161–170 of 203 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I strongly believe that it's not.
If PayPal bans Gab because they dislike the speech available on Gab, it is literally an attack on Free Speech. I understand you feel differently.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
suggesting the website itself condones violence or sympathizes with neo-Nazis isn't accurate. It's pretty accurate. They sound like Nazis. Take a look at https://twitter.com/ClenchedFisk/status/1027690034718224384 https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1056332670513233920 https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1056266704148262912
Ok, I didn't see these. You're right. Whoever controls that Twitter account is definitely very alt-right and possibly sympathizes with Nazis. I take back what I said.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
suggesting the website itself condones violence or sympathizes with neo-Nazis isn't accurate. It's pretty accurate. They sound like Nazis. Take a look at https://twitter.com/ClenchedFisk/status/1027690034718224384 https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1056332670513233920 https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1056266704148262912
Ok, I didn't see these. You're right. Whoever controls that Twitter account is definitely very alt-right and possibly sympathizes with Nazis. I take back what I said.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok, I didn't see these. You're right. Whoever controls that Twitter account is definitely very alt-right and possibly sympathizes with Nazis. I take back what I said.
Gab controls Gab's Twitter account. Twitter even gave them a blue checkmark! This isn't a recent thing; there are examples going back for awhile.
Breaking: Gab Upset by the same treatment they promise in their legal terms: "Termination We may terminate your access to and use of the Services, at our sole discretion, at any time and without notice to you." [1] 1- https://gab.com/about/tos
Most companies have something in their ToS to the effect of "we can do whatever we want" -- that doesn't mean they're all the same. For example, Stripe and PayPal both have essentially the same ToS. But only PayPal has so many "banned for no reason" horror stories that there are multiple websites dedicated to cataloging them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Twitter doesn't use PayPal to process payments, does it?
I assume not, but I figure someone does payment processing for them that an upset crowd could apply pressure to? I guess I was generally curious if people thought there'd be any sort of similar repercussion(s) toward Twitter though. I finally got off Twitter a couple months ago and can still imagine a likely "outrage bubble" yesterday about their handling of that account, but with little actual impactful change in us…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is literally true. Paypal is choosing not to do business with someone. Is your preference that companies must be forced to conduct business with all comers?
FFS the government has already forced people to do business with those they don't like. You do remember the raison etre of the Civil Rights Act don't you? I'm pretty sure companies in the 1960s South didn't want to serve black Americans. In fact, many want the Government to go further and force bakers to make cakes for gay weddings when the owners don't support gay marriage [1] [1] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Picture of cat, picture of eagle, JEWS ARE DESTROYING AMERICA, picture of cat, picture of dog, THE BOMBER IS A FALSE FLAG, picture of dog, LOOK AT THIS HORDE OF MUSLIMS COMING TO DESTROY US, picture of house
It is much saner looking today (not that it looks sane); again, posting traffic on Gab pages seems to have plummeted. A year or two ago, the whole front page was racist and anti-Semitic memes. Oh, and of course, picture of cat, picture of eagle, picture of house.
It's also possible that they cleaned up the "popular" section specifically after the events.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Payment processors are government licensed oligopolies and if private processors can deny service for no reason, then the goverment should set up its own with a universal service obligation. If making and receiving payments is considered a necessary utility posting and handling large amounts of cash is restricted, then providers should not have a right to deny service to customers who are not taking payments in viola…
This is exactly the fight you should be having -- the government should be a universal payment processor. I agree wholeheartedly. I am arguing again the people who state that a corporation should be obligated to serve a non-protected class. if private processors can deny service for no reason Ah yes, the "no reason" of being violence-inciting Nazis. What a reasonless judgement.
Do you see a reason stated in the termination notice?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Payment processors are government licensed oligopolies and if private processors can deny service for no reason, then the goverment should set up its own with a universal service obligation. If making and receiving payments is considered a necessary utility posting and handling large amounts of cash is restricted, then providers should not have a right to deny service to customers who are not taking payments in viola…
This is exactly the fight you should be having -- the government should be a universal payment processor. I agree wholeheartedly. I am arguing again the people who state that a corporation should be obligated to serve a non-protected class. if private processors can deny service for no reason Ah yes, the "no reason" of being violence-inciting Nazis. What a reasonless judgement.