Stripe bans Trump campaign • Hacker News Board

Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign

#641

Post by beltex » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 5:42 AM UTC

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

— George Orwell, Animal Farm

I understand the moves by Stripe, Twitter, and co. However, I would argue that the long term implications set by this precedent are much worse. When the Snowden story first broke back in 2013, many on HN argued that, hey it's all good, I have nothing to hide, and I trust our President. Three short years later, who took the office? Would you have every imagined that? The same goes for this. Think five minutes into the future if you will.

If the leader of the free world can be banned from all social media and co, who are based in the very same nation, and who are monopolies, then what hope is there for the rest of us?

Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign

#642

Post by f430 » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 5:42 AM UTC

I feel like a lot of tech companies are walking into a trap. They are doing this to win favors from Harris-Biden administration but regulations are going to happen regardless.

In fact, the USGOV can now point to these very actions as evidence to push for tech regulation. It's very similar to how during Vietnam War, many on the South Vietnam side switched sides to fight their own.

When the smoke cleared, the first people to go were those who switched sides to help the communists come into power. Reason: once a traitor, always a traitor.

Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign

#643

Post by Acrobatic_Road » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 5:44 AM UTC

cocktailpeanuts wrote: post #629

Acrobatic_Road wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah, you got to be clever. Tell Coinbase your CryptoKitty "sold" to an anonymous buyer for $10M. https://thenextweb.com/hardfork/2018/09/05/most-expensive-cr...

These things don't work anymore. They recently passed a law that says all exchanges must report everything that flows through them, and that's just the beginning. If you think those cute stories like selling virtual cats to an anon will work in the future, you're being naive. The government has made it clear what their intent is. They will be regulating crypto circulation through on/off ramps, and every user of those…

if there's a will there's a way. Just look at projects like bisq and fiatdex. Not to mention the pretty obvious solution of just using crypto as money.

Also, things like I mentioned definitely still work.

Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign

#644

Post by wolco5 » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 5:44 AM UTC

Maybe I'm looking at things differently.

Doesn't this push Trump to accept bitcoin. Wouldn't bitcoin get a big boost making him richer as the donations increased?

By doing this now highlight how much Stripe profitted when the going was good. But it also signals when the going isn't good they will not stick with you.

Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign

#645

Post by cmurf » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 5:44 AM UTC

lsiebert wrote: post #608

TearsInTheRain wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Convincing people who don't understand very well their rights, democracy, civics, and etc that their RIGHTS were being infringed; by others exercising their rights. I dont think we need to infantilize Trump supporters. They are capable of evaluating claims made by the GOP.

And yet they believe outright lies, lies repeated by GOP leaders, journalists etc, who at the same time denigrated the main stream media and scientists, eroding trust in neutral institutions. Evaluations are hard to make when all the sources you trust are lying to you.

In 1861 the Senate expelled 10 senators for being involved in a conspiracy against the United States. And 7 years later, the 14th amendment was passed.

The lies for profit charlatans basically get away with it. But I do not think members of Congress should. Every single one of those who voted on false pretenses to overturn an election last week, should be expelled. That is the fraud that has happened in this election.

Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign

#646

Post by themgt » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 5:45 AM UTC

systemvoltage wrote: post #514

plaidfuji wrote: post #505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think their hesitation was less from missing out on the trump supporter ad traffic and more from fear of retribution of the trump administration and its congressional allies. That faction has now all but lost their political power for the foreseeable future, making it much less risky to undertake the censorship measures. Remember, two things happened at once: the riots, but also the result of the Georgia runoff whi…

You're right, all very good points that contrast my cynicism. I am even more worried that if an authoritarian government takes hold of power, corporations would go into survival mode. Look at AliBaba/Jack-Ma situation in extreme case, not sure if that's a fair example.

Look at how the same corporations are operating in China today, as the CCP runs an authoritarian and arguably fascist (in the original sense, regardless of the commie branding) dictatorship. Are any of them denouncing Chairman Xi or taking a stand against the CCP's brutal crackdowns and internment camps bordering on ethnic cleansing? How many of them would still put Taiwan on a map?

But I'm sure they have your best interests at heart.

Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign

#647

Post by khawkins » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 5:45 AM UTC

refurb wrote: post #263

Tokkemon wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It's entertaining how the left was so critical of the use of the word "terrorist" when talking about the War on Terror, but then immediately started throwing it around when it politically expedient.

I guess the chickens really did come home to roost.

Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign

#648

Post by johndevor » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 5:45 AM UTC

yibg wrote: post #554

johndevor wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

You don't have an inherent right to a megaphone. Freedom of speech means you don't get in trouble from the government for saying things, not that you have the right to broadcast your message.

If you can't broadcast, what good is your message?

Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign

#649

Post by hackmiester » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 5:45 AM UTC

kuzimoto wrote: post #170

DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #120

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 They're "coming for" police reform and transparency. Please don't misrepresent or generalise very disparate groups of demonstrators.

So the ends justify the means? Only certain ideas are allowed for mobs to be okay?

That is correct. It is okay to rally against police brutality; it is not okay to hold a Nazi rally.

Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign

#650

Post by athriren » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 5:45 AM UTC

kelnos wrote: post #584

awb wrote: post #562

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Bernie sanders brags about occupying government buildings. Would he be held to the same standard? OAC praised BLM protesters marching on the White House a few months ago, with Antifa trying to breach police lines and storm the White House. This is "what about"-ism. It deflects responsibility and puts the focus on other's behavior. In this philosophy for one side to accept that what they did was bad, it requires eve…

> Occupying a building is a form of civil disobedience, which in the US is a respected form of protest. Assuming the owners of said building do not want you there, occupying a building is at best trespassing and at worst breaking and entering. Civil disobedience is explicitly breaking a law because you believe it to be unjust, with the full expectation that you will be arrested and possibly punished for your actions.…

i mean aoc’s referenced sit in was in a federal building open to the public, it’s just being passively noncompliant in a public space. like i’m sitting on the floor in the office and it’s sort of obnoxious but i certainly did not break a law getting here. okay, so now someone asks me to leave and i say no, i am making thus and such a point. then the police come and take me away, typically without incident.

i imagine the person relating this kind of action, practiced en masse since the 60s across civil rights, nuclear nonproliferation, environmental, LGBT movements with storming barricades, dragging police from windows and beating them to death, and literally threatening the seat of government did not actually intend to conflate the two sorts of events.