Airbnb Is Banning People Who Are 'Closely Associated' With Already-Banned Users (vice.com) 122
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: Airbnb is banning people from using its site because of their mere association with other users the short-term rental company has deemed a safety risk and removed from the platform, a decision that highlights the imperfect security protocols that Airbnb employs. In instances where a user is banned because of their association with another user deemed problematic, the user can only return to the platform if their problematic acquaintance successfully appeals the ban or if they are able to prove they are not "closely associated."
In a statement, Airbnb confirmed to Motherboard that it does sometimes ban users because the company has discovered that they "are likely to travel" with another person who has already been banned, though a spokesperson wouldn't say when this practice started or how often it occurs. The company said it does this as a "necessary safety precaution," and a spokesperson said referring to such bans as merely a result of association is overly "simplistic." But the process appears opaque; just this month, the company apologized and said it had made a "mistake" in banning the parents of right-wing activist Lauren Southern.
Airbnb has said that it understands the system is imperfect, and employs an appeals process for people who feel they have been unfairly banned. But the process is often limited and frustrating to banned users, according to conversations Motherboard has had with banned users. The bans by association underscore the difficulty (and perhaps impossibility) of keeping dangerous parties completely out of Airbnb hosts' homes without slighting associated users who feel their own bans are unjustified.
In a statement, Airbnb confirmed to Motherboard that it does sometimes ban users because the company has discovered that they "are likely to travel" with another person who has already been banned, though a spokesperson wouldn't say when this practice started or how often it occurs. The company said it does this as a "necessary safety precaution," and a spokesperson said referring to such bans as merely a result of association is overly "simplistic." But the process appears opaque; just this month, the company apologized and said it had made a "mistake" in banning the parents of right-wing activist Lauren Southern.
Airbnb has said that it understands the system is imperfect, and employs an appeals process for people who feel they have been unfairly banned. But the process is often limited and frustrating to banned users, according to conversations Motherboard has had with banned users. The bans by association underscore the difficulty (and perhaps impossibility) of keeping dangerous parties completely out of Airbnb hosts' homes without slighting associated users who feel their own bans are unjustified.
I actually agree... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: I actually agree... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They're also actively banning the parents and other family members of people whose politics they disagree with.
Re:I actually agree... (Score:5, Informative)
I know the system isn't perfect, as stated in the article, but it's a half-reasonable step in the right direction...
A step in the right direction would be to outright ban AirBnb or demand that they assume the same risks as hotels.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: I actually agree... (Score:2)
Re: I actually agree... (Score:5, Insightful)
But even if it was a bad thing... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
If you want to run an online music store, then you have to sell entire albums, rather than single songs.
If you want to run a ride share business, then you have to register with the state DOT, and your business has to own and maintain all the drivers' vehicles.
If you want to have a lemonade stand, then you have to collect sales tax and pay minimum wage to anyon
Re: (Score:2)
At least be honest...
"If you want to run an online music store" - Shouldn't the artists get to decide how their content is shared and/or sold?
"If you want to run a ride share business" - Ride share businesses are taxi services. Nobody is already headed to the airport and seeing if anyone needs a ride.
"If you want to have a lemonade stand" - Nearly everywhere has exceptions and exemptions for small businesses knowing things like lemonade stands exist and don't require taxes, minimum wage, insurance, or other
Re: (Score:2)
Ok
Did the artists have this level of control before iTunes/Amazon Music/etc.?
I was referring to the likes of Uber. Taxi services don't actively facilitate ride sharing between clients. I would think you'd k
Re: (Score:2)
Music - I don't care what artists could do with other service. Shouldn't they get to decide how their art is shared/sold?
Uber - Yes, I know what it is. I also know that NO ONE uses it as "ride sharing". Ride sharing is a lie to get around regulations. It is a taxi service.
Airbnb - Once you go into business, you need to be bound by regulations. Without regulations we would have poison dumped straight into our water, semi truck drivers going 20 hours straight with no sleep, trains loaded with toxic chemicals
Maybe also do something about the owners (Score:2, Offtopic)
refusing to let their property too often.
These people are a waste of my time and the primary reason why I just go to hotels.com.
