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

991–1000 of 1001 posts

Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign

#991

Post by nobody9999 »

grej wrote: post #885
nobody9999 wrote: post #563

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What happens if the party in power next decides to attack religious organizations who congregate during that pandemic with the same type of concerted de-platforming? I didn't realize that Stripe's actions were due to a government order. Probably because they weren't. You're conflating a private organization's decisions with government action. If the government were to attempt do as you suggest, the courts would slap…

But when the limited collection of players in the system all act in concert to prevent access to opponents of their preferred political party, isn’t the effect nearly the same? Arguably worse, because there’s no legal recourse. I think that’s the point being made here. Imagine all the airlines were run by Republicans, and they universally prevented anyone who works for Democratic leaning organizations (Eg ActBlue) fr…

>But when the limited collection of players in the system all act in concert to prevent access to opponents of their preferred political party, isn’t the effect nearly the same? Arguably worse, because there’s no legal recourse. I think that’s the point being made here.

What evidence can you provide to support your claim that various corporations are colluding to block folks?

What evidence can you provide that said corporations have a "preferred political party?"

You have no such evidence. What's more, whether or not the nebulous set of entities to which you refer (let's have specific names and specific actions).

I'd further say that "cloud" (read: someone else's servers) services, a few large social networking sites and a small subset of payment processors (I'm guessing that this is the set of corporations to which you were referring since you don't bother to be specific) do not constitute an "oligopoly."

I'd further add that there are hundreds of hosting and co-location providers, dozens of payment processors and a variety of mechanisms to share data, information and messaging.

I find your diatribe to be sorely lacking in evidence, reasoned argument and factual information.

Finally, your analogy concerning airlines is deeply flawed, as that isn't even close to what's going on.

Please provide some evidence for your claims.

Otherwise, I can only conclude that you are arguing in bad faith.

Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign

#992

Post by randompwd »

tptacek wrote: post #967
rayiner wrote: post #606

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What counts as “horrible hateful speech?” The media has been publishing articles recently with outright racist slurs against white people (using phrases like “unbearable whiteness”). Is that hateful speech? (I think so but then again I’m an elder Millennial.) And does the fact that it’s the President saying something warrant giving him more or less latitude? The right and moral thing to do was to give the duly electe…

I'm surprised you keep bringing this up, because you know the counterargument here. "Whiteness" is in fact a problematic term. Italians, Jewish people, and the Irish have all been excluded from "whiteness" at times. The term expands as needed to provide solidarity against Black people. "Black", on the other hand, is an actual ethnicity --- the one we created when we kidnapped millions of people in Africa and stripped…

I agree with your comment for the most part. But this line is pretty misleading:

> the one we created when we kidnapped millions of people in Africa and stripped them of their original culture

Nobody was kidnapped. Individuals were bought from already-existing African slave trade markets(markets which had been run by and for Africans (and Arabs), preceding any European commercial relationship.)

Although you may have used the term kidnapping liberally (& with some artistic license), it is fundamentally not true & very misleading.

In Africa, buying and selling slaves was widespread at the time.

I think the treatment of African slaves(& their descendants) in America is bad enough without having to exaggerate the origin.

Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign

#993

Post by manigandham »

ineedasername wrote: post #984
manigandham wrote: post #734

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> " 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 cur…

Of course we're talking about what should happen; that's even the word you used in your first post.

Public utilities and antitrust are not new concepts, nor is this really a private property issue. It's about power and control over our private lives (which should come first before corporations). The internet has changed everything in less than 2 decades and laws from a century ago are no longer sufficient.

When governments start asking for social media accounts at border crossings, and Twitter claims to be a public square, and even it's CEO says that social media is a human right; we need to address the new digital equivalence of our existing protections.

Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign

#994

Post by baumandm »

kangaroozach wrote: post #749
vladTheInhaler wrote: post #681

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing about voter ID is that it isn't inherently a bad idea, as long as you make it really cheap (ideally free) and convenient to get one . If republicans were actually interested in election integrity and civic participation, they wouldn't keep accidentally forgetting that part. But they're not, so in practice it ends up acting as a tool for discrimination and disenfranchisement.

If Democrats agreed to a universal free voterID for all US citizens that people can get at any post office, the Republicans would 100% go for it. All they truly want is a fair and trusted election. Any claim against this is based purely in conjecture and could easily be proven by simply pushing for some form of voter ID that is not discriminatory. It’s the Democrats that say an ID to vote is racist, while saying an I…

Many more eloquent words have been written on this topic if you want more depth, but here's are some quick highlights:

- Voting is a right, driving/flying/etc are not. Getting a driver's license is more about certifying your ability to drive than your identity.

