It is getting ridiculous... the companies are getting really scared, I think.
Stripe bans Trump campaign
471–480 of 1001 posts
Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign
#472I'm in favor of payment processors doing the right thing but I also want people to have ways to move money where they want. which seems like something the internet has failed to evolve, without these very very high priced middlemen. I wish banks would do something useful. they don't. seems like they won't. this guy deserves nothing but choking society by these narrow narrow deciders, these enablers of basic functions opting out... grossly imbalanced & disgusting that this is such a death knell, that events like this are catastrophic. coproations should not have such a chokehold on basic society.
Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign
#473I 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…
The irony of this is that you’re so close to being right, but you’re focusing on the wrong group.
On Wednesday an armed mob literally rushed the Capitol because people didn’t vote the way they wanted them to, with the intent to just force them. It might end up being a “self-defeating travesty”, but only time will tell.
But you seem more worried about a virtual “mob”, which frankly seems insanely out of touch at the moment. And more than a little bit insulting, given that there are actual mobs running around trying to kill members of congress.
Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign
#474Earlier quoted context omitted.
The president, the defense secretary, we'll find out once an investigation is conducted. > I doubt trump's people could have considered this a legit coup opportunity. They were minutes away from killing elected representatives.
> They were minutes away from killing elected representatives. For that to be true the people invading the capital would need to have intent to kill, weapons, and minutes access to those representatives. How many of those things are proven to be true?
All of those are true. They were there to "stop the steal" and were chanting "hang Mike Pence" and they had zip ties, pipe bombs, mace and more than likely plenty of guns. Only the elected representatives had time to evacuate, many of their staff were barricaded inside still. They had intent, weapons and access.
Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign
#475Earlier 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 as laid out in the 1st amendment protects individuals from being arrested or censored by the government for speech. It does not protect individuals who violate the TOS of a private company, nor does it provide blanket protection in all cases of speech. Inciting violence and making false statements of fact are not protected forms of speech under US law[0]
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_Unite...
Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign
#476There is a difference between bank accounts, Visa/MasterCard access and Internet service, on one hand, and App Stores, Twitter accounts and payment providers, on the other hand. The First Amendment promises both free speech and free assembly. Core to the latter is the freedom not to assemble. This freedom is regulated. You can’t refuse to do business with protected classes. But political affiliation is not a protecte…
> Then there are private persons and private businesses. Stripe and Twitter are clearly the latter. AWS and Visa feel like the former, though they are legally the latter.
Twitter and Stripe are acting in coordination - literally conspiring - with every other big tech company to take a specific action. When they do that they're acting as an illegal cartel and must be prosecuted accordingly. This is the kind of coordinated cartel behavior that banana republics and third world countries have that behave exactly like these companies are and do so out in the open (and always with the political support of the group with the most power, to target their foes). We're supposed to have anti-trust laws to deal with conspiring mega corporations.
Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign
#477Earlier quoted context omitted.
I buy this argument as the law currently stands, but this is also such a moral double standard (Colorado bakery for instance). Also, how far do we go with this reasoning? Stripe and PayPal refuse service so they're supposed to "Go build their own" (it costs billions to create a new service like stripe or PayPal that can compare). AWS shut you down? Build your own data center... (Again, costs millions or billions). Wh…
For the article in question, they are banning someone who blatantly committed criminal acts against the state. Literally an attempt by the president to overthrow the government. Treason is a crime that's enforceable with a death penalty.
For someone with such deep knowledge of the law you surely must know that a person can be considered a criminal only after being convicted by a court. So in this case the punishment was carried out based on allegations only.
Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign
#478The debate here seems like fuel for antitrust issues. A single company deciding not to do business with someone (over actions, not innate stuff like protected classes) should be fine, but when you let them get to be a backbone service, then issues surface like those discussed by everyone here. If google, for example decided to stop surfacing trump stuff in results, that could be a real issue. Not because it’s google…
To the extent that these separate companies are actually coordinating a takedown of a third party, they could run afoul of anti-racketeering / RICO statutes. Not that I would hold my breathe waiting for the Department of Justice to press charges. But private companies do not actually have the right to coordinate takedowns of other companies.
Do you have any actual evidence of coordination, or are you just making stuff up?
Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign
#479Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is AWS anything like an “utility”? There are hundreds of viable hosting options for large sites.
some previous names for cloud compute entities were "grid compute" and "utility computing". some veneer of old-school small fries still exist thank the stars but absolutely, more & more of the internet is powered by the hyperscalers. absolutely terrifying seeing the scales keep tilting heavier & heavier towards fewer & fewer options.
They are free to buy hardware and self host their website. It's not rocket science.
Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign
#480This is insane. I’m anti crypto since inception but there needs to be checks and balances. No judicial precedent or order just monopolies. If you’re pro AWS and social media banning I disagree but can understand to an extent. This is just lunacy
What's lunacy is inciting your supporters to be violent and try to overthrow democracy. Replace insurrection with child porn and see if your argument still stands.