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

431–440 of 1001 posts

Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign

#431

Post by cltby »

bigcorp-slave wrote: post #388
cltby wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ha…

Millions (the estimate I saw was 15-26 million) of people were involved in the BLM protests, which lasted many months. 25 people are known to have been killed. I don’t think it’s reasonable to assign 3-4k deaths to it. By contrast, this was a single event with a few thousand people in which 5 people died. That’s what I mean by orders of magnitude. I agree that there is a destroy-the-government black bloc present in s…

The BLM protests themselves killed 20-30 people. The murder spree that immediately followed killed thousands more. The Gun Violence Archive has the whole story, but this chart for Philadelphia is indicative[1]. Note the structural break in the series in May 2020. I contend this was ex-ante predictable and should therefore be laid at BLM’s feet.

> they’ve never had a chance or a credible threat

Agreed. But neither did the Trump rioters.

[1] http://ibgvr.org/philadelphia-shooting-victims-dashboard/

Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign

#432

Post by kayodelycaon »

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 idea is if you remove enough of their ability to communicate with the general population, their influence will be significantly reduced. It would remove the feedback loop that's feeding the fire.

It also sends a message that their behavior is unacceptable. That has a very strong influence on culture as a whole. Messages like this are how a lot of civil rights movements have worked.

Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign

#433

Post by brown9-2 »

TheAdamAndChe wrote: post #406
sdwa wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't agree with this at all and I am tired of seeing "sensible" people here explain how it's important to reach out to fascists and make them feel loved. You're only advocating further normalisation of fascism, and depriving them of the consequences of their actions—consequences that have always been a part of civil society. What's more, that you seem to be more preoccupied with not upsetting these fascists rather…

Just categorizing everyone protesting as "fascists" is ignorant. These people think the election was rigged, and they don't trust institutions. They think that our democracy is at risk, and your solution is to push them, deplatform them, and remove all hope of legal political influence? Reacting to this anxiety with force is going to cause a war if it continues.

> remove all hope of legal political influence

no one has suggested this and none of the actions of the past few days can be categorized as this

Trump’s campaign (for an election that has ended) is not the only campaign in the country

Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign

#434

Post by joshuamorton »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #356
joshuamorton wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've subtly avoided answering the question I asked. As far as I know, there was one (abandoned) police precinct burned. Was the burning of an abandoned building avocation for violence against police officers?

You've gotten a distorted version of the story. The Minneapolis Third Precinct was abandoned at the time of burning only because police could no longer defend it against the rioters who were trying to break in and hurt them.

> against the rioters who were trying to break in and hurt them.

This is, we'll go with dubious. Probably true at this point, but the protests had been going, relatively peacefully for close a day, and then less peacefully, with police having repeatedly tear gassed and fired rubber bullets at protestors who weren't doing anything violent, and didn't appear to have any violent intentions. Reports obviously differ, but many concluded that the actions of the police, in attacking the protestors, are what escalated the situation to violence. Compare from [1], and I think this "who is escalating" question becomes clear and relevant.

Which is to say that while the protest ended violently, I think you'll be hard pressed to find widespread intent that it be violent from the start.[2]

So again I'll ask: do you believe that the protesting in Minneapolis was formed with the intention of committing violence against police officers?

On the other hand, do you believe the insurrection at the capitol, which had participants openly advocating for violence for days, was formed, with the intention of committing violence against elected officials?

I find the attempt to draw a parallel between a situation where it took 3 days of getting teargassed for protestors to become violent and one where it took...a speech from the President.

[1]: https://twitter.com/LiteraryMouse/status/1347873482550468609

[2]: https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/07/us/police-response-black-live...

[3]: https://www.apmreports.org/story/2020/06/30/what-happened-at... is my source for the timeline, which appears to be a fairly evenhanded account, noting that some city council members had already proposed abandoning the precinct for more than a day before it ultimately was.

Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign

#435

Post by pmiller2 »

zaroth wrote: post #423
pmiller2 wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What else do you call it when those people arguing in support of someone who incited a mob on the Capitol?

