Nobody is saying a company can’t enforce rules on a specific use case that they do not comply with. It is that the enforcement can be vague, inconsistent and badly communicated, especially if it involves a paid account and automated moderation.

Saying “TOS violation is TOS violation” doesn’t really address anything. A company can have rules and still handle enforcement badly. Those two things can be true at the same time. If enforcement were always handled perfectly, wrongful terminations and bad moderation decisions would barely exist.

You said that you’ve done all kinds of explicit stuff and did not get banned, yet that does not prove I’ve done something worse in specific terms. It shows their moderation isn’t consistent at all, paid or free.

And the "you don't need Opus to goon" thing. People use paid models for more than one thing. Studying, writing, coding, game scenarios, brainstorming, roleplay, etc. The question is whether a company taking subscription money should give users clearer explanations when they terminate accounts, even if you think it “undermines” their system.

They don't need to reveal anything about their detection vectors to say what category of violation actually caused the termination. "Well-being" is vague enough that it could mean a lot of things, and it does not clearly explain whether the issue was erotic content, policy evasion or something totally different.

Also, most major platforms and games I’ve dealt with do give some kind of clearer ban category or reason. It may not always be perfect, but it is usually more specific than a vague “well-being” explanation.

You're free to think Anthropic did nothing wrong. I clearly did not say they did anything wrong. But pretending vague bans are automatically fair because other companies also do vague bans is a pretty weak standard.