Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Stripe bans Trump campaign

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 1001 posts

Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign

#101

Post by chrissnell »

bigcorp-slave wrote: post #52
sacks2k wrote: post #26

The people cheering this on will not be protected when the mob comes for you. We live in a digital age. If having the wrong opinion means you can get your bank accounts and all Internet presence removed from you, it's not any different than living under a fascist government.

I don’t know if you were paying attention last week, but the mob literally came for the members of Congress. There are wrong opinions, and then there is “six million Jews were not enough” and “hang the Vice President”, and a violent mob attacking the Capitol. No one is under any obligation to tolerate such actions in a civil society. If I advocate for your murder, am I just expressing an opinion that should be conseq…

The mob has been coming for law enforcement and federal buildings in many major cities in America for nine months now. This mob actively organized on Twitter and other social media. Where was the outrage in June? Most of the organizations that organized this destruction still have their Twitter accounts.

Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign

#102

Post by vecter »

cpursley wrote: post #77
chillwaves wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should I be worried? Probably not since I am not advocating for the violent overthrow of democracy in America.

[flagged]

First they came for the violent insurrectionists attempting a coup in the nation's capital to prevent the peaceful transition of power, and I was glad that they did.

The end.

Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign

#103

Post by abernard1 »

alphabettsy wrote: post #71
abernard1 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I’m fairly certain that attempting to overthrow the government to get your desired election result is fascism. I can't believe I'm actually going to go to this topic, but your argument has been made before with the Reichstag Fire [1]. Using threats of violence as a pretext for assuming more government control is a tactic as old as governments. > The Nazi Party used the fire as a pretext to claim that communists wer…

I’m well aware. Can you point to the government control please. Private companies using their liberty to deny service to the leader of the United States government seems like freedom to me.

Fine, this particular action is not government control.

But the argument that taking away power from people because they're "fascists" isn't like fascism is not a strong one. These people are supposedly an existential threat to the fabric of America, and there absolutely is not a single group that hasn't simultaneously deplatformed them.

It suggests a question around who really holds the power here.

Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign

#104

Post by amelius »

awat wrote: post #64

Not to be reductionist but I don’t see this as a totalitarian issue. This is a free market decision. $Company decides to sever ties with another organization. That choice can be good, bad, reactive, overreactive, misguided, etc but it’s still a market participant choice. Market remains open for other market participants to make other choices.

That's a small market, getting even smaller ...

Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign

#105

Post by arsome »

eganist wrote: post #62
dantheman wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

wikileaks was mainly attacked through denial of access to the financial system. Would you be ok with Stripe stopping payment to the GOP?

> Would you be ok with Stripe stopping payment to the GOP? Has the GOP, specifically the GOP, advocated for the violent overthrow of the United States Government?

Has Trump? Did I miss something here? I find it difficult to say he's done anything of the sort directly. I read the comments Twitter used to justify his ban the other day and none of it seemed to directly be calling for any sort of violence, let alone overthrow.

EDIT: Is HN so far left-leaning that I get flagged in under 5 minutes for asking this? Sorry, I'm not American, it's possible I missed something here.

Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign

#106

Post by shadowgovt »

chrissnell wrote: post #82
sacks2k wrote: post #26

The people cheering this on will not be protected when the mob comes for you. We live in a digital age. If having the wrong opinion means you can get your bank accounts and all Internet presence removed from you, it's not any different than living under a fascist government.

There was a time when the tech community fought ferociously against corporations and government attempts to censor and silence ideas. In its early years, Slashdot was ardently libertarian, as were most of the engineers I worked with. Can you imagine 1997 Slashdot’s reaction to something like Apple removing Parler from the App Store? There would be protests, DDoSes, editorials from thought leaders, and more. I feel ve…

The models that worked in the '80s and '90s proved ineffective as the number of people online continued towards 100%.

The early denizens of the 'net were very homogeneous relative to today.

Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign

#107

Post by nobody9999 »

leereeves wrote: post #25
nobody9999 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your point is well taken. However, forcing people or organizations (which are groups of people) to host or support speech/activities they do not wish to support restricts the rights of those people/organizations. If you can force them to give up their rights, others can force you to give up your rights. I can't support that at all. What's more, the idea that there's some sort of conspiracy/cabal that spans every corp…

My objection to that argument is that the companies claim that the content on the website isn't their speech when invoking Section 230, then claim that it is their speech in order to invoke the First Amendment. Section 230 says: > No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. So how can a company…

Section 230 is irrelevant to the discussion in this case[1].

Section 230 refers to the ability of one party to sue over the speech of a third party. That's not in play here at all.

Rather, this is about freedom of association.

Stripe can associate (do business, in this case) with whom it chooses (with some restrictions[2], but this isn't one of them), and that freedom of association is protected by the constitution[0].

[0] https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1_2_13_1/

[1] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group

Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign

#108

Post by TheGrim-999 »

awat wrote: post #64

Not to be reductionist but I don’t see this as a totalitarian issue. This is a free market decision. $Company decides to sever ties with another organization. That choice can be good, bad, reactive, overreactive, misguided, etc but it’s still a market participant choice. Market remains open for other market participants to make other choices.

It's so interesting when people cheer on censorship because, don't worry, they've been convinced that it's good censorship. Still doesn't change what it is though.

I'm sure anybody that's been censored, dehumanized, and removed from society by an evil regime has been comforted by the fact that the people doing it think it's fine to do it, or because the people doing it are doing it legally. Those facts don't make it right ...

Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign

#109

Post by Damorian »

rahidz wrote: post #88
Damorian wrote: post #34

Relevant: http://stonetoss.com/comic/build-big/

StoneToss is a Nazi. Not in the "Anyone I disagree with is a Nazi" sense, but like an actual "Jews control the world, white males are superior" sense.

Not sure what this has to do with that comic, but ok.

Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign

#110

Post by afuchs »

sacks2k wrote: post #26

The people cheering this on will not be protected when the mob comes for you. We live in a digital age. If having the wrong opinion means you can get your bank accounts and all Internet presence removed from you, it's not any different than living under a fascist government.

This sounds like a slippery slope argument[1], which can be genuine but also controversial when generalized.

Can we talk about individual instance, like those specific to the current situation with Trump or other situations, like "Operation Choke Point," separately or should something like this be only considered with generic rules that do not consider the nuisance and details of any specific circumstance?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

Post reply on HN