Stripe bans Trump campaign

More generally Stripe knows which users have contributed to the campaign, bought merch etc. Even beyond the card used as they also fingerprint the browser[1]. Will those users be blocked by Stripe Radar across all sites now? After all they "contributed to domestic terrorism"

Probably not, but what a great marketing on ramp for 75M people to crypto!

[1] https://mtlynch.io/stripe-recording-its-customers/

I haven't seen any "proper" news channels touching founding/funding subject.

But I get the sense people are talking past each other to a degree because there are levels to this.

It goes beyond trying to figure out what the hell happened at the capitol and figuring out how best to prevent it in the future, while maintaining a healthy non-repressive society.

One issue is that these private businesses have become something close to, if not de facto public utilities/infrastructure.

If you ask around you can learn that this "private business overreach" of "big brother" drawing the bounds of "permissible free speech" has actually been going on for some time.

The "private business overreach" part of the story is getting more attention because it has been directed at the most visible person on the planet. Or, was the most visible until Twitter et al, performed "private business overreach" reducing his visibility considerably and simultaneously getting people's attention and raising questions about the nature of power, communication, etc. in the current age.

Another issue is that the "rules" for who and what gets booted and censored from these realms by an always shifting, opaque, and selectively enforced set of rules is to a statistically significant degree clearly bunched in certain areas of the ideological matrix. Are the actors in these areas of the matrix just more prone to breaking the rules or are "the rules" whatever they are today, selectively and over-zealously enforced in order to repress certain ideas and perspectives?

Is there some objective standard against high level US politicians doing things that could be interpreted as inciting, instigating, or glorifying violence?

How about Kamala Harriss posting a bail fund for violent rioters and criminals this past summer, wouldn't that fall squarely over the line of inciting, or instigating, or glorifying violence?

Curiously, crickets around that one...

> just tells me that things really went too far and should have been shut down much sooner.

So is this advocating for enforcement of "pre-crime?" We should keep an eye out for people saying things we don't like then repress their ability to act in the digital age, to prevent them from committing a future crime we have projected onto them?

> The fact that all these institutions just allowed this horrible hateful speech for four years, in the name of free speech etc, despite all the harassment, harm (mental and otherwise) it caused to so many people in America actually emboldened so many to the extent that now that they crossed this invisible line, they can't even really understand the ramifications of what happened. That what gets me.

Hate is an emotion, emotions are subjective. There is no clear objective measure of what is "hateful speech." "Speech" is a noun, an objective thing. Free speech, as in, as little restrictions on speech as are feasible was a great insight by America's founding fathers as to what would contribute to a healthy, dynamic, non-repressive society. Turns out they were right about a lot of things.

Americans today have to be adults and understand that content of speech and someone's actions are different things. The speech of someone like Trump is actually much closer to being an action. But you can't just start repressing speech no matter how "hateful" unfortunately. How about contributing with Love wherever you see hate?

> a few feet away from irreversibly staining American history

Sometimes I think back to another time in the recent past when there was an even more clear and present danger to members of the highest level of the federal govt. I think back in a shocked disbelief of "Holy cow... what if some large fraction of the Congress was murdered in one day?"

Does anybody even remember that?! It was just a couple years ago, multiple shots were fired at Congressmen at a baseball game. It's shocking to think what could have been then.

But it just seems to have dropped off the radar. I wonder why there wasn't a crackdown then on speech about things like Rachel Maddow/NYT/Media Establishment type conspiracies, or even any interest in a public airing of the attacker's motivations.

    > what is the evidence for this?
    >
    > ...this is a not a mob out for literal blood.

There's video of a large crowd of the rioters chanting "hang Mike Pence!" They erected a gallows with a noose outside the Capitol. There's video of people yelling that they came to get Pence and Pelosi. Squads of milita wore tactical armor and helmets, and carried not just assault rifles and handguns, but also flexcuffs. You don't get that stuff in the spur of the moment. They came prepared. Other rioters were carrying lead pipes and wooden rods. There was even one rioter caught on video carrying a literal pitchfork.

They beat one police officer to death with a fire extinguisher and injured more than 50 others. That is clearly a mob out for blood.

As for more evidence, for months in advance, Trump supporters filled Parler, Gab, Twitter, Reddit, TikTok, Facebook, and many other social media outlets with detailed detailed discussions of plans to commit violence and in many cases murder at this event. NYPD and the FBI received a ton of reports from concerned citizens who saw this social media chatter. The insurrectionists talked about what weapons to bring, which politicians to target in order of priority, and so much more. It was reported that they had maps with them of the tunnels under the Capitol building so that they could cut off escape routes.

Freshman lawmaker Lauren Boebert tweeted Speaker Pelosi's whereabouts multiple times during the riot. She did not tweet anything which indicated any degree of surprise that the riot was occurring.

Jim Clyburn has two offices in the Capitol, one right next to the front doors and one way up on the third floor. It was reported that the rioters ignored Clyburn's obvious office next to the doors and instead made a beeline for the more secluded office on the third floor.