# "We do not believe you are a good match for our community"



## Frank Gulotta (Mar 20, 2021)

I was under the impression that FA had TOS because you had to break rules in order to get banned (aside from some questionable decisions by old mods from the past but meh, those are history now) but I've heard someone I used to follow got banned after over a decade of membership with the following explanation : "_we do not believe you are a good match for our community_". So in essence, they're saying that they can ban you just because they don't like you.

InB4 someone comes up with the usual excuse, "something something it's a private website and can ban whoever they want for whatever reason" (section 230 might add some nuance to this but whatever); I'm not entirely convinced the same people would react well to getting arbitrarily terminated for displeasing the "site director". I don't care if they're entitled to do that, if you don't think it's bullshit, you're wrong =^.^=

That brings me to my main point : I've seen some trusted members of the community raise concerns about cult recruiting activity on FA, so that wording especially, should raise some red flags. I was gonna ask if FA is a publisher or a platform, but... turns out it's neither, it's a "community"...? the problem here is that it's unclear, and some unaccountable people choose who's welcome and who's not by virtue of owning the place; that does sound worryingly cultish to me, especially knowing that furries typically are vulnerable to being influenced in this way by perceived authority figures.

In short what I'm asking is, what exactly is the legal status of FA, what does being a "community" imply exactly? is it more like 1) a publisher, 2) a platform, or 3) a cult?


----------



## Deleted member 82554 (Mar 20, 2021)

Cult.


----------



## ConorHyena (Mar 20, 2021)

Frank Gulotta said:


> [...]
> the problem here is that it's unclear, and some unaccountable people choose who's welcome and who's not by virtue of owning the place; that does sound worryingly cultish to me,
> [...]


I'm gonna use simple analogies here, in hopes that I get my point across because you seem somewhat confused by the legal statuses of websites like these.

In the essence it is like a flat that you own, or a piece of property. You can open your door to people on the streets outside, you can invite them to wander around freely on your property, you can set up a set of house rules that can be whatever you like, but at the same time you can at any point decide to throw everyone you don't like back out on the streets, and if they don't do what you want them to do, you can call the police to enforce this.

FAF works much the same way - you're here because the owners allow you to be here and they can, at any point, revoke this and kick you out, for no reason but their own fancy.

This has nothing to do with cults - this is how the legal framework around owned property has worked since a very long time.

You may want to read this to inform yourself further about what a cult consists of.


----------



## Frank Gulotta (Mar 20, 2021)

ConorHyena said:


> I'm gonna use simple analogies here etc


I'm not really interested in analogies there, I would like to know the legal status. If the status doesn't match, analogies are meaningless.


----------



## Minerva_Minx (Mar 20, 2021)

Cult of Our Lady of Thirst and Perpetual Exemption?  Wondered where they went.

Community, though legally, third party provider.  Though with EARN IT Act and the last 6 or 7 months with section 230 of the Communications Decency Act issues I am not surprised.

But, yes, I am in agreement with Conor that it mzy suck, but their house, their rules.


----------



## ConorHyena (Mar 20, 2021)

Frank Gulotta said:


> I'm not really interested in analogies there, I would like to know the legal status. If the status doesn't match, analogies are meaningless.


Then maybe you should consult a lawyer - they are more likely to know the intrinciacies of things like this - I assume FA or FAF are hosted in the states so somene who does US law will propably be able to help you out, regardless of that I'm fairly sure in the end it's going to go down the route of FA providing a service to you under the contractual limitations you agreed on beforehand, and in this contract they reserve the right to terminate the service to you for whatever reason of their own choosing, and I'm fairly sure this is legally above board - with dispositive norms in contract law things like this are entirely possible.


----------



## Frank Gulotta (Mar 20, 2021)

ConorHyena said:


> Then maybe you should consult a lawyer


If you don't have the answer that's fine, you can just not consider that you're the right person to answer me, and abstain. But I'm sure some people know.


----------



## Telnac (Mar 20, 2021)

I think a better analogy is like a club. Imagine there's a club for Marvel comic fans and someone joins who keeps going on about how great Superman is. Even if he's not violating a rule it's fair to say that he'd be asked to leave because he's not a good fit for being a member of that club.


----------



## Frank Gulotta (Mar 20, 2021)

Telnac said:


> I think a better analogy is like a club. Imagine there's a club for Marvel comic fans and someone joins who keeps going on about how great Superman is. Even if he's not violating a rule it's fair to say that he'd be asked to leave because he's not a good fit for being a member of that club.


Asked to leave maybe? that's a far cry from getting kicked out

And again I would like to know if FA falls under a legal description similar to a club


----------



## Telnac (Mar 20, 2021)

Frank Gulotta said:


> Asked to leave maybe? that's a far cry from getting kicked out
> 
> And again I would like to know if FA falls under a legal description similar to a club


Good point. I don't know about the legal stuff.


----------



## Odysseus (Mar 20, 2021)

As far as I know, it legally works just like connor said. They own the website, and are _allowing _users to be here. Thus they reserve the right to, at any time, ask people to leave. If said people don't leave, they will be kicked out, since they have no specific right to be here.


----------



## Lucyfur (Mar 20, 2021)

Is that the entire story or might there be more details here that they decided to omit?
That is to say that at the moment this is a hear say and has no receipts to really back up claims being levied.


----------



## Frank Gulotta (Mar 20, 2021)

Odysseus said:


> As far as I know, it legally works just like connor said. They own the website, and are _allowing _users to be here. Thus they reserve the right to, at any time, ask people to leave. If said people don't leave, they will be kicked out, since they have no specific right to be here.


Again I would like to hear about the legal status, surely there's one

Not to mention the website wouldn't be much without its users would it


----------



## ConorHyena (Mar 20, 2021)

Frank Gulotta said:


> Again I would like to hear about the legal status, surely there's one


The website is a service provider and the users are the clients. The basis of their relationship is the terms and conditions both parties agreed upon before the service was rendered.

that's pretty much the legal status. FA and FAF provide a certain service (in case of FAF it's a forum to talk about furry shit) much like a hairdressers or, say, a business consultant does.


----------



## Frank Gulotta (Mar 20, 2021)

ConorHyena said:


> The basis of their relationship is the terms and conditions both parties agreed upon before the service was rendered


Then shouldn't they add "we reserve a right to kick you out if we don't like you"? because that's currently lacking

Also we've already established you're of no help regarding the legal issues, why do you keep responding?


