151–160 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not about which political party they support. Literally no one is being banned from stripe just for voting republican.
This takes it a step closer, and certainly invokes that fear.
Isn't this overreach? Financial organisation making conditions on which political party you can support.
This isn't new, Visa and Mastercard will block payments when it's politically expedient (see: pornhub, Kyle Rittenhouse legal funds).
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.
You should probably look up what the hallmarks of fascism are sometime. It might surprise you.
I agree with your sentiment, and I was there on slashdot in those times. Even though I have nothing for or against the political events happening in the USA. I fear that all these companies are using what happened as a pretext to stop giving service to people with different ideas.
Twitter censoring trump is OK. Reddit censoring some channels is OK. But blocking a chat app from apple/google store? AWS? Stripe? This is exactly what a lot of us fought for ed2k, BitTorrent DeCSS and other technologies: the technology is not bad. And even if we dont like the content, we should allow people with different ideas to talk a out it.
Sure, some of the people at the capitol committed a crime. But it's the same as if companies have banned cryptography because of DeCSS.
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.
Other people have pointed out that Trump and much of the GOP just launched a coup, so I'll leave that aside. Of course it's different from living under a fascist government. A totalitarian government would send you to a prison camp or kill you for saying the wrong thing. The Stasi would systematically and invisibly ruin all your relationships and your career. People who are banned from Twitter can go to another websi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you are missing the point of my question. I’m pointing out that not all opinions should be protected equally. Opinions of hate or violence are bad for society. I don’t understand why the suppression of those things is considered totalitarian? Especially when it comes from private enterprise.
Because if you block 'bad' opinions, you'll need to arbiter them to distinguish bad ones from good. This process is corruptible and eventually you'll find that opposing a current government is 'bad' (this happened in my country in a short span of 15 years). So it turns out that allowing all speech, even 'bad' is less harmful for society in the long run than trying to suppress some speech.
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.
Spare us your outrage. A literal mob just overran the Capitol. Attempting to talk about “the mob” in opposition to the actual mobs that are continuing to take over Capitol buildings is frankly so tone deaf it’s almost insulting to our intelligence.
"Give me liberty or give me death"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> The mob has been coming for law enforcement and federal buildings in many major cities in America for nine months now They're "coming for" police reform and transparency. Please don't misrepresent or generalise very disparate groups of demonstrators.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a big difference in wrong opinion and inciting violence. This isn't the government doing this. This is private companies taking action against the spread hate and lies. These are companies I want to do business with.
Where do you draw a line? These days in a snowflake culture any opinion can cause outrage and violence. It's just a matter of interpretation and who reads the message. Should companies be allowed to restrict your freedom to information? It's quite patronising.
I m sorry but all this concerted action feels (from afar) a lot like "if people don't vote the way we want, we re just gonna have to force them". It's not about overreach, but companies are not political entities, and reversing this relationship is a self-defeating travesty And if they are doing it for cheap popularity points -- well trump may be gone in a week, but his voters won't leave. this just reinforces mistru…
This level of coordinated action shouldn’t be possible in a healthy, diverse, competitive environment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
This “both sides” nonsense can get in the bin. Point to the leader of a political party that instigated the attack you speak of.
> "If you see anybody from that (Trump) Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them, and you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere."
https://www.npr.org/2018/06/25/623206039/congressional-leade...
It’s pretty hard to argue she doesn’t mean to remove them by force.