ban you at will for something that you say in a group chat when everyone else in said group chat is fine with it? I presume that the author of the article is not fine with it, which is why they suggest to avoid discord. What would you do in their place?

> Do you think that a 3rd party should be able to judge and ban you at will for something that you say in a group chat when everyone else in said group chat is fine with it?

Yes. If I were running Discord and learned that there was some Klan group advocating hate against black people, I'd shut it down – even if everyone in that chat was fine with the discussion.

It wouldn't be beneficial to me to have my platform be a host for that content, and it's not beneficial to society for me to facilitate hateful people easily connecting with each other.

The problem is that what's beneficial to society is not always clear-cut.

Of course, but I'm feeling bold enough to state that the hypothetical Klan-member Discord server would not be beneficial to society.

And back then, hypothetical ancient discord would have said the same about homosexuality.

It's very simple: unless you're using an E2E encrypted channel with a trusted person, don't say anything in a social platform that you wouldn't say in person to your friends, family and coworkers.

The internet is not private by default; it's public by default.

If we have the tools to do better, why shouldn't we do things a better way? One-way surveillance is never a good thing, so why settle for it?

Entirely false. I have been blocked from participating in these groups not by humans, but by machines, before I had the opportunity to engage in any behavior.

I haven’t even had the ability to participate whilst maintaining my location privacy.

In retrospect, I should not have included that portion of the essay. It was used as an example of why demanding users agree to an unreasonable legal agreement that demands they give up basic rights is not a good hoop to make them jump through, not a defense of that sort of behavior. I thought that part was clear but I guess it wasn’t.