----------



## Lucyfur (Mar 20, 2021)

Frank Gulotta said:


> Then shouldn't they add "we reserve a right to kick you out if we don't like you"? because that's currently lacking
> 
> Also we've already established you're of no help regarding the legal issues, why do you keep responding?


BUT is that what actually happened?

Right now you are levying claims but providing zero evidence to back them up.

Perhaps your acquaintance did do something 'wrong' and is just saying that they were banned for "nothing".


----------



## ConorHyena (Mar 20, 2021)

Frank Gulotta said:


> Then shouldn't they add "we reserve a right to kick you out if we don't like you"? because that's currently lacking
> 
> Also we've already established you're of no help regarding the legal issues, why do you keep responding?


"We may remove or modify any Content submitted at any time, with or without cause, with or without notice. Requests for Content to be removed or modified will be undertaken only at our discretion.* We may terminate your access to all or any part of the Service at any time, with or without cause, with or without notice."*

source: https://forums.furaffinity.net/help/terms/


----------



## JuniperW (Mar 20, 2021)

I clicked on this thinking it was a regular ban appeal, but I had the (dis)pleasure of witnessing someone rant about weird conspiracy theories instead.
Wow.


----------



## Stray Cat Terry (Mar 20, 2021)

From the impressions I got from every single place around the world(including internet) during my short life, this particular issue(?) has nothing for you to handle with. I mean, you--and also pretty much everyone else including myself here, perhaps except the authorities--are basically powerless.

And of course, as far as I know it right, you--and again, also us including myself--don't have rights to be informed about what 'idea' the authorities have in mind. So.... meh. 
Not that I'm against you, though. I understand your frustration but again--that'll only disturb yourself without changing anything much, if not at all.

My 'strategy' here is to stay low and avoid catching attentions that may potentially get myself into critical issues. Welp, maybe I just did now, but whatever.


----------



## Frank Gulotta (Mar 20, 2021)

Stray Cat Terry said:


> From the impressions I got from every single place around the world(including internet) during my short life, this particular issue(?) has nothing for you to handle with. I mean, you--and also pretty much everyone else including myself here, perhaps except the authorities--are basically powerless.
> 
> And of course, as far as I know it right, you--and again, also us including myself--don't have rights to be informed about what 'idea' the authorities have in mind. So.... meh.
> Not that I'm against you, though. I understand your frustration but again--that'll only disturb yourself without changing anything much, if not at all.
> ...


So you're saying that authorities stink? nothing new under the sun then


----------



## Stray Cat Terry (Mar 20, 2021)

Frank Gulotta said:


> So you're saying that authorities stink? nothing new under the sun then



I never said that, while it might.. have sounded so.

For me, it's more like... a natural thing? It's natural like gravity for me... And we don't usually blame gravity seriously. Hopefully you got what I mean UwU


----------



## Frank Gulotta (Mar 20, 2021)

Stray Cat Terry said:


> I never said that, while it might.. have sounded so.
> 
> For me, it's more like... a natural thing? It's natural like gravity for me... And we don't usually blame gravity seriously. Hopefully you got what I mean UwU


Well, gravity is sort of a pure thing, which is not the case of power-tripping creeps


----------



## Lucyfur (Mar 20, 2021)

Frank Gulotta said:


> Well, gravity is sort of a pure thing, which is not the case of power-tripping creeps


Still curious where evidence is to your claims here as you keep stacking more heat say and accusations without receipts.


----------



## ben909 (Mar 20, 2021)

Their site rules say that they can stop the service “with or without cause, with or without notice.”

so if you are asking that, they can officially do what ever they want


----------



## Frank Gulotta (Mar 20, 2021)

ben909 said:


> Their site rules say that they can stop the service “with or without cause, with or without notice.”
> 
> so if you are asking that, they can officially do what ever they want


See that's why I'm asking for a legal status of some sort instead of 12 users wasting my time, a store could write "we reserve the right to deny service to anyone for any reason", wouldn't mean that would fly or be acceptable


----------



## ben909 (Mar 20, 2021)

Frank Gulotta said:


> See that's why I'm asking for a legal status of some sort instead of 12 users wasting my time, a store could write "we reserve the right to deny service to anyone for any reason", wouldn't mean that would fly or be acceptable


I thought that is thought legal status ment


----------



## Lutro (Mar 20, 2021)

Web sites can ban or prevent people from using their services, from their site, for any reason really.

This is not a new concept, nor is it controversial. You'd be going against literal decades of precedent if you really wanted to "fight" this sort of thing.

You are not going to find some legal remedy wherein FA or any site will be forced to let you continue using their site, should they choose not to let you. "But it's unfair" is not a legal argument that holds any weight. Don't like the reason given? Not much that can be done about that.


----------



## Frank Gulotta (Mar 20, 2021)

Lutro said:


> Web sites can ban or prevent people from using their services, from their site, for any reason really.
> 
> This is not a new concept, nor is it controversial. You'd be going against literal decades of precedent if you really wanted to "fight" this sort of thing.
> 
> You are not going to find some legal remedy wherein FA or any site will be forced to let you continue using their site, should they choose not to let you. "But it's unfair" is not a legal argument that holds any weight. Don't like the reason given? Not much that can be done about that.


I'm baffled that anyone would defend such bullshit, we don't accept it from any other service provider


----------



## TyraWadman (Mar 20, 2021)

Frank Gulotta said:


> I'm baffled that anyone would defend such bullshit, we don't accept it from any other service provider



I'm curious as to what site you've used that doesn't have any terms or conditions. I read every tos when I make an account for a site. Every game or website I actively use/have played has one. Even single player games!

It's essentially legroom for when people are disruptive. Every situation is different and unique in its own, so rather than coming up with a detailed list outlining every possible scenario in existence, it's much easier to say '_that'._

I wouldn't want people twisting an environment I worked hard to create. So it makes sense.


----------



## Frank Gulotta (Mar 20, 2021)

TyraWadman said:


> I'm curious as to what site you've used that doesn't have any terms or conditions. I read every tos when I make an account for a site. Every game or website I actively use/have played has one. Even single player games!
> 
> It's essentially legroom for when people are disruptive. Every situation is different and unique in its own, so rather than coming up with a detailed list outlining every possible scenario in existence, it's much easier to say '_that'._
> 
> I wouldn't want people twisting an environment I worked hard to create. So it makes sense.