No hassle, discrimination or other fuss for a few dollars extra.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Maybe also do something about the owners (Score:5, Interesting)
refusing to let their property too often. These people are a waste of my time and the primary reason why I just go to hotels.com. No hassle, discrimination or other fuss for a few dollars extra.
Same here, an Airbnb host can decline your request or just not respond within 24 hours and your booking is declined. Nobody ever failed to respond to me on Airbnb and the two times I did get declined I got a response. One was just a flat out 'Sorry but NO', the other one came 30 minutes before I was supposed to check in and it was: "We only rent to female university students" which is fair enough but that is also something you might want to mention in your Airbnb ad. I went back to using hotel and guest house booking sites. Never been declined there, even for some plausible reason like "We are sorry to tell you that we are overbooked" or "We had a water pipe rupture in our last available room". People also don't seem to deactivate their Airbnb ad during periods when they are disinclined to rent out their property which wastes people's time and creates uncertainty for the customer, particularly if the Airbnb person does not respond because of the 'wait for 24 hours' rule. Finally, and this is my favourite, houses in my neck of the woods are usually well maintained but we've been having infestations of bed bugs lately. The local paper interviewed a pest control specialist about this and he said that his experience was that there is an close correlation between people using Airbnb while on vacation and developing a serious bed bug infestation shortly after coming home. In all my years of using hotel and guest house booking websites I've never had to deal with a parasite infestation that invaded my home through my suitcase.
Re:Maybe also do something about the owners (Score:5, Informative)
"We only rent to female university students" which is fair enough but that is also something you might want to mention in your Airbnb ad.
In the US, such a practice is blatantly illegal under the Fair Housing Act, and advertising it would be a separate offense. Landlords are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of sex or, in most forms, age. (There are some exemptions that allow "senior living" communities, but none that allow discrimination against older people.)
Re: (Score:2)
The Fair housing act looses a lot of its teeth when the building is owner occupied (even if the unit is separate from the one the owner lives in). That may not be the case here but it is a lot more complicated than it seems on its face
Re: (Score:2)
"We only rent to female university students" which is fair enough
Spycams?
Re: (Score:2)
"We only rent to female university students" which is fair enough
Spycams?
Hadn't thought of that, just thought the reason was pretty esoteric. I mean they could just have gone with the "Sorry, we're on vacation and forgot to de-actvate/pause our Airbnb account".
Whiny cheapskates. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want to filter people using your property, rent it out like a civilized person instead of running some shady flophouse. And if you nickel and dime everything when you travel, don't be shocked when you're treated like shit for any or no reason.
Re: (Score:1)
There are a lot of problems with AirBnb, but the principle of refusing service to customers with a history of being destructive isn't one of them. You think a "civilized" property management company or the Hilton are going to let you live/stay in one of their properties if you've got a documented history of trashing the places you stay?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Whiny cheapskates. (Score:4, Interesting)
Hosts want the income of renting out property without the liabilities and obligations of being a landlord, and guests want the convenience of a hotel without the price. If you want to filter people using your property, rent it out like a civilized person instead of running some shady flophouse. And if you nickel and dime everything when you travel, don't be shocked when you're treated like shit for any or no reason.
Airbnb can be an absoloute menace. There was a case here a couple of years go in a two family house. The house comes with two solidly constructed adjoining sheds at the end of the garden, one for each family. The guy in the downstairs apartment used his shed for years without any problems as a hobby workshop. New family moves in, converts the other shed into an Airbnb room with jury-rigged sink toilet and shower. This is completely illegal by the way because a garden shed does not fulfil the legal requirements for a residence, it is not code compliant for use as a human residence and it's definitely not permissible to rent it out as as what is basically a hotel room (fire safety, insurance requirements etc.). Next thing he knows he can't even use an electric drill without the police showing up due to a noise complaint because 'our paying Airbnb guests are entitled to their peace and quiet'. So the guy gets miffed and reports the upstairs neighbour for building an illegal non-code compliant residence and drops a hint on the tax office's anonymous hotline knowing that the majority of Airbnb operators renting out converted garden sheds and garages in this country don't report this income on their tax returns. Last I heard there was a cold war in that building after a heft tax bill arrived in the upstairs apartment.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the way to do it. Perfectly valid and honest counter-punch, especially if the guy didn't ask nicely before involving the cops. Of course, the best option in that situation is to tak
Re: (Score:3)
Amazon has been doing this for years. If someone gets banned, say for doing too many returns, they tend to blacklist their address and anyone else living there. Maybe the whole building if it is apartments.
