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

891–900 of 1001 posts

Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign

#891

Post by jeltz »

edmundsauto wrote: post #805
Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #600

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Violate them and you can take your business elsewhere. Here, I fixed it for you: Violate them, and if you are not someone whose political views we support, you can take your business elsewhere.

As has been said elsewhere, this is not about disagreeing with someone’s political views. This is about not amplifying a voice that incites a mob to attack congress and overturn an election. And they aren’t even banning people for solely the latter! Representatives who continue to support the president have had no issues.

But when mainstream media published lies to support the Iraq War nobody was banned because to served the interests of the government. Or when Facebook was used as a platform for inciting etjinc violence in Burma. No, this is all about selective enforcement against people we do not like.

For the record I hate Trump and am a European Social Democrat.

Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign

#892

Post by eternalban »

freeone3000 wrote: post #492
eternalban wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If alternative chat, payment, etc. are prevented from being created, that is not a "free market" decision. This smells like a politically aligned cartel, with key companies enjoying de facto monopoly positions in effect legislating what is and what is not acceptable. Right now, we haven't heard from ISPs. The entire suite of services that are controlled by the monopoly FANGs can be recreated, including clouds and clo…

It will likely be pleasant for the vast majority of people, who have no objectionable views one way or the other. It might even be better, not having to deal with the constant disruption.

I don't have specific studies to point to ATM but am certain there have been [a few] that have looked at isolating specific aspects of social networks that seem to engender the imo legitimate "constant disruption" that you mention. Point being that keep in mind that simply changing interaction patterns may affect the desired goal of (say) "a civil virtual society".

"Objectionable views" is an objectionable notion for many. And "unified messaging" from monopoly information and communication corporations (owned by an astonishingly small subset of humanity) is not a legitimate source of authority for determining what is or is not "objectionable".

This is the entire point of political systems: resolving conflicts of views and providing a mechanism for harmonious, fair, and productive societies. Unless the plan is to medicate people, in which case sure, a perfectly homogenous body politic may be in your future.

Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign

#893

Post by leokennis »

nailer wrote: post #869
Griffinsauce wrote: post #830

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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? 1. "leader of the free world" is an incredibly arrogant statement. 2. He can be banned for the same reason that the rest of us can: inciting violence. I'd argue that having equal rules for everyone (or even _stricter_ ones for politici…

Trump called for a March on the Capitol building. This is a very common thing for politicians to do. This does not constitute inciting violence.

Please. The "nod nod wink wink" is extremely obvious in any Trump speech.

Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign

#894

Post by rayiner »

systemvoltage wrote: post #815
rayiner wrote: post #799

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There shouldn't be any problem with these discussions when they're posed without hate. Immigration for example should be discussed in terms of cost/benefit and immigration of talent, policies, etc., The idea that immigration is solely about “cost/benefit” and “talent, policies, etc.” is an inherently liberal, and indeed quite radically liberal framing of the issue. The International Convention on Civil and Politica…

America has embodied immigration since the Naturalization Act of 1790, albeit for white persons only. Perhaps you're mistaking a country such as Japan? America is far more liberal than what you indicate. Immigration in the US has always been a major centrist point of view since the dawn of this nation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790

The fact that the US long favored immigration under different circumstances doesn’t mean that it’s an impermissible view to oppose it right now. There was a strong period of immigration restriction starting in 1920 where the foreign born population dropped to 5% while the country became culturally much more homogenous due to mass media. The foreign born population started rising again due to the 1965 INA and is now triple what it was in 1970. Also, the country is much more interconnected today since everything was federalized starting in the 1930s. Mass immigration to the coasts—where people coming from different political cultures back home would eventually start voting here-didn’t affect folks in the rest of the country as much during the mass immigration at the turn of the 20th century.

Also, you’re again painting the issue with a liberal brush by talking about “white persons.” That’s a viewpoint rooted cultural relativism—it overlooks that immigrants don’t differ only by race, but culture, political tradition, etc. It’s also incorrect: for example under the 1921 immigration act there was no restriction at all on immigration from Latin America, while it was restricted from every European country to an annual 3% of the existing population of people from that country. (Of course there was a racist element to it as well with the 1924 Asian exclusion act. But that confirms that there are two separate issue.)