You might have misread what I said, I meant that magical ability to arbitrarily refuse service for any reason


----------



## Lutro (Mar 20, 2021)

Frank Gulotta said:


> I'm baffled that anyone would defend such bullshit, we don't accept it from any other service provider


I'm not defending anything. I'm merely stating what the reality is. You don't have to accept it, or call it fair.

There is nothing magical about a site letting you know what it has the full capability of doing, even if they don't state it. You're not going to find a loophole or contingency where a site has to let a user stay on it, if they don't want you there. Period.


----------



## TyraWadman (Mar 20, 2021)

Frank Gulotta said:


> You might have misread what I said, I meant that magical ability to arbitrarily refuse service for any reason



That's a part of the legroom/generalization though. And you still haven't listed any sites that don't also feature this in their TOS.

Typically, professional people will give legitimate reason, like slamming down the hammer on a user that deliberately skirts the rules in order to upset a community. Other times it could be spambots or death threats. If someone wants to ban a user with absolutely no other reason than 'you had a typo in a forum post' they can. Sure it's ridiculous, and people can react however they want, but legally there is nothing that can be done about it. It's been a thing before FA. 

Rules like these exist because people will drink bleach and then sue the company for not having a warning telling them not to consume the product.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Mar 20, 2021)

Considering FA will take just about anybody, I too am curious about what actually happened in this situation.


----------



## Lucyfur (Mar 20, 2021)

Frank Gulotta said:


> You might have misread what I said, I meant that magical ability to arbitrarily refuse service for any reason


In the words of others I have encountered "If they won't bake your cake just go to another bakery"
^(This is meant to be tongue in cheek btw as when it comes to the reality of that statement in its totality it becomes much more complex and dangerous)^

For the n'th time though this situation seems to be lacking in information and providing the whole picture of the situation.


----------



## ConorHyena (Mar 21, 2021)

Frank Gulotta said:


> See that's why I'm asking for a legal status of some sort instead of 12 users wasting my time, a store could write "we reserve the right to deny service to anyone for any reason", wouldn't mean that would fly or be acceptable



... in simple terms this is exactly what our predominantly capitalist social order is about. It's called the free market because you're allowed to do business with whom you wish. Same goes with contract law. For different types of contracts there are, depending on the legal regulatons in the country the contract is being made, various imperative and dispositive norms that apply or, upon mutual agreement, do not apply (which in case of a website is you clicking on 'I accept the terms of service') If both parties agree that one side is allowed to terminate the contract for no reason - this is legally binding.


----------



## AniwayasSong (Mar 21, 2021)

Frank Gulotta said:


> I was under the impression that FA had TOS because you had to break rules in order to get banned (aside from some questionable decisions by old mods from the past but meh, those are history now) but I've heard someone I used to follow got banned after over a decade of membership with the following explanation : "_we do not believe you are a good match for our community_". So in essence, they're saying that they can ban you just because they don't like you.
> 
> InB4 someone comes up with the usual excuse, "something something it's a private website and can ban whoever they want for whatever reason" (section 230 might add some nuance to this but whatever); I'm not entirely convinced the same people would react well to getting arbitrarily terminated for displeasing the "site director". I don't care if they're entitled to do that, if you don't think it's bullshit, you're wrong =^.^=
> 
> ...


It's actually sadly simple-
This is a private site that can and does what it wants for its own interests.
The flavor it gives to those who visit or participate in it?
Well...


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 21, 2021)

I have been living with Dragoneer in the woods for 2 years after I gave up all my Worldly possessions to devote my life to Zlorp. 

I can confirm it is not a cult.


----------



## Kellan Meig'h (Apr 10, 2021)

Frank Gulotta said:


> You might have misread what I said, I meant that magical ability to arbitrarily refuse service for any reason


You're not getting it. Their house, their rules. You don't pay for services here and your agreement to use FA and FAF say you play by the rules and they reserve the right to refuse service for any reason or no reason at all. Just like going into a grocery store; they reserve the right to refuse service for any or no reason at all. This is a fact. There is no 'legal' precedence that says you can alter the contract or they can't ask you to leave. Again, their house, their rules.

And, asking someone to leave is a whole lot more polite than just turning off thier account access.


----------



## Mambi (Apr 10, 2021)

Frank Gulotta said:


> I'm not really interested in analogies there, I would like to know the legal status. If the status doesn't match, analogies are meaningless.



"legal" status??? Really?  I don't know anything about the situation nor do I want to, but I can see something right away:

Let em ask you this, assuming that the "legal" case was 100% in their favour theoretically...are you saying that the person would have the right to SUE to be FORCED back into a community? Think for a second...if that actually happened, how welcome would they be expected to feel? They'd have bullied their way back, indignitantly at that! Would they then sue becasue nobody wants to interact with them? Forced mandatory reading of their posts? <LOL>

This is a forum that can accept or reject anyone they want! If someone has to argue the technicalities to be allowed back, there's only going to be problems down the road. After all, if someone feels they have the right to "force" people to let them hang around, that's probably why they were banned in the first place! <_snicker_>


----------



## Frank Gulotta (Apr 10, 2021)

Kellan Meig'h said:


> You're not getting it. Their house, their rules


It's not a house tho, so I'll repeat once again something I've already repeated a couple of times, I'm asking for the legal status (which I doubt would be the same as the legal status of a house), and it's fine if you're clueless about it, just don't waste my time with your uneducated opinion please


----------



## Mambi (Apr 10, 2021)

Frank Gulotta said:


> It's not a house tho, so I'll repeat once again something I've already repeated a couple of times, I'm asking for the legal status (which I doubt would be the same as the legal status of a house), and it's fine if you're clueless about it, just don't waste my time with your uneducated opinion please



<sigh> Ok then...as pointless as this is, *I'll *humour ya, just to make this go quicker:

The forum is considered their property as the registered owner. To host publicly they have to comply with the limits of their primary host. (basic legal stuff like enforcement of age restrictions and sex/drug/race/hate/swearing, as per federal rules for how they regestered themselves. Same for literally anything...common sense stuff).