Again, similar issue, everyone trying to be cheap, no real customer relationship.
Re: (Score:2)
They can legally do that in the UK? Interesting.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently so. There are limits on associating addresses with individuals when it comes to certain things like credit scores, but nothing to stop Amazon simply deciding not to ship anything there. Unless you can prove they discriminated against a protected characteristic, there isn't much you can do about it.
Re: (Score:3)
A pox on both your houses (Score:2, Insightful)
Fuck the assholes who trash their rentals.
Fuck Airbnb for giving the power of the banhammer to kids who misuse it to further their own private, petty and/or poltical agendas.
The greatest thing that came out of America in the last two and half centuries of its existence, after many fits and false starts and growing pains, is the idea that everyone's dollars are the exact same shade of green no matter your last name or what god you pray to in the privacy of your church or what party you vote for in the privac
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, a business's right to "cancel" customers has some strong legal precedent established by that gay wedding cake SCOTUS case. Be careful what you wish for.
Re:A pox on both your houses (Score:4, Informative)
Send back on a technicality and then quietly swept under the rug. Even if it had been won, it would have been won on the basis of freedom of religion or freedom of speech, not freedom of association.
Freedom of association died with the civil rights act and similar measures world wide after WW2.
Re: (Score:2)
Send back on a technicality and then quietly swept under the rug.
The SCOTUS ruled in favor of the bake shop based upon a narrow interpretation of the specific situation. That in itself was specifically the precedent I was referring to. The next time a case makes it to the SCOTUS where a business refuses to serve a customer, the court can just say "We're siding with the business, but nothing in our decision should be construed as contrary to previously established laws or rulings."
When the highest kangaroo court in the land says businesses can do whatever they want, and
Re: (Score:2)
They didn't rule in anyone's favor on the underlying question of whether the cakeshop had a right to refuse service. They ruled instead that the cakeshop owner had his First Amendment rights violated by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission because of statements made by at least two commissioners that were deemed to be disparaging to the bake shop owner's religious views, preventing a fair outcome.
The owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop got involved in another case where he refused to bake a pink and blue cake for
Re:A pox on both your houses (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, a business's right to "cancel" customers has some strong legal precedent established by that gay wedding cake SCOTUS case. Be careful what you wish for.
That is not what happened. The Colorado Civil Rights commission had acted with such unreasonable hostility toward Jack Phillips (including making comparisons to slavery and the Holocaust) that SCOTUS ruled it became a violation of the government's requirement of religious neutrality.
It did not establish any precedent at all about whether it was legal to compel the production of the cake. In fact Jack Phillips is still in litigation over exactly that issue. When other case went before SCOTUS an activist called him and asked him to produce a gender transition cake and a cake with Satan smoking a bong (both of which he declined) and sued him separately over it.
Simple test (Score:3, Interesting)
If an activist is prepared to visit a Muslim run cake making shop and ask for a cake noting the marriage of Mohammed to a 6 year old girl and his deflowering of her at 9 (which he did) - with the conclusion, in big letters, 'Islam endorses paedophilia, beware Muslims' - THEN I'll believe they are not just seeking to persecute Christians.
https://www.icraa.org/prophet-... [icraa.org]
Re: (Score:1)
That's a bad analogy. Nobody asked for any message to be written on the cake.
A better analogy would be someone visiting a Muslim-run cake store and asking them to supply a generic cake for a same-sex wedding. IMO, they should not be allowed to refuse.
Re: (Score:2)
No. They were willing to sell a generic cake. It was a customer cake they refused to make.
Re: (Score:2)
It was a custom cake, yes, but it didn't have any specific message on it.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not the case that went before the SCOTUS. That was a different cake.
Even so, a pink cake with blue frosting is a message now? And it somehow offends a Christian snowflake? Ridiculous bullshit.
Completely wrong... (Score:3)
The "gay wedding cake case" was based on compelled speech and freedom of religion. The Supreme Court has never defended a general, constitutional right to "freedom of association in commerce" because it would be an absolute nightmare for the states to respect while maintaining basic anti-discrimination laws and most importantly, state contract law.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
What "compelled speech" was there? It was just a generic cake, AFAIK... not one with some message on it.