I’d suggest the comments are actually not as much to do with Trump specifically as you seem to suspect.

Oh, I see. Are we talking about the 75 million people who supported the person who incited a mob? Members of the mob themselves? What's the difference?

Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign

#436

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #230
SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can’t refuse to do business with protected classes. But political affiliation is not a protected class. FYI, political affiliation is protected from discrimination in CA, NY, and DC. https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/can-employers-discri...

> political affiliation is protected from discrimination in CA, NY, and DC Lawful political activity is protected from workplace discrimination. That’s a far stretch from making it a general protected class, and wouldn’t prevent Stripe from refusing to work with the Trump campaign.

Ok. Seems like the same spirit of the law to me, but you are explicitly right.

Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign

#437

Post by jo032 »

nobody9999 wrote: post #412
jo032 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you are being intentionally obtuse. there is obviously a difference between a t shirt vendor and 1/2 of a duopoly on online payments. the other of which also (coincidentally in your view) took the same measures to restrict people from using their services at the exact same time with no realistic alternative

>measures to restrict people from using their services at the exact same time with no realistic alternative Why must it be through an online payment processor? My bank will send payments for me. And I can write a check and mail it to whoever I want.

good luck starting an eccommerce business where everyone has to write you a money order. oh and you can't use amazon, ebay, or shopify either

you don't really believe what you're saying do you? that's like telling blacklisted hollywood writers and actors that they can make their own plays in their backyards

Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign

#438

Post by bigcorp-slave »

cltby wrote: post #431
bigcorp-slave wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Millions (the estimate I saw was 15-26 million) of people were involved in the BLM protests, which lasted many months. 25 people are known to have been killed. I don’t think it’s reasonable to assign 3-4k deaths to it. By contrast, this was a single event with a few thousand people in which 5 people died. That’s what I mean by orders of magnitude. I agree that there is a destroy-the-government black bloc present in s…

The BLM protests themselves killed 20-30 people. The murder spree that immediately followed killed thousands more. The Gun Violence Archive has the whole story, but this chart for Philadelphia is indicative[1]. Note the structural break in the series in May 2020. I contend this was ex-ante predictable and should therefore be laid at BLM’s feet. > they’ve never had a chance or a credible threat Agreed. But neither did…

This is new information for me - thank you for providing it. What I’d like to understand next is - is there a causal link? This is a pretty unusual year in a lot of ways, including a record number of unemployed people and many people experiencing serious financial pressure. I did a little preliminary googling and it suggested that this is related to a large increase in gun sales in March and April, prior to the George Floyd incident. The other factor that I would think could be relevant is the increase in domestic violence during coronavirus restrictions, as people are trapped with their abusers.

I don’t agree the folks involved in the terrorist attack last week were not a credible threat. If they had succeeding in kidnapping and executing congresspeople, which was both possible and clearly the intent of at least some people who made it into the Capitol, things could have turned out very differently. Something like a third of Congress still thinks we shouldn’t do anything about this - the conditions are ripe for a coup; just because it failed doesn’t mean it didn’t have a chance.

Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign

#439

Post by jude- »

johndevor wrote: post #316
avianlyric wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Freedom of speech has nothing to do with newspapers or news, and never has done. It only protects you from government, nothing else. There are legitimate concerns regarding monopolistic behaviour of large digital gatekeepers. But we don’t solve that by deciding to restrict their speech (which is what forced speech would be). You solve it by either making them utilities or breaking them up to create more competition.

> Freedom of speech has nothing to do with newspapers or news, and never has done. If somebody speaks in the woods, and there's nobody there to hear it, do they make a sound? Yes, they technically have free speech, but in reality not really. The purpose of speech is that you might persuade somebody else. If there's nobody to talk to, you might as well not speak at all.

Freedom of speech does not entitle to you an audience or distribution network. It never has.

Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign

#440

Post by postalrat »

Tokkemon wrote: post #242
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…

Stop downplaying a literally terrorist attack on the nation's Capitol.

Why aren't you blaming the security at the capital? Isn't it there fault the rioters got as far as they did?
Post reply on HN