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

371–380 of 1001 posts

Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign

#371

Post by nobody9999 »

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #228
jsmeaton wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

This is a third time today I see this hypocritical nonsense. The definition of tolerance is willingness to accept behaviour and beliefs that are different from your own, although you might not agree with or approve of them. If you carve yourself an exemption to not accept some behaviour or beliefs, you are no longer tolerant. And you still think that you are, it's just a hypocrisy.

Being tolerant of those who believe differently absolutely does not preclude pushing back against those who are not tolerant of those who believe differently from them.

There's no hypocrisy there.

Acting against intolerance is supporting tolerance.

Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign

#372

Post by cltby »

bigcorp-slave wrote: post #297
chrissnell wrote: post #101

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.

Setting aside for a moment the multiple orders of magnitude difference in lethality per participant, the key distinction for me is this: what happened in the Capitol is about usurping the monopoly on violence possessed by the government. BLM is not about overthrowing the government, and has never posed a credible threat to it. Even if BLM overthrew the government, no one has been talking about mass executions. By con…

> Setting aside for a moment the multiple orders of magnitude difference in lethality per participant

Is this really true? I’m tempted to charge the entirety of the post-summer urban bloodbath to the BLM movement. This represents an increase of 3-4000 deaths over the prior year.

> BLM is not about overthrowing the government, and has never posed a credible threat to it. Even if BLM overthrew the government, no one has been talking about mass executions.

This is sidestepping your point somewhat, but Antifa (who figured prominently in the protests) do explicitly avow both these things.

Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign

#373

Post by renewiltord »

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.

The funny thing about the mob is that it does not remember whether you cheered it on or not.

And the funny thing when there are two mobs fighting each other is that neither will exercise restraint if the other backs down.

So the smart thing to do is to be either so powerful the mob can't touch you or to be so invisible the mobs can't see you.

There is always the Kolmogorov option.

Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign

#375

Post by doubleunplussed »

chrononaut wrote: post #286

I am curious for the people against such action by Stripe, what conditions do you think are appropriate before cutting off this kind of service to a customer? I imagine there must be some conditions that would make one say "we are enabling this individual's actions" to some definiton of "actions" that you disagree with.

Honestly? Breaking the law.

Companies providing a service should not care what it is used for. If society has a problem with what people are using services for, it should pass laws, and the companies should comply with the requirements of the law.

I don't know why we are allowing massive companies with unchecked power to make decisions about what is acceptable behaviour on social networks. Since when did they make the laws?

We have a process for this, and it is for democratically elected representatives accountable to their voters to write laws.

Just because you agree with the decisions made by these companies today doesn't mean this is the right process. They're unelected and unaccountable. It's an insult to democracy that we're allowing them to control people's behaviour, even if you agree with them.

Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign

#376

Post by zaroth »

ketamine__ wrote: post #281
SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Parler bans people that post poop pics. It just so happens that mainstream services have a higher standard. But seriously, how is mounting an insurection a slippery slope? At this point I get the feeling that a lot of people posting here are apologists for domestic terrorism and it worries me. There are violent people and they think like Timothy McVeigh. That should worry you. It should worry you even more if they ca…

> At this point I get the feeling that a lot of people posting here are apologists for domestic terrorism and it worries me.

What a great way to shut down any discussion. Anyone who doesn’t agree must be terrorist apologists?

If you read these comments and all you can see in anyone not posting full throated praises of this purge are people defending terrorists, consider taking a break from the discussion and come back when you’re ready.

Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign

#377

Post by ethbr0 »

bmarquez wrote: post #149
dataflow wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Stripe and Twitter are pretty clearly the latter. They might be the latter, but I wouldn't consider it obvious. Regarding social media, we've gotten to the point where even US Visa applications ask for social media handles (and I understand they consider it as a negative datum if you don't provide one). And we're also at the point where some companies won't provide you with respectable service unless you @ them on…

> And we're also at the point where some companies won't provide you with respectable service unless you @ them on social media. Real-world example: T-Mobile. Their Twitter and Facebook representatives (called T-Force) have better customer service (they are more empowered to help you without supervisor escalation and fix things faster) than calling 611.

I think that's essentially saying that "Customers who stand in the town square screaming 'T-Mobile sucks!'" get attention faster than ones that send private letters to T-Mobile.

It's sad, but at least we have a digital public square?

Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign

#378

Post by maxerickson »

syshum wrote: post #344
bigcorp-slave wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Setting aside for a moment the multiple orders of magnitude difference in lethality per participant, the key distinction for me is this: what happened in the Capitol is about usurping the monopoly on violence possessed by the government. BLM is not about overthrowing the government, and has never posed a credible threat to it. Even if BLM overthrew the government, no one has been talking about mass executions. By con…

That is very much in dispute, the reports [1] have been revised [2] and it appears that the officer may have had a medical issue and was not attached by anyone [1] https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-nw-capitol-po... [2] https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/us-capitol-police-a...

It's not in dispute at all, there's video of the mob beating him!

Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign

#380

Post by spijdar »

hilbertseries wrote: post #245
crx07 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On one hand it feels completely appropriate and even deserved. On the other, yes, this is unfortunately a path to a very serious totalitarian issue. Situations like this one underscore the future importance of cryptocurrencies. Without an uncensorable currency, any political adversary -- especially an incumbent -- can just coerce payment processors into blocking payments to their opponents through threats of imprison…

> Without an uncensorable currency, any political adversary -- especially an incumbent -- can just coerce payment processors into blocking payments to their opponents through threats of imprisonment or violence against a handful of executives. How is this a good faith argument. You’ve jumped a situation where somewhere is being deplatformed and banned from various services for encouraging violence. To someone will us…

I'd define fascism as a method of government which enforces some specific morality/actions/market through force. By this definition it's entirely possible for two different brands of fascism to have two opposing goals, and for one to use fascist methods on another fascist.

If your definition of fascism is specifically centered around nationalism or racism then this doesn't really work, but I don't think the word fascism implies this, only that fascism is usually associated with regimes using fascist authoritarianism to enforce racist and nationalist ideologies.

Post reply on HN