Also, freedom of religion is a bullshit freedom. It should not have anywhere near the same legal status of other anti-discrimination laws for a couple of reasons: (1) religion is just someone's opinion, not something hard/impossible to change like the color of their skin or their sex, and (2) anyone can invent a religion that allows them to discriminate on any basis that they like.
When two freedoms
Re: (Score:2)
You don't know much about the case. They were willing to provide a generic cake. It was the custom part they refused to do
Re: (Score:2)
The custom cake didn't have any particular message on it. It was just a design, not something expressing speech or an opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
The case is here [scotusblog.com].
Re: Completely wrong... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Its so great you "know" the good religions and the bad ones. And you understand how "Islam+Sharia Law" promotes "oppression ... against women", as opposed to "Christianity and Judaism" which both have a 100% perfect flawless record of morality, non-oppression, and even to this date treat women equally in every aspect.
Re: (Score:2)
Satan, LoL. Hard to believe in the 21st century people can believe that shit.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The greatest thing that came out of America in the last two and half centuries of its existence, after many fits and false starts and growing pains, is the idea that everyone's dollars are the exact same shade of green no matter your last name or what god you pray to in the privacy of your church or what party you vote for in the privacy of the voting booth.
This idea has been killed stone dead in recent decades, and not just in the US. But it certainly was the US that was the main driver for a heavy emphasis on "follow the money" in criminal investigations and various "Know Your Customer", "Anti-Money Laundering", and so on laws and rules that came into power the world over. Also a heavy emphasis on financial persecution of "terrorism" even though that usually uses its own banking facilities.
It's why financial privacy is dead and also why "civil asset forfeit
Your ignorance and idiocy are astounding. (Score:3)
The greatest thing that came out of America... is the idea that everyone's dollars are the exact same shade of green
For one, money having no religion is an idea inherent to currency at least since the begging of the current calendar era. And it is probably older.
It's just that the ancient Roman saying [wikipedia.org] has more sense as it conflates the inherent values of such thinking with piss.
to it being flat out illegal for government to criminalize flag burning in the 1970s.
Let me fix that for you.
flag burning in the 1970s being flat out illegal
You had a FEDERAL LAW that could get you up to a year in prison [wikipedia.org] for making a flag-cake and then eating it - all the way up to 1990 [wikipedia.org] and SCOTUS finally remembering that there is that thing called the First Amendment.
Thirdly..
seems fair. (Score:1)
Ban Airbnb (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So do jobs. So by your logic, we should also ban jobs.
Re: (Score:2)
Jobs produce useful things (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just ban landlords.
Re: (Score:2)
This is [part of] the right answer, but it would turn property ownership on its head. Has anyone, anywhere actually tried this?
Re: (Score:2)
What's your hard on for, talking without thinking? I'm all in favor of the idea, but #GLWT
Re: (Score:2)
So do you think you have a right to someone else's labor?
I have a right to demand that you either make sense or bother someone else.
Re: (Score:2)
banning landlords is coercion
Not banning landlords is also coercion. It's letting them coerce people into paying them for housing that they have primarily because of superior starting conditions, and/or because the land it's on was stolen from someone else. It's violence all the way down.
Re: (Score:2)
For every one of these, there's 10 that received their property through production. If you're willing to punish them too, then fine I guess.
The production is in collaboration with others, whether directly or through the economic system. Some are disproportionately rewarded, others penalized. The economic system already punishes people psuedo-arbitrarily.
At least you're honest about your position, I'll give you that. Hopefully enough for a clean conscience. Just remember what happened to Robespierre when you go for your pitchfork.
We're damned either way at this point. I've been expecting to die prematurely since I was a tween, which I suppose is common for people who come from similar backgrounds.
Re: (Score:2)
Land isn't legitimate property. Either from the concept of land as the commons, or simply from the fact it was stolen. No land has an unbroken chain of ownership transfer from homesteading of unsettled land to the present, it was taken by force at some point and only legitimised by time. Building a natural law framework on time erasing evidence is not very lawful.
Just declaring land the commons, with exclusive use a temporary privilege granted by social contract, is philosophically the most consistent.
