Stripe bans Trump campaign

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 1:17 AM UTC

camhart wrote: post #199

Trasmatta wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But these moves come across not as anti-extreme-right, but anti-conservative. No, they're anti-"storm the nation's seat of government with an angry mob intent on killing members of Congress and / or the Vice President, as a last ditch effort to overturn a democratic election"

Yes some were violent. Yes those who were violent should be arrested, investigated, etc. But I'd argue half the country doesn't agree that the mobs intent was on killing members of congress. And that's the issue. You view it from that perspective, and from that perspective it makes sense to ban everything. But half the country (likely) doesn't agree with that perspective. I remember seeing bloody heads of Trump on tw…

Post by cltby » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 1:17 AM UTC

betterunix2 wrote: post #231

cblconfederate wrote: post #136

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…

Sorry, are you talking about the action by Stripe, or the action of the terrorists on Wednesday? See, it is hard to know, because on Wednesday Trump held a campaign rally where he told a crowd of armed terrorists to go to the Capitol and "save" the country from "weak" Republicans who were going to vote to certify the results of the election Trump lost. Nobody is coordinating these various bans. The fact is that the T…

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 1:18 AM UTC

gameswithgo wrote: post #232

cblconfederate wrote: post #136

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…

people did vote they way they wanted

Post by eejit_compiler » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 1:18 AM UTC

syshum wrote: post #304

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.

First they banned those they deemed to have wrong think from Social Media, crying Build your own Social media, it is a private company... So they did, but the totalitarians were not satisfied, so then they banned them from app stores users used to connect and find the new service... crying Build your own service it is a private company So they did, but the totalitarian were not satisfied so they banned them from the…

Post by rglover » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 1:19 AM UTC

brown9-2 wrote: post #320

rglover wrote: post #259

Maybe I'm being naive but it seems like a larger problem is being ignored here that I feel I should call attention to. This is going to piss people off and some of those people are going to be real, nothing-to-lose extremists. Actions like these though seemingly harmless in the short-term are going to radicalize the exact person/type of people that you do not want to radicalize. Because a lot of high-ranking SV folks…

The problem is those people are already radicalized, and if you give them what they want out of fear, then they’ve already won