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

981–990 of 1001 posts

Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign

#981

Post by prepend »

Jochim wrote: post #911
prepend wrote: post #908

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If society has decided that your political campaign is so toxic that no one wants to do business with you, should private entities be forced to deal with you if you are not a protected class? I think this is the issue though, right. Elections represent what society wants. If 5 corporations get to decide you’re toxic and that prevents you from campaigning, what regulation will help insure this authority isn’t abused…

> I think it’s also worth noting the irony that many of the people complaining that bakers should be forced to bake a cake are supporting stripe being able to refuse service. It's only ironic if you choose to ignore the fact that one of those cases involves discrimination against a protected class and the other does not. If you don't ignore that fact then the irony is only applicable from those who were espousing the…

Actually neither involves protected classes. At the time of the case, sexual orientation wasn’t protected. Fortunately, it was added as a protected class.

But even if it was a protected class at the time of the suite, I think the opinion was that religious rights (another protected class) come into play.

For me, this seems to expose that some people aren’t arguing from first principles but kind of change their position based on a pre-conceived notion.

So just like people now bringing up that looting isn’t so bad after the capital riot/insurrection were against rioting in situations over the summer.

It seems odd to me, or at least irrational, that someone could be against rioting for BLM purposes but for rioting for conspiracy theories. Or that someone could be against a baker’s ability to not serve a gay couple, but for a hosting company not serving an asshole megaphone company.

So just as people, rightly I think, were arguing that discrimination against sexual orientation should be a protected class and thus illegal; people now are arguing that net neutrality/free speech should have regulation, change in rights.

It’s not “ironic” in either sense.

Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign

#982

Post by shadowprofile77 »

mehrdadn wrote: post #217
neltnerb wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm confused, payment processors often stop working with criminals, or even non-criminals that are just in "unseemly" industries. PayPal arbitrarily freezes people's accounts for even possibly being scams, why not obvious billion dollar ones? I have never thought they were neutral when it came to actual crimes. That's so much liability, why would anyone expect them to take it on given how risk averse they are?

> PayPal arbitrarily freezes people's accounts PayPal kept doing that so much that regulators (FTC? I forget) finally made them stop holding pseudo-cash accounts for people until/unless people specifically requested it. Laws take time to catch up. > why not obvious billion dollar ones? why would anyone expect them to take it on given how risk averse they are? Again: I'm not opining on what they should or shouldn't be…

To my knowledge, Paypal continues to randomly and often very opaquely freeze people's funds for months at a time or longer, so if you have a link to this FTC ruling, im honestly curious to see it.

Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign

#983

Post by [deleted] »

a_conservative wrote: post #943
jeltz wrote: post #896

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

I'm so sad today. I came from a very left-wing background, becoming conservative gradually over decades. I've learned to self-censor and keep my ideas to myself along the way to keep the peace, hoping the many left-wing people in my life would eventually see how intolerant they were becoming. Looks like my choices are to stuff everything I believe down deep inside and hope I can participate in society, keep a job, su…

[deleted]

Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign

#984

Post by ineedasername »

manigandham wrote: post #734
ineedasername wrote: post #580

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the government should instead step in and decide what companies can and can't do with their own services & infrastructure? That sounds a lot more fascist to me than a company saying, up front, "Here's the rules for using our service. Violate them and you can take your business elsewhere." And considering the ToS citations were I service of a potentially criminal act, fascism doesn't enter the picture: This is as m…

> " So the government should instead step in " That's called regulation. We have a lot of it. Free speech isn't absolute and free markets aren't either.

free speech isn't absolute

I think your making my point. Your freedom of speech doesn't entitle you to use it on the stage built by someone else.

Free markets aren't either

Again, that doesn't contradict me. It would take a fundamental adjustment to the legal framework surrounding either user licensing agreements or the definition of public utilities in order to say these companies aren't allowed to enforce their current ToS.

If you want to argue that laws should change, that's fine, but then we're talking about a slider between the definition & right to own private property on the one hand, and freedom of speech using 3rd party's property on the other hand. If you want to slide it more towards the later, you are taking away from the former, and vice versa. I don't know any formula for where that line should be drawn, only that in this particular example I believe the line drawn was acceptable.

Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign

#985

Post by ineedasername »

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #600
ineedasername wrote: post #580

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the government should instead step in and decide what companies can and can't do with their own services & infrastructure? That sounds a lot more fascist to me than a company saying, up front, "Here's the rules for using our service. Violate them and you can take your business elsewhere." And considering the ToS citations were I service of a potentially criminal act, fascism doesn't enter the picture: This is as m…

> 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.

If political views or personal bias were the deciding factor, Bezos wouldn't have let the National Enquirer continue using AWS after it tried to blackmail him with genital selfies.

The issue here is that the platforms were used in service of activity that was arguably illegal. These platforms' failure to enforce their rules consistently doesn't mean they shouldn't have enforced them in this case, it means they should have been doing a better job all along. If you want to pass laws regarding platforms like this and free speech, it should be regulations that encourage more consistency, not less moderation of content.

Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign

#986

Post by ineedasername »

stale2002 wrote: post #679
ineedasername wrote: post #580

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the government should instead step in and decide what companies can and can't do with their own services & infrastructure? That sounds a lot more fascist to me than a company saying, up front, "Here's the rules for using our service. Violate them and you can take your business elsewhere." And considering the ToS citations were I service of a potentially criminal act, fascism doesn't enter the picture: This is as m…

> So the government should instead step in and decide what companies can and can't do with their own services & infrastructure? They already do this in many places. The most common example would be common carrier laws. Those aren't particularly controversial. Do you believe that common carrier laws are some huge infringement on company rights or something? Do you believe that common carrier laws are "fascist"? If not…

I believe common carrier laws don't apply to these platforms. If they did, common carrier laws would still not prevent these platforms from removing users that were inciting illegal acts.

In particular though, common carrier laws tend to apply to services that have been given a special privilege to have for their own use some type of public resource or special privilege. Like broadcasting frequencies or the right-of-way granted to power companies and other utilities. That isn't the case for these platforms.

Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign

#987

Post by yurielt »

jariel wrote: post #937
yurielt wrote: post #875

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah but ten years ahorita you used to have a lot more freedom in the same platforms as you know that please don’t be dishonest

That's really not the case. These platforms haven't changed that much in terms of their policies. If you called someone the n-word or tried to coordinate murder of some public official you would be banned. Bannon was calling for Dr. Fauci to be beheaded a few days ago. That's what got him banned from Twitter. Gen. Flynn was calling for public officials to be executed. He was banned. Get it? Twitter has not really cha…

That is very much the case and the policies of facebook and twitter have changed a lot, evne google removed the "dont be evil" from their ethics. People did much worse int he early days of facebook and twitter and facebook and twitter couldnt do anything because their guidelines werent made to censor things like that, let alone to particularly target a party as they do now.

Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign

#989

Post by dang »

chillwaves wrote: post #36
sacks2k wrote: post #26

The people cheering this on will not be protected when the mob comes for you. We live in a digital age. If having the wrong opinion means you can get your bank accounts and all Internet presence removed from you, it's not any different than living under a fascist government.

Should I be worried? Probably not since I am not advocating for the violent overthrow of democracy in America.

You've been posting tons of political flamewar comments to HN, some of which have been egregious. I'm replying here because it's your most recent comment, not because it's the worst of what you've been doing on this site.

We ban accounts that use HN primarily for political battle, regardless of which politics they're battling for. We have to, because otherwise this site won't survive for its intended purpose, which is intellectual curiosity.

If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stop doing this, we'd appreciate it.

Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign

#990

Post by tessierashpool »

oceanplexian wrote: post #800
onion2k wrote: post #745

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not everyone in the mob was out for blood, but the mob as a collective group was. The mob killed a police officer. Anyone who was part of the mob is partly to blame for that. No one can take part in a group action and then claim they're not responsible for what the group has done. When people act as a group they have to accept responsibility for the group's actions.

It's starting to come out that his death was a driven by a medical condition and not actually as a result of violent attack. While the news is still fairly fresh it seems like most mainstream news organizations have been misrepresenting the facts.

no, he was bludgeoned to death with a fire extinguisher. you might be thinking of the other cop who died, the one who committed suicide afterwards. but that was probably not a pre-existing condition either. more likely it was PTSD caused by the event. and there certainly haven't been any reports indicating any pre-existing condition for him.

actually, you're probably thinking of the four rioters who died. all of their deaths were linked to pre-existing medical conditions. but you were replying to remarks about the police officer who was bludgeoned to death with a fire extinguisher. being bludgeoned to death with a fire extinguisher is not a pre-existing condition.

Post reply on HN