As long as they comply with those rules, they then can do whatever the hell they want, as it's their personal website and we're all just guests playing around for as long as they can stand us. We have no rights here...we have what they allow, and if they want to toss out everyone who's a dog becasue they are cat people then guess what?New rule...no dogs allowed. A court ruling would say "their house, their rules".

*That* is the legal standing...does that help? All clear now? <_giggle_>


----------



## cowboi (Apr 10, 2021)

Frank, it's all spelled out clearly in the terms and conditions you read thoroughly and agreed to during account creation, and didn't just breeze past.
Asking the same question over and over isn't gonna give you a different answer when a handful of people keep explaining it.


----------



## Troj (Apr 10, 2021)

The word "community" tends to imply, at minimum, a space where people interact with and exist alongside with each other. The word "community"can also imply a sense of shared values, shared goals, and a feeling of being "in this together."

Online platforms use the word "community," I'd say, to evoke an image of people actively engaging and connecting with one another.

Yeeting someone simply for being an outlier or nonconformist is potentially problematic least of all because it can easily set a bad precedent.

Yeeting someone for violating the Terms of Service and/or being an active threat or problem for the community is common practice, at least, and sometimes needs to be done for the sake of the community/platform/space.


----------



## TheCynicalViet (Apr 10, 2021)

INB4, Frank Gulotta gets banned for "not being a good match for our community". That's a joke mods!

For real though, yes, what they're doing is legal. As of right now, I believe sites like FA are still classed as service providers and not platforms/publishers (don't quote me on this). Also I'm too lazy to copy and paste it but @ConorHyena did cite a part in TOS that basically does say they can arbitrarily ban you. At least they're upfront about it. If laws change then maybe you can try to pursue some sort of legal action but, currently, it's not gonna succeed (or, at least, have an exceedingly low chance of succeeding).


----------



## Lutro (Apr 10, 2021)

TheCynicalViet said:


> For real though, yes, what they're doing is legal. As of right now, I believe sites like FA are still classed as service providers and not platforms/publishers (don't quote me on this). Also I'm too lazy to copy and paste it but @ConorHyena did cite a part in TOS that basically does say they can arbitrarily ban you. At least they're upfront about it. If laws change then maybe you can try to pursue some sort of legal action but, currently, it's not gonna succeed (or, at least, have an exceedingly low chance of succeeding).


So, it would be very rare for any site on the planet to be classified as that. There's maybe a case for Twitter/Facebook/YouTube, but even those have not crossed that threshold.

Also by the way: Even if there was no TOS, it is still their site. Their server. They can still boot out whoever they want. There's not going to be any "there's no rule that says dogs *can't* play football" scenario that gets drummed up here, because the real world, thankfully, doesn't work that way. (Could you imagine if any web site could be forced to let someone that they previously kicked/banned out, to stay in? That'd be not only monumentally stupid, but also dangerous (imagine if a malicious user was this user; or one that was harassing others.))

This thread's going in circles at this point though, since Frank simply does not want to listen to any of the dozens of offered explanations and keeps re-asking the same question.


----------



## Kellan Meig'h (Apr 11, 2021)

Frank Gulotta said:


> It's not a house tho, so I'll repeat once again something I've already repeated a couple of times, I'm asking for the legal status (which I doubt would be the same as the legal status of a house), and it's fine if you're clueless about it, just don't waste my time with your uneducated opinion please


I'm not clueless, Frank. I host two BBS and I admin a third. Rules are set forth, the ones you most likely breezed through and did not read when you signed up. As the owner of the forum, they have every right to ask you to leave or ban you. You agreed to those terms when you signed up.

If that is not clear enough, maybe you should look at and *carefully read* the TOS before posting again.


----------



## Frank Gulotta (Apr 12, 2021)

Kellan Meig'h said:


> I'm not clueless, Frank. I host two BBS and I admin a third. Rules are set forth, the ones you most likely breezed through and did not read when you signed up. As the owner of the forum, they have every right to ask you to leave or ban you. You agreed to those terms when you signed up.
> 
> If that is not clear enough, maybe you should look at and *carefully read* the TOS before posting again.


Okay, it's pointless to ask you a simple question, lesson learned. So one last time let's go through this but PLEASE go away. You can put a sign saying that some group isn't welcome but it doesn't mean it complies with the law which is why I'm asking for a legal status as opposed to what some dipshit says their rules are. Again don't waste my time boomer.


----------



## contemplationistwolf (Apr 12, 2021)

Frank Gulotta said:


> Okay, it's pointless to ask you a simple question, lesson learned. So one last time let's go through this but PLEASE go away. You can put a sign saying that some group isn't welcome but it doesn't mean it complies with the law which is why I'm asking for a legal status as opposed to what some dipshit says their rules are. Again don't waste my time boomer.


Hah, how snappy. I think laws are generally meant to say what you *can't* do, rather than what you *can *do. You are basically asking us to prove there doesn't exist a law that makes this illegal, which basically means reading the whole US law, somehow proving to you that we have done that and stating "it is legal". I think the burden of proof here should lie on those stating that it's illegal.

Anyhow, much bigger sites, sites that people are much more eager to litigate (like Twitter) have done similar things without consequence, so that's very strong evidence that this indeed is legal.


----------



## Mambi (Apr 12, 2021)

contemplationistwolf said:


> Hah, how snappy. I think laws are generally meant to say what you *can't* do, rather than what you *can *do. You are basically asking us to prove there doesn't exist a law that makes this illegal, which basically means reading the whole US law, somehow proving to you that we have done that and stating "it is legal". I think the burden of proof here should lie on those stating that it's illegal.
> 
> Anyhow, much bigger sites, sites that people are much more eager to litigate (like Twitter) have done similar things without consequence, so that's very strong evidence that this indeed is legal.



Close, but basically he was asking and asking and asking until he finds someone who gives him an answer he can accept. This was not a discussion ever.

He knew damn well that the law says that this website is privately owned, he just wanted to "encourage a discussion on legal rights" to distract from the fact that the ultimate goal was stupid and unobtainable. I mean, when you break it down, he or the person he was asking on behalf of wanted some nebulous legal matter to justify either shutting the site down from some imaginary terms of service violation out of spite, or forcing them to accept someone that they clearly did not want around and trying to use a legal bludgeon to get their way. 

Either way, dick move and no actual goal, since even if the person returned they'd be just as unwelcome...even more so after the BS to get them back.