Re: (Score:2)
They could disincentivize empty housing units by offering a substantial property tax discount to people who rent out bedrooms or ADU/housing units to unrelated people (non-relatives). They could combat fraud by requiring that the unit be advertised online, and the id/payments of the renter verified. That should result in a large number of units becoming available. Fact is the only way to reduce housing prices is to have more housing units available .. whether by building new ones or enabling existing ones t
Re: (Score:2)
Actually thinking about, they could just offer the discount based on how many people live on the property. The more people per square feet the bigger the discount. They'd need some verification to prove you're not putting down random names like Fred Flintstone on there.
Re: (Score:3)
I wouldn't go so far as to completely ban Airbnb, but I would restrict it to only allowing people to rent space in their primary residence and only if they themselves reside in that residence for at least half of the year and the space they rent out does not have a separate entrance from the ones they use.
And I'd also impose safety and other regulations on Airbnb hosts similar to those imposed on hotels.
I think this would allow people to earn a bit of extra cash by renting out rooms (or their whole pla
Dystopia (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you think Lauren Southern has been smashing up rooms ?
No, she's just a "right wing" activist. (which is also a ridiculous label to apply to her but that's a discussion for another day)
Re: (Score:3)
Even if Slashdot's all informed intelligentsia does not know it the banning of her parents is really the event that has precipitated this discussion.
The thing is while I generally agree with Lauren Southern on the topics she has been most vocal about, I think its just fine for AirBnB to ban her associates. At least in the US (Canada regrettably has never been subjugated to US Imperialism and isnt governed by our First Amendment).
Freedom of Association is a constitutional right - things like the Civil Right
Re: (Score:2)
I am NOT saying that - but someone else might and if they do THAT is their right!
Re: (Score:2)
correct I am not a racist, I don't support racism or practice it.. I would for example not do business with a business that discriminates based on race because I think that is wrong and stupid.
However i also respect the rights of others to be be wrong and stupid.
Re: Dystopia (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then don't use AirBNB?
AirBNB is a high-risk environment due to how the model is.
They don't have the same level of control as as say a hotel does, so they need measures like this.
If you don't like it, then stay at a hotel, it is that simple.
Common practice (Score:3, Interesting)
How long before they start using a DNA database? (Score:2)
Coming Soon: If you have a close DNA match with someone who trashed a place you'll be banned too. It's not racism, it's geneticism.
ok (Score:4, Interesting)
But the process appears opaque; just this month, the company apologized and said it had made a "mistake" in banning the parents of right-wing activist Lauren Southern.
Ok, but what did Lauren Southern do to get banned?
Re:ok (Score:4, Informative)
Seems like she was banned because of "public affiliations with certain groups":
https://twitter.com/Lauren_Sou... [twitter.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The board should find and fire whoever is trying to use their company for ideological crusades, on the down low.
Democrats will hate them any way because short term rentals are terrible for local rents and because some hosts are racists and affect them by affiliation, trying to get back in media good graces by cancelling the far right is a terrible idea. It will just make them a bipartisan whipping dog like Facebook, there's no profit in it.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
She was a danger to shipping in the Mediterranean, and was denied entry to the UK on security grounds. Various engagements she made have been cancelled due to the unfortunate fact that wherever she goes, fascists are sure to follow. Probably doesn't help that she promotes white nationalist conspiracy theories like the Great Replacement.
From a pure safety point of view, i.e. not wanting your property to become the focus of anti-fascist protests, where violent white nationalists often congregate, they do have
Re: (Score:1)
0/
Now *you* have attracted a fascist
Re: (Score:2)
If this were the standard in the 1960's they would have banned Martin Luther King Jr.
Be careful what you wish for.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you will find they did ban MLK Jr. from many venues.
Of course, Southern is not MLK, she isn't fighting for the civil rights that every person should expect and demand.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
She's an asshole.
private company do what they want (Score:2)
Anyone care to say otherwise?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Look at the history of "public accomodations", of restaurants and hotels blocking access to blacks in the USA. Many states and the Civil Rights Act have tried to block filtering clients based on race or religion or nation of origin gender, and this restriction could easily filter based on race and nation of origin.
Re: (Score:2)
Look at the history of "public accomodations", of restaurants and hotels blocking access to blacks in the USA. Many states and the Civil Rights Act have tried to block filtering clients based on race or religion or nation of origin gender, and this restriction could easily filter based on race and nation of origin.
