In English law, natural justice is technical terminology for the rule against bias (nemo iudex in causa sua) and the right to a fair hearing (audi alteram partem). While the term natural justice is often retained as a general concept, it has largely been replaced and extended by the general “duty to act fairly”.
The basis for the rule against bias is the need to maintain public confidence in the legal system.
Nemo iudex in causa sua: “Noone should be a judge in their own case.” Community moderators were not. Quora Employees are.
Audi alteram partem: “Hear the other party.” Appeal is still possible, and bans do get reversed. They are however post-facto.
Quora does not have a business motivation to care about being seen to be equitable (as Michael Masiello’s answer to What do you hate about Quora as of March 2017? memorably put it). Users are fungible, and they can continue to put ads up against your content whether you are banned or not, until such time as you delete it:
- Why does Quora not care when users leave? Because content written by the Ian York’s of the world will be generating revenue forever. (Scott Welch’s answer to When do you think Quora is going to end?)
The question however, does not ask whether it is allowed; it asks whether it should be allowed.
From Quora’s perspective, as most here have argued, no: costs too much, little benefit to the company, and if you don’t like it, there’s plenty more users where you came from.
From the users’ perspective? A significant number of users are disgruntled, because they can’t see the justice—even if most of the time moderation is right. (Caesar’s Wife has not only to be above reproach, but to be seen to be above reproach.) A significant number of users are quite happy with how things are. The debates continue to play out here.
But boycotts aren’t going to achieve anything. The brouhaha about sexism on Quora publicised online in 2014 came and went. As the subtitle to The Insurgency says, Quora is a Wall.
Nevertheless, until such time as I hear differently from Quora, I am posting banees’ statements on Necrologue. Yes, the banees’ statements are only one side of the story, and as Quora moderators have said publicly, banees can distort the truth. And the moderators are constrained by their own policies not to refute such statements. (They also have deleted at least some banees’ profile bios.)
You should read the banee statements in that light: critically. But given the summary justice applied, I think I’m doing the right thing by giving banees a voice. Not because Quora needs to care about Natural Justice. But because I do.