----------



## Xitheon (Apr 12, 2021)

I was once banned from a forum because I'm a melodramatic twat. It's so unfair.


----------



## JinxGlider (Apr 12, 2021)

Actually,  I work at an animal hospital and we have and will turn you away for being a pain in the ass. So ...people aren't required to offer you any service if you act like an entitled monster.


----------



## Deleted member 93706 (Apr 12, 2021)

I was banned from the unofficial r/headphones Discord server for being a furry!


----------



## TyraWadman (Apr 12, 2021)

Have you tried researching at your local library for the answer?


----------



## Kellan Meig'h (Apr 14, 2021)

Actually, I think the only problem I see is that Frank Gulotta is a troll.

So, we all move on, don't feed the troll.


----------



## Deleted member 93706 (Apr 14, 2021)

Kellan Meig'h said:


> Actually, I think the only problem I see is that Frank Gulotta is a troll.
> 
> So, we all move on, don't feed the troll.



I think that Frank Gulotta is much like who I was a year or two ago - before I accepted the inevitable downfalls of society. No sense in trying to save that which cannot be saved. If he spent more time developing himself and helping those around him, he would probably be a happier person and have a better chance at making positive changes in the world.


----------



## Frank Gulotta (Apr 14, 2021)

AndyG8100 said:


> Actually,  I work at an animal hospital and we have and will turn you away for being a pain in the ass. So ...people aren't required to offer you any service if you act like an entitled monster.


Not sure what kind of disastrous hospital would leave animals suffering just because the owner is a bit rude, so I have to assume by "being a pain in the ass" you mean violating TOS? because it's kinda you know, what I'm talking about here. Banning for violating TOS is fine. But trying to pretend like your *business *is just a private little treehouse whenever convenient might even be illegal.


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 14, 2021)

Frank Gulotta said:


> Not sure what kind of disastrous hospital would leave animals suffering just because the owner is a bit rude, so I have to assume by "being a pain in the ass" you mean violating TOS? because it's kinda you know, what I'm talking about here. Banning for violating TOS is fine. But trying to pretend like your *business *is just a private little treehouse whenever convenient might even be illegal.



Frank go home you're drunk.


----------



## Lucyfur (Apr 14, 2021)

Frank Gulotta said:


> Not sure what kind of disastrous hospital would leave animals suffering just because the owner is a bit rude, so I have to assume by "being a pain in the ass" you mean violating TOS? because it's kinda you know, what I'm talking about here. Banning for violating TOS is fine. But trying to pretend like your *business *is just a private little treehouse whenever convenient might even be illegal.


*laughs in "ItS jUsT a CaKe~"*


^(Again this is satire because I dont think that actual businesses that provide a service should be able to deny service in the particular realm in which that quote is about)^


----------



## Raever (Apr 14, 2021)

Frank Gulotta said:


> Then shouldn't they add "we reserve a right to kick you out if we don't like you"?



While not openly stated, in terms of US Websites, it's a given that all members of a public open platform generally accept.

That said, I HIGHLY doubt someone would kick a member for "no reason". That member did something whether it's posting innapropriate content or sending questionable notes to people, or displaying other questionable behavior. Based on the message you have, I'd be willing to bet that it's a content issue. I've seen those messages mentioned when they ban...uh...certain unwelcome types of artists, creators, and supporters of said art types. I don't think I need to say more than that.

In any case, if what you're wanting is legal advice, a forum isn't the place to ask for it. Unless in reality you're not interested in legality, and instead you're looking for some spicy drama due to bring angry and defensive of your friend. 

None of us work for FA (except those who do). If you want more info on their stance, ask a staff member. If you want more official legal information, contact a lawyer. If you want drama...well, have fun posting here I suppose.


----------



## Raever (Apr 14, 2021)

Frank Gulotta said:


> I'm baffled that anyone would defend such bullshit, we don't accept it from any other service provider



Actually...this is pretty regular in any business in the US. At least, any "privately owned" business. FA falls under that bracket I believe...

Big cooperation businesses or places such as hospitals, where they focus on providing a service in spite of circumstances over anything dictated by one singular owner are a different story. For obvious reasons. 

But yeah essentially if it's a singular owner, they can do whatever they want with the money, time, and effort they put into the service they provide. Such is part of the freedom to own and run a business.

This can be a good thing (such as denying the nasties), or a bad thing (such as denying minorities). The point is, that's just how it is, and it can work for or against the people at times.


----------



## Mambi (Apr 14, 2021)

Raever said:


> Unless in reality you're not interested in legality, and instead you're looking for some spicy drama due to bring angry and defensive of your friend.



Ding-ding-ding, I think we might have a winner here, Johnny! <_giggle_>


----------



## pilgrimfromoblivion (Apr 15, 2021)

Mambi said:


> Ding-ding-ding, I think we might have a winner here, Johnny! <_giggle_>


I don't even get why he even kept going. I'm baffled how the whole conversation didn't end at their ability to stop someone from using their service whenever and however they feel like. There's nothing that can be done about it.


----------



## Punji (Apr 15, 2021)

There is really no need for dogpiling here guys. Furries of all people should be against bullying the most.

My understand is that yes, a private company is entirely allowed to deny service to anyone it chooses. Do we really need to let tempers fly and gang up on someone?


----------



## Raever (Apr 15, 2021)

Punji said:


> There is really no need for dogpiling here guys. Furries of all people should be against bullying the most.
> 
> My understand is that yes, a private company is entirely allowed to deny service to anyone it chooses. Do we really need to let tempers fly and gang up on someone?



I feel like there's a difference between ganging up on someone and actively responding to something they said with an opinion.
I don't think anyone here feels negatively towards OP, or wants any harm or ill will for them, but this is a forum and they did start a "controversial" thread so....responses will happen. x3


----------



## Punji (Apr 15, 2021)

Raever said:


> I feel like there's a difference between ganging up on someone and actively responding to something they said with an opinion.
> I don't think anyone here feels negatively towards OP, or wants any harm or ill will for them, but this is a forum and they did start a "controversial" thread so....responses will happen. x3


There certainly is I think! But a number of responses in this thread have gone a bit further than merely responding, and I don't think we as a community should just let that happen.


----------



## Raever (Apr 15, 2021)

Punji said:


> There certainly is I think! But a number of responses in this thread have gone a bit further than merely responding, and I don't think we as a community should just let that happen.