While it could do so, that doesn't mean it does. Can it have disproportionate impact? Possibly, but banning people from using a service isn't automatically a civil rights violation. Stores can ban people who have shoplifted, been unruly, or done other things to warrant it.
Unintended consequences (Score:2)
imperfect (Score:2)
Airbnb has said that it understands the system is imperfect
Airbnb's entire business model is to assist people in violating the law by not permitting their hotel, or paying hotel tax. People are literally buying houses on credit and turning them into airbnbs now, which represents predation on everyone who doesn't already own a home. Airbnb is evil, and must be destroyed.
Uploading your ID or driver's license?!?? (Score:2)
paradox appeal (Score:2)
"the user can only return to the platform if their problematic acquaintance successfully appeals the ban..."
So the only way I can get the ban lifted is if I prove I'm not close to the problem person... by being close enough to the problem person they're willing to embarrass themselves to strangers. Uh. And if I get hit by a false-positive association with someone I've never met (which has happened before) ? The more incorrect the accusation, the less defence I have.
Get the word to Kevin (Score:2)
I know a lot of you people are friends with Kevin Bacon, so the next time you're talking to him or one of his friends, let him know we're counting on his good behavior.
guilt by association? (Score:2)
Yeah, this will get them their ass handed to them
Well, there are six degrees of separation... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Oh hai. (Score:4, Interesting)
Welcome to Chinaâ(TM)s Social Credit. Itâ(TM)s great to have you here.
Is it really as bad as all that? So you don't get to stay at "hotels" that are unlicensed and it's all somehow kosher because it's all done through an app (the Uber business model, basically). Just stay at a regular hotel instead, no great loss.
Don't you know holocaust? (Score:1)
I was going to jokingly call out some people for overacting at slightest affront to their privilege.
By referring to Gina Carano comparing herself (and others) being called out for being an "anti-masker" during a pandemic and spreading the "Big Lie" about 2020 elections [wikipedia.org] - to holocaust. [dw.com]
Imagine using Nazi propaganda technique and then calling other people Nazis when called out about it! Nazi that coming?
But I had to finish lunch first.
Which was long enough for someone to jump into the conversation with Chinese
Oh noes! My pubic agoras are being cancelled! (Score:2)
As I was saying before I was cancelled by some fascist snowflake who lusts in his heart for some Elongated Muskrat injections...
I was going to jokingly call out some people for overacting at slightest affront to their privilege.
By referring to Gina Carano comparing herself (and others) being called out for being an "anti-masker" during a pandemic and spreading the "Big Lie" about 2020 elections [wikipedia.org] - to holocaust. [dw.com]
Imagine using Nazi propaganda technique and then calling other people Nazis when called out about i
Re:Oh hai. (Score:4, Informative)
Comparing it to China's social credit system just demonstrates you have absolutely no clue, or lack the ability to think about things.
Let's think things through then.
China's Social Credit System is centralized, and explicitly takes into account thoughtcrimes, among which political loyalty is highly important. Western equivalents, in contrast, are distributed, forming a loosely connected network of focused reputation criteria, many of which also takes into account thoughtcrimes, thought generally implicitly, not explicitly, foremost among them moral conformity.
If that sounds absurd, consider this combination of criteria: a) having a low credit score at the different private scoring companies (went against contractual norms); b) being denied having bank accounts (went against anti-sex-work social mores); c) being denied air travel (by association with a too Islamic-sounding name); d) being denied housing, and a job, and acquiring goods, and... (see "a"); e) being denied the public agora (went against privately-enforced politic-moral norms); f) having your savings commandeered (civil forfeiture for going against the social norm of using bank services, and see "b"); g) being denied several specific types of public travel and lodging (expelled from Uber, AirBnb etc. by hidden private tribunals without recourse); h) being denied payment methods other than cash (being expelled by Visa, Mastercard etc. for political reasons, and see "b" again); i) etc. etc. etc.
Sure, it's almost all by private companies. Sure, it's all "freeeedom!!!". But yeah, death by a thousand cuts or death by one cut are both death.
Act as society wants you to, citizen. Behave. Obey. Fit the algorithm. If you do, everything will be fine. If not, who's to blame other than you yourself alone? Right?