And yet it's the minimum we expect from our legal system, I don't understand why we are okay with corporations being exempt from that.

Using GitHub is a privilege, not a right

You should do your business elsewhere if you don't agree with GitHub TOS

I am not talking about the current situation. I am saying that it should not be legal for companies to refuse to server a customer without giving a clear reason why they do so. Unless you think it would be fine, for example, for corporations to refuse serving minorities citing their TOS?

If it's not a right, does that mean GitHub could ban every black user if they wanted to? I doubt it. Could they ban every Russian (or people of specific nationality in general)? Can they ban everybody sharing an idea?

I'm really curious where the line is drawn.

Yes they can. What’s your point

They can in the current state of the Wild West that is the WWW, and also in the payment processing networks, and it's wrong.

Our legal system is really expensive, not sure if it is a good alternative to this. And perhaps you can hire a lawyer to sue them when they ban you, they will have to explain the exact TOS violation in the court I think?

> I suspect this ends up being impractical, due to helping the bad actors too much.

Somehow states get by, despite letting criminals know what they did wrong.

Sure, people probing you to see what they can get away with is annoying, but in the long run, it's far more "impractical" to have opaque justice.

Imagine if we used the same logic for law enforcement. "We can't tell you what's illegal because that would help bad actors. Also, not knowing the law is not a defence for violating it."