Yeah I haven't read every single response so I'll leave that as it is.


----------



## ConorHyena (Apr 16, 2021)

this thread gives me flat-earther vibes.


----------



## Connor J. Coyote (Apr 16, 2021)

AndyG8100 said:


> Actually,  I work at an animal hospital and we have and will turn you away for being a pain in the ass. So ...people aren't required to offer you any service if you act like an entitled monster.


Well, yes and no - (usually, a "general service" that's available to the general public) can certainly have that attitude, (and take that kind of policy) - as the old saying goes _"we reserve the right to refuse service"_. 

But, there are some "essential services" which service providers cannot (and should not) refuse to provide people; and so - it could be viewed as a bit of a "slippery slope" also - when we allow service providers too much leeway in refusing services to someone based on them being perceived as "too difficult".

Just imagine - if a hospital, the Fire Department, the paramedics, or.... (even the local pharmacy) were to have that policy, and take that kind of attitude....... in those cases, being refused services can be potentially lethal.

And so - providers do have a right to "refuse", certainly; but..... there's also limits to that (legally) that places limits on the scope of that ability to refuse.
------------------------
As far as the OP's concern though - I'd say that anyone who was told (what he heard) by an operator on this website (on here in particular) must've really screwed up in some way hugely - to have that sort of refusal given to them.

But.... unlike hospitals or pharmacies - website providers *do* have the option for showing someone the door, when it's required (or necessary). And thus - "refusing" services on a social media platform (such as this) is certainly the entitlement of the operators, I think.... no matter how flawed we may think of the reasons.

But the good news is - there's *tons* of other platforms out there, independent of one another, and so - one can simply go elsewhere, to find the right platform for them..... and this is especially true if the removal was based on ideology, political beliefs, or by exercising certain speech - that the operators of one platform may find undesirable, and even offensive.


----------



## Frank Gulotta (Apr 16, 2021)

ConorHyena said:


> this thread gives me flat-earther vibes.


Could you try and be more hyperbolic than that? boring


----------



## JinxGlider (Apr 16, 2021)

Everything within reason of course. We don't turn away people all willy nilly but if the animals not in an emergency situation  and you are being abusive or refusing to do what the government thinks is a necessary service, then yes we send you on your way. There is indeed a slippery slope and we take our own fair amount of abuse. There is a reason veterinary medicine has one of the highest suicide rates of any field. You can't just behave any way you want and still expect people to help you. I definitely wasn't trying to dog pile but you can definitely refuse service to people was my point. Especially an online forum site. Not here to defend myself, or our hospital. We have been open for years and have many loyal clients, with new clients every day, they know we practice good medicine. OP was pretty aggro so I really wasn't trying to keep poking the bear. Hence me going quiet. I don't know this person or what they think of me and I'm not terribly concerned with it tbh. He posted an inflammatory post and pounced on everyone who answered. He just wanted to be heard. I think we can all debate the bullying side of it. If you start an open debate, prepare to be disagreed with.


----------



## Frank Gulotta (Apr 16, 2021)

AndyG8100 said:


> Everything within reason of course. We don't turn away people all willy nilly but if the animals not in an emergency situation  and you are being abusive or refusing to do what the government thinks is a necessary service, then yes we send you on your way.


Yeah so yeah we agree then. But that leaves me wondering why you thought your experience contradicted my point


----------



## Raever (Apr 16, 2021)

I want an ice cream cone.


----------



## Connor J. Coyote (Apr 16, 2021)

@AndyG8100 Well, I understand your points my friend, and I'm certainly not criticizing you specifically, in any way; (or - anyone else on here for that matter), with my posting. I'm not really taking any position - (one way or the other) with the OP's repertoire (on this thread), either.... as - how other people may (or my not) respond to others (and interact with them) is usually their responsibility alone. ☺

But.... my general focus on here, and my point though - (and, what I'm hopefully trying to get anyone who reads it to see) is that - whenever services are "refused" to anyone - simply because they're being deemed as "too difficult" (by the provider on the other side of the counter) - can in some circumstances, be not only un-professional, but also... even lethal, and downright dangerous, (in some cases).

And so - refusing to provide certain "essential services" is not only un-ethical, but even - illegal to do, (as it should be). But..... I also fully agree with you - that no one should be forced to take any abuse (by a client or a customer) that's deemed excessive and just makes everyone's job more difficult to do. (And in those cases), certain non-essential providers can certainly exercise their stated policy when they - "_reserve the right to refuse services_".

Thus - I agree with your statement that "_you can't just behave any way you want and still expect people to help you_" (which is very true also). But - in regards to "essential services" like I mentioned above - there's an asterisk (professionally and legally) next to that refusal policy; as in some cases, being refused services may cost someone their life.

Which would not only be un-professional (and illegal), but even - criminal, in some cases; where the life of someone was lost (or placed in jeopardy) simply because an "essential provider" refused to perform the duties of his or her job with someone they felt was being "too difficult" or was simply "undesirable to deal with".


----------



## Trevorbluesquirrel (Apr 17, 2021)

Their be a difference in what you can do in public vs. what you can do in private!

In private, you're free to discriminate as much as you like, because you have the guarantee of ''FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATATION!''

If you wanted to start a Dragon Furries Only Cake Club, you could do that!

Its not good to discriminate, but if you really want to, knock yourself out - please!

Now Businesses are privately owned, but their required to follow the ''PUBLIC ACCOMADATION LAW'', meaning that a business is open to the public!

I mean, can a business refuse you service because you're blond, or Chinese, or Cyclops!?

Don't we have anti discrimination laws to prevent that!?

Why would a business want to turn away paying customers, after all!?

Anyway, since a free use website is privately owned, they have the guarantee of ''FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATATION!''

Not legally illegal, but spiritually illegal, leading to very bad karma!


----------



## Frank Gulotta (Apr 17, 2021)

Trevorbluesquirrel said:


> Their be a difference in what you can do in public vs. what you can do in private!
> 
> In private, you're free to discriminate as much as you like, because you have the guarantee of ''FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATATION!''
> 
> ...


I would even argue it's not only paying customers, any given website is worthless without its users. If you have any kind of semi-decent audience, you make them money without them paying you by gnerating clicks, and suddenly the lame "you should be grateful they even allow you to sleep in that dirty corner" guilt-tripping line is a lot less effective.

