[glenda]

I don't believe anyone wants to create a new legal system, but the reality is the vast majority of sexual assault cases aren't resolved in court due to existing social issues. These "judges, jurries and prosecutors" are just people who don't want to associate with potentially dangerous people regardless of the legal outcome. Beyond legal consequences to crime there have always been social consequences too - I think the major difference compared to the past is that these companies put out press releases instead of just blacklisting someone and moving on.

[duxup]

I agree that often that's not the goal, but if you have multiple parties making different claims ... all of a sudden you have to determine facts to make a decision based on and suddenly you've got a sort of mini justice system and you're learning all the ins and outs of such a system, making the same historical mistakes and so on.

[gameman144]

> These "judges, jurries and prosecutors" are just people who don't want to associate with potentially dangerous people regardless of the legal outcome.

This is true, but also has excused discrimination in the past (e.g. white flight), and can very easily lead to the tarring and feathering of innocent people.

At the individual level, not associating with potentially dangerous people is fine and smart. When large swaths of people avoid the same potentially dangerous people, though, the "potentially" part really does merit a bit more weight.

[altairprime]

The possibility of discrimination exists in all cases where any human entity, whether individual or group, judges another human entity. This is widely accepted in human societies as a necessary risk of being able to judge others as fit or unfit for participation, and Lichess is exercising their right to do so, just as all other human entities may choose to do. Until a pattern of bias is demonstrated, such judgments are neither implicitly discriminatory, nor are they implicitly a slippery slope to discrimination.

[paulddraper]

> I think the major difference compared to the past is that these companies put out press releases instead of just blacklisting someone and moving on.

And that is one of Lichess's biggest complaints....the sanctions were not publicized enough.

[Turing_Machine]

> I don't believe anyone wants to create a new legal system, but the reality is the vast majority of sexual assault cases aren't resolved in court due to existing social issues.

That's as may be, but the answer isn't to let every HOA and garden club run their own kangaroo courts.

[lettergram]

> I don't believe anyone wants to create a new legal system, but the reality is the vast majority of sexual assault cases aren't resolved in court due to existing social issues

If by existing social issues, you mean lack of evidence, statute of limitations, then sure.

For instance, I see zero evidence that anything occurred here. There may be evidence, but the point of the justice system is to publicly disclose it and debate it such that the public can make a determination. Once determined (by a jury) a punishment, agreed upon by the society is handed down.

The alternative is issuing unsubstantiated claims to the public. Then blacklisting and deplatforming the person do they cannot defend themselves. To be honest, that’s effectively what led to the US revolution — lack of due process, ability to redress grievances and representation.

It’s very unamerican, that said, many of these organizations that do this aren’t American so it is what it is.

[jasonlotito]

> It’s very unamerican

This is 100% wrong. American' are very much in favor of instilling their own ethics and morality and guidelines on things they own. Which is exactly what is happening here.

Your belief that you can dictate to others how they can manage their own property is the unamerican thing here.

[ethanbond]

> To be honest, that’s effectively what led to the US revolution — lack of due process, ability to redress grievances and representation

No it wasn’t