I’m not trying to convince you of this point, I’m explaining why we can’t have folks in NYC and SF deciding what political ideas can be expressed online. American liberals have increasingly fully embraced cultural relativism, while American conservatives (and most ordinary people around the world) still believe that “culture matters.” Conservatives assume that culture drives societal differences, and, especially combined with a natural pessimism, are terrified of changes in culture. They also tend to live in the vast swaths of the country that have a low foreign-born population and fairly homogenous cultures. Ironically, as an immigrant myself it’s easy for me to understand someone in Idaho who is afraid of the culture of his community changing. Bangladeshis would feel the same way. Asians, in general, are not cultural relativists.

Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign

#895

Post by loceng »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #95

There 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…

"We are re-evaluating" - I imagine for many people it's not re-evaluation but learning for the first time, people who haven't critically thought through any of this - of what freedom of speech means and its boundaries or how the relative sovereignty of private businesses is a feature, and it's not you being persecuted if they remove unwanted users; the private companies aren't preventing free speech, these people can still speak freely in America and on the internet - just not on the platforms that don't want the incitement of violence, etc. on their platform.

Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign

#896

Post by jeltz »

Noos wrote: post #853
throwawaysea wrote: post #777

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is incredible that people on HN can be against Visa/Mastercard banning payments to Wikileaks or Pornhub, against PayPal making arbitrary decisions about their customers, but somehow in support of Stripe banning Trump. All of these companies are providing utility services, and they should all be regulated as if they were public agencies. They should have to uphold the freedom of speech and other principles enshrine…

it's not incredible. It's pretty much an open double standard at this point, because political leftism is seen as the only true ideology a rational person can have. The rhetoric about conservatism is increasingly casting conservatives as vulnerable to irrational forces like fake news or algorithims that can override their will and make them believe patently absurd things. If you are conservative or lean to it, its in…

Pretty much agreed and I am probably more to the left than almost everyone here. I have seen way too often people who normally want to regulate corprotions (just like I want) suddenly become corporate fanboys in support for unregulated capitalism as soon as some big corporation shut down a voice they did not like. Personally I hate the hypocrisy and also think that the cure might end up to be worse than the disease.

The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.

Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign

#897

Post by zo1 »

systemvoltage wrote: post #816
canoebuilder wrote: post #806

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is just hate spewing, plain and straight. Hate is an emotion, it is subjective. You might feel hate when you see or hear something, but it is not an intrinsic, objective quality of other people's words. Without using these emotional trigger words, do you think the citizens of a country should be able to decide who visits them in their country?

The point wasn't per se about immigration. The point was to have a respectful, intellectual discourse in public. Pick your favorite public policy topic. My point stands, even if we're discussing soy bean pricing laws. Discussing the details of immigration is a massive topic for another day. To really drive this home: 1) Don't spread hate - there are obvious limits to this. Calling for assassination of public official…

You can't have an intelligent and non-emotional argument about certain topics in full (e.g. racism, sexuality, politics, immigration, religion), nor can you do so without certain sides invoking some "hate" aura because like it or not, there is a prevailing (and left-leaning) definition that is semi-agreed and pushed by official institutions, and you can't go against it without your argument being labelled "hate".

And no wonder the right feels persecuted, because their beliefs are not necessarily hateful yet they are labelled as such by default. It's like drawing the line somewhere arbitrary and then asking the side whose beliefs are on the other side "why can't you discuss this without resorting to hate speech", and "stop complaining because your side is hateful" and "it's okay for companies to refuse you service because your ideas are hate speech and X-ist".

Few examples of acceptable "hate-speech" that falls within that acceptable line: Anti-white Racism. ACAB. Punch-A-Nazi.

Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign

#898

Post by nemo44x »

blPanx wrote: post #845
darkwizard42 wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually I think you might have the Colorado case misrepresented here. The baker was ruled in favor due to objecting based on his religious beliefs. Part of this was that he was okay with baking a cake for the gay couple but NOT one that had certain messaging that would violate his faith. [1] If the baker had altogether refused to bake a cake for the gay couple, it would have been discrimination on a protected class.…

Indeed he offered the couple any other cake than a custom wedding cake with two men figures on top . His custom cakes are small works of art. If he'd be forced to create one against his beliefs, why not force a far left painter to paint a favorable portrait of Trump? And indeed this situation has little to do with Silicon Valley corporations offering generic services to millions of people. They are like supermarkets,…

I think that’s the issue people mix up. He isn’t refusing to do business with anyone because of who they are. He’s refusing to create certain expressions which I should think he has every right to do.

I would expect a Christian cake maker would not agree to accept my money to design a cake that worships satan for example. Likewise I wouldn’t expect a satanic cake maker to make a cake celebrating Jesus.

Would it be right to force an Islamic cake maker to make a cake featuring Muhammad’s likeness?

Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign

#899

Post by flamble »

syshum wrote: post #856
flamble wrote: post #635

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the "left" represented by the Democratic party /s. Every single thing you've listed is controlled by capital, not by the left. Tech, Hollywood/Media, Social Media, News, and payment processing. Academia is a very partial exception (google "Koch brothers university funding"). Do you think that any of the organizations that constitute these groups are run by social activists? These are overwhelmingly multinational…

>>Do you think that any of the organizations that constitute these groups are run by social activists? it is clear that they are, while they may not be owned by social activists the day to day operations are certainly controlled by social activists Take the recent effort of google employees to form a union, one not to negotiate pay or working conditions but rather to demand a litany of things around social activism i…

> while they may not be owned by social activists the day to day operations are certainly controlled by social activists

Complete fantasy. You're not citing any evidence whatsoever here so I really shouldn't be bothering, but just think this through. When you witness for example Kuerig pull their advertising from Fox News, that is not evidence of some leftist agenda in their management. It is some combination of (a) a response to customer complaints/bad press, (b) an absolute storm of free publicity resulting from the controversy and (c) customer goodwill from the majority of the population. It's exactly the kind of action of the free market conservatives are supposed to be so enamored of. If you honestly think that companies are running socially progressive ads etc. because they are run by social activists, you are (a) just as gullible as all the liberals who eat up that style of marketing and (b) not living anywhere in the vicinity of reality.

You've also cited the example of a union, an organization explicitly in conflict with management, to bolster your argument about the management of organizations being captured by social activists. Absurd.

> if you talk to many conservatives you will find there is a large contingent of people that believe that since Roger Ailes passed Fox News has also taken a left turn...

Someone who would complain about some "left turn" by Fox News is not someone with whom it's worth discussing politics.

> Further Print News media is clearly Left bias as well probably 70% / 30% left to right positioning

Nope. Almost all media is either liberal (read: neoliberal) or conservative. Left wing print media is negligible.

> I think alot of your position is based on the fact that many of these places are "not as far left" as you

My position is not based on the fact that these places are "not as far left" as me. I am not further along on some sliding scale. Yeah, I probably agree with liberals on most social issues. However, I have a qualitatively different outlook to liberals, one rooted in a fundamentally incompatible worldview.

At the end of the day, you've made it clear that the left-right divide is about culture-war issues for you. Some of the repressive apparatus of the state is going to start being directed against the fraction of reactionaries who can no longer be assimilated by the system, but it's not going to approach the level of brutality reserved for e.g. BLM in the foreseeable future. You can continue to enjoy media catering to people totally fixated on the lost cause of relegitimating retrograde social attitudes, because it doesn't pose a threat to people in power.

Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign

#900

Post by sgift »

rayiner wrote: post #809
ngcazz wrote: post #700

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Black people getting lynched and yet the violent radical is Angela Davis. Right.

I don’t even judge her for the 1970 courthouse shooting, but the New York Times is publishing flattering pieces on her even as she continues to support terrorism against Israel.

> even as she continues to support terrorism against Israel.

Which terrorism does she support? Wikipedia only says that she supports BDS.

Post reply on HN