And you start expecting at least some respect, especially if the website is not that great in terms of management/interface and its only real perk is having the biggest amount of users out there. Even then, FA is still a relatively small site. Not at all unique or irreplaceable (or rather it's unique for bad reasons).


----------



## TyraWadman (Apr 17, 2021)

Frank Gulotta said:


> I would even argue it's not only paying customers, any given website is worthless without its users. If you have any kind of semi-decent audience, you make them money without them paying you by gnerating clicks, and suddenly the lame "you should be grateful they even allow you to sleep in that dirty corner" guilt-tripping line is a lot less effective.
> 
> And you start expecting at least some respect, especially if the website is not that great in terms of management/interface and its only real perk is having the biggest amount of users out there. Even then, FA is still a relatively small site. Not at all unique or irreplaceable (or rather it's unique for bad reasons).



Can't have a lot of users if other users actively promote the harm/death of other users for their ethnicity or sexual preference either. 

That's why rules like these exist. 

If people didn't want FA to thrive, no one would be actively supporting it by subscribing to FA+. No one would be buying ad space, and everyone would have moved to other sites. But they didn't.


----------



## Frank Gulotta (Apr 17, 2021)

TyraWadman said:


> Can't have a lot of users if other users actively promote the harm/death of other users for their ethnicity or sexual preference either


Holy shit how many times do I have to repeat that I'm not talking of people who actually break the rules, I lost count and I'm almost sure I already told YOU that and yet here you are AGAIN

Why are you even back?

What is this thread doing to people's brains? what kind of weird mental blockage is that?


----------



## Saokymo (Apr 17, 2021)

Seems to me the main question has been answered multiple times over.

”Does a private business / forum / online community have the right to kick people out for vague reasons not explicitly listed as being against the rules?”

”Yes, they do.”

Beating the same dead horse over and over isn’t going to change the answer.


----------



## Balskarr (Apr 17, 2021)

We're here talking about weird mental blockages when in the opening post...


Frank Gulotta said:


> InB4 someone comes up with the usual excuse, "something something it's a private website and can ban whoever they want"


You address the answer yourself and use the fact you said it first to stick your fingers in your ears and scream like a child just because it's not the answer you want.


----------



## Lucyfur (Apr 17, 2021)

Frank Gulotta said:


> Holy shit how many times do I have to repeat that I'm not talking of people who actually break the rules, I lost count and I'm almost sure I already told YOU that and yet here you are AGAIN
> 
> Why are you even back?
> 
> What is this thread doing to people's brains? what kind of weird mental blockage is that?


I mean you never provided what behavior the individual displayed to not be a “fit” so like idk maybe give full context and receipts cause sounds like someone was toxic and the staff said: YEET!


----------



## Frank Gulotta (Apr 17, 2021)

Balskarr said:


> We're here talking about weird mental blockages when in the opening post...
> 
> You address the answer yourself and use the fact you said it first to stick your fingers in your ears and scream like a child just because it's not the answer you want.


I'm moreso interrogating whether or not it's right (not to mention as I said and you conveniently cropped out, it's not always that simple); but even if that was the case, then why in Hell is this thread filled with "well ackshually if someone breaks the rules, it's perfectly normal to have them banned" which is not what I'm discussing at all?


----------



## Balskarr (Apr 17, 2021)

Frank Gulotta said:


> I'm moreso interrogating whether or not it's right (not to mention as I said and you conveniently cropped out, it's not always that simple); but even if that was the case, then why in Hell is this thread filled with "well ackshually if someone breaks the rules, it's perfectly normal to have them banned" which is not what I'm discussing at all?


Conveniently cropped? Well I guess you're on this bandwagon of "well ackshually" yourself. So much for your own high ground.


----------



## Frank Gulotta (Apr 17, 2021)

Balskarr said:


> Conveniently cropped? Well I guess you're on this bandwagon of "well ackshually" yourself. So much for your own high ground.


Not really since it's something you or anyone else is free to check out you know, in the OP


----------



## TyraWadman (Apr 17, 2021)

Frank Gulotta said:


> Holy shit how many times do I have to repeat that I'm not talking of people who actually break the rules, I lost count and I'm almost sure I already told YOU that and yet here you are AGAIN
> 
> Why are you even back?
> 
> What is this thread doing to people's brains? what kind of weird mental blockage is that?



It's weird that you'd throw shade at other users when you're the one that keeps bringing up the topic to ask the same questions over and over. You have already been given an answer on this in the past.

Are you saying your follower was removed without breaking any rules? If so, they could dispute it with the e-mail given with the notice. Each individual case is unique after all.


----------



## Frank Gulotta (Apr 17, 2021)

TyraWadman said:


> It's weird that you'd throw shade at other users when you're the one that keeps bringing up the topic to ask the same questions over and over. You have already been given an answer on this in the past.
> 
> Are you saying your follower was removed without breaking any rules? If so, they could dispute it with the e-mail given with the notice. Each individual case is unique after all.


I keep this open because it keeps raising more and more questions and I find it interesting (albeit annoying).

So you think I've gotten a satisfactory answer...? then why do _you _keep trying to give me an answer to a question I _didn't_ ask?
And if you think the answer I've gotten ("acksually they don't even need a reason to ban") is valid, then why do you even bring up the possibility to appeal a ban?

This is such a mess

For such a "case closed" topic, I find that everyone trying to defend this website's ability to do whatever they feel like are all over the place.


----------



## GentleButter (Apr 17, 2021)

Summary of this thread:
Person: SOMEONE TELL ME HOW THIS IS LEGAL
Everyone: *Explains why this is legal*
Person: BUT NO ONE HAS TOLD ME HOW THIS IS LEGAL YET (ToT) ANGERY


----------



## Stray Cat Terry (Apr 17, 2021)

Either read the ToC thoroughly before you decide to use the service(this is crucial if you really emphasize on 'legality'), or, like I do--scan past the descriptions cuz you're too busy/lazy to read that, and be prepared to be treated any way the providers would want to according to their ToC.
Otherwise... you may have done the way somewhere in between the two.

I mean... You shouldn't be upset over the situation because, obviously, you're active around here--which means you already did either of the two ways or somewhere in between that've just been mentioned. So, at this point, *whether the ToC being literally a trash doesn't matter.*
Because, again, you're already active here(aka. using the service) thus *you are effectively considered to have consented to the ToC.*

No offense, by the way! (Cuz.. what for? OwO )

I'm cool even if I get banned for whatever reason as long as the providers are acting per the ToC (which I was warned about at the very beginning, just like they did to you and everyone else here) and have something in their mind--regardless of whether it'll be acceptable or not. Because... what am I gonna lose anyways? I didn't spend a penny on this website! UwU ..Wait, did you??

Plus, if the thing's already happened, it's only a waste of everything you spend further(time, efforts, etc..) trying to seek 'answers'...


----------



## TyraWadman (Apr 17, 2021)

Frank Gulotta said:


> I keep this open because it keeps raising more and more questions and I find it interesting (albeit annoying).
> 
> So you think I've gotten a satisfactory answer...? then why do _you _keep trying to give me an answer to a question I _didn't_ ask?
> And if you think the answer I've gotten ("acksually they don't even need a reason to ban") is valid, then why do you even bring up the possibility to appeal a ban?
> ...



I keep posting because if you HAVEN'T found a satisfactory answer, then perhaps there are other ways I can explain it to you? Because sometimes, with enough persistence, there MIGHT be a chance that it could finally click? Because it seems like you're just assuming that I'm missing the point altogether, or perhaps you just didn't phrase your opening post as well as it could have been.

The reason why I mention the reason to appeal a ban is that *each situation is unique*. This also falls back onto my 'legroom' statement.

Once upon a time, before Wix bought D.A, I randomly signed on to see that I was banned. What's worse, I didn't even get a notice as to why. So I just contacted their help desk like "wut gives?" and they apologized for the mistake and restored my account. That would be one very good reason as to why they should leave room to appeal! I don't know what went on to make this mistake, but it was reversed in the end. Sometimes shit happens, and it's better to have the chance than to _not. _

If someone wants to be worried/paranoid over abuse, it's probably because no one can actually see what's being handled and I get that. But in the end, privacy protects anyone involved because twitter knows people love to form angry mobs and destroy lives for fun. XD

Mr.Fox wanted to argue his suspension was unjustified, and threatened to post his notice and prove publicly that mods were abusing their power... only to turn tail when everyone said 'okay, go ahead then' and called him out on his bluff. Now he gone for good it seems.

*Your opening question was: *


> In short what I'm asking is, what exactly is the legal status of FA, what does being a "community" imply exactly? is it more like 1) a publisher, 2) a platform, or 3) a cult?



3 is obviously not the choice because you literally signed yourself into it, and a cult would be willing to put a gun to your head and make you stay. This was clearly meant to be insensitive. The door is always open for you to leave and that has been expressed by the owner himself.

1 and 2 are things that you could  independently research on your own instead of expecting solid answer from the community. It would be wiser to pay someone for their legal advice on what the legal status would be.



> InB4 someone comes up with the usual excuse, *"something something it's a private website and can ban whoever they want for whatever reason"* (section 230 might add some nuance to this but whatever); I'm not entirely convinced the same people would react well to getting arbitrarily terminated for displeasing the "site director". I don't care if they're entitled to do that, if you don't think it's bullshit, *you're wrong *=^.^=



You may feel that it's wrong, but it's not legally wrong. I read up on 230 and it doesn't support how you feel at all. If anything it gives site owners the ability to say "this racist comment here? That's not a reflection of our company or its core values". Wondering why it hasn't been removed yet? It's no secret that FA is being run by volunteers. and while they're going through galleries of 4000 images, 4000 more are being uploaded. It would be like crying at a cop for not being there with you at all hours of the day to know you were robbed. Obviously there are more citizens than cops.

I am curious though: have you ever tried asking this on other platforms like Youtube and Twitter? If so, were the results different? And did you ask random users, or have you tried contacting staff directly?


----------



## ConorHyena (Apr 17, 2021)

Frank Gulotta said:


> [...] what kind of weird mental blockage is that?



This is a good question.


----------



## Connor J. Coyote (Apr 18, 2021)

Trevorbluesquirrel said:


> Now Businesses are privately owned, but their required to follow the ''PUBLIC ACCOMADATION LAW'', meaning that a business is open to the public!
> 
> I mean, can a business refuse you service because you're blond, or Chinese, or Cyclops!?
> 
> Don't we have anti discrimination laws to prevent that!?


@Trevorbluesquirrel Generally, yes...... but, proving that it was discrimination, (on the part of the public business) can be very difficult to substantiate at times; as..... one usually needs to prove (in court typically) that there was a "bias-based malice", on the part of the business - in the company's "refusal" to provide the service...... and thus, discrimination-based complaints can sometimes be very difficult to win..... which is regrettable, (in cases where there was actual discrimination taking place).

As these cases can often times come down to a "he said" and "he said" scenario.

But - that doesn't mean businesses aren't held accountable either, (especially when it was a malice-based refusal); as often times - court cases are "settled" by the parties (where the complainee is awarded some compensation, of some sort by the company). And in addition to that - the "court of public opinion" can also weigh heavily on a local business, if "malice-based" discrimination is alleged publicly.

And so, businesses can often times try what they can to avoid this type of pitfall, as it'll cost them too much, financially.



Trevorbluesquirrel said:


> Why would a business want to turn away paying customers, after all!?


Well, some businesses (at times) can place their ideological (or political) beliefs "inside the mix" of how they operate their companies; and thus - a baker refusing a wedding cake to a same-gender couple (for example) is viewed (by the company) as not being based on pure "discrimination" (they maintain) - but..... by adherence to their religious beliefs and doctrines, which prevents them from providing certain services that they feel goes against those beliefs.

And so - many state governments, and to a lesser extent - provincial governments, (where you are) - often times have to walk a fine line - in safeguarding so-called "religious liberty" whilst also enforcing their anti-discrimination laws.

And so - even though "public accommodation" laws are on the books (for many good reasons) - often times in these types of cases that may come up - many state governments can often times try to take the "middle ground", (legally and politically)..... as it's simply too volatile an issue for them, to "take sides" in some extreme cases.


----------



## Flamingo (Apr 18, 2021)

Terms of Service -- Fur Affinity [dot] net
					

Fur Affinity | For all things fluff, scaled, and feathered!




					www.furaffinity.net


----------