- Signature requirements are tricky because they are very subjective. You're counting on the unbiased assessment of thousands of volunteers to determine if signatures match. That doesn't make it racist, but it's easy to imagine a poll worker intentionally or unintentionally disenfranchising valid voters. So the key question is, does it actually reduce voter fraud by more than the false negative rate?

Everywhere I've lived, the voter rolls and the voting process are designed in such a way that adding a free voter ID to the process would change very little. It's already very difficult to orchestrate fraud without detection.

The ACLU put out a fact sheet with some more details on voter ID: https://www.aclu.org/other/oppose-voter-id-legislation-fact-...

Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign

#995

Post by totony »

Arkhaine_kupo wrote: post #824
mopsi wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Attempts to turn this into a debate about political censorship are not being made in good faith But it is political. This summer saw widespread political violence, including attacks on government institutions, not to mention billions in property damage, but the mainstream reaction to that was "Show me where it says protests are supposed to be polite and peaceful"[1] with massive support for the riots from Silicon V…

It is funny that you quoted that the arguments are not being made in good faith and then proceeded to make a bad faith argument. Lets go through some quick fire bullet points, 93% of the summer protests where peaceful, most of the damage was on insured property with no loss of life, the cause of the riots was the unashamed and unlawful treatment of minorities in America. It was a grassroots movement. Now lets compare…

>no loss of life

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_and_controversies_dur...

>most of the damage was on insured property

Government property is insured by taxpayers

>93% of the summer protests where peaceful

I'm not sure how to confirm/disprove that statement. I'd posit that most protestors at the capitol were peaceful, but I'm not sure how to confirm/deny that either.

>mob had gallows and chanted to kill the vice president

Where I live "ACAB" is a trendy chant used to devil-ify police

EDIT: Also, is this not the same thing? https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3217754/Black-Lives... - not sure how trustworthy this is

> molotov cocktails and hostage situation zip ties where found on the scene,

I have seen molotovs used at BLM protest

All this to say - it's not black and white; I also feel there clearly is some double standard going on here. I disagree with (what i think is) the premise of the capitol protests, but it does not strike me as that much worse than what people were supporting a few months ago.

Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign

#996

Post by kristianp »

doktrin wrote: post #504

If I had a dime for every time I read some pearl clutching comment about the big brother slippery slope on HN, I could have retired by now. In all these years, the only actual existential danger to society to materialize are precisely the entities that are now being deplatformed. Excuse me if I don't take all this hand wringing on behalf of unstable insurrectionists seriously.

Upvoted for teaching me a new phrase.

Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign

#997

Post by darkwizard42 »

rat87 wrote: post #955
nemo44x wrote: post #898

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ri…

No he is refusing to make a cake for a gay couple If he refused to provide groom&groom wedding toppers I'd fully support him but this is food not speech Likewise I wouldn't expect him to write messages or make decorations he disagreed with But in this case it's a simple case of discrimination

Literally in the article it says he offered to make them other items... https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/04/politics/masterpiece-colorado...

Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign

#998

Post by dragonwriter »

darkwizard42 wrote: post #997
rat87 wrote: post #955

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No he is refusing to make a cake for a gay couple If he refused to provide groom&groom wedding toppers I'd fully support him but this is food not speech Likewise I wouldn't expect him to write messages or make decorations he disagreed with But in this case it's a simple case of discrimination

Literally in the article it says he offered to make them other items... https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/04/politics/masterpiece-colorado...

And literally the Supreme Court decisions stated that he objected to making cakes for gay couples on two separate grounds. To the extent that he may have offered them to make other items, it wasn't part of the basis for the decision, which was entirely about religious animus shown by the Colorado State commission that enforced the law in his case, and not at all about him not actually discriminating because he was willing to do business with gay couples, just not to make the specific cake they wanted.

The fact that something is mentioned in a news article about a court case doesn't mean that (even if it is true) it is part of the basis for the decision. If you want to understand the basis for a court decision, it's best to read the decision itself.

Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign

#999

Post by cocktailpeanuts »

Acrobatic_Road wrote: post #643
cocktailpeanuts wrote: post #629

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You said these things were easy. My point is that it will be increasingly difficult to do so. Your comment about "If there's a will there may be a way" is not the answer because having a "way" doesn't mean it's easy, and that was exactly my point. Tor exists, but that doesn't mean it's easy to do Tor, nor do regular people use Tor.

Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign

#1000

Post by [deleted] »

rayiner wrote: post #799
systemvoltage wrote: post #685

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., not "Build a wall and Mexico will pay for it" or outright banning people based on religion (remember Muslim ban?). The problem is that these are not conservative principles. This is just hate spewing, plain and straight.

> 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…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN