10 ms·

Not to be reductionist but I don’t see this as a totalitarian issue. This is a free market decision. $Company decides to sever ties with another organization. T

by awat 6y ago

Not to be reductionist but I don’t see this as a totalitarian issue. This is a free market decision. $Company decides to sever ties with another organization. That choice can be good, bad, reactive, overreactive, misguided, etc but it’s still a market participant choice. Market remains open for other market participants to make other choices.

intricatedetail 6y ago
There is no free financial market.
amelius 6y ago
That's a small market, getting even smaller ...
- darkwizard42 6y ago
  ...which could be viewed as the overall market is deciding not to cater to these views... which is also absolutely legal (and creates a market opportunity for someone else if the group not supported supports it)
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
TheGrim-999 6y ago
It's so interesting when people cheer on censorship because, don't worry, they've been convinced that it's good censorship. Still doesn't change what it is though. I'm sure anybody that's been censored, dehumanized, and removed from society by an evil regime has been comforted by the fact that the people doing it think it's fine to do it, or because the people doing it are doing it legally. Those facts don't make it right ...
- danijelb 6y ago
  I have a feeling that at least half of people here are using the free market argument ironically. Because until last week it was usually republicans who advocated for the free market, no government regulation, and believing that markets sort themselves out magically. And now they are angry when the free market is going in the direction they don't like.
  - incrudible 6y ago
    There are cartel and monopoly arguments to be made that are based on maintaining an efficient free market. This is generally a bipartisan issue, but the sides are taking turns on it. Of course Stripe does not have a monopoly, but the broader discussion involves major players that can function as a cartel.
    - danijelb 6y ago
      I think that Apple and Google should definitely be broken up or somehow regulated because they act as gatekeepers and there are no viable alternatives. Especially Apple where there is no way to even sideload an application. And I say this as an Apple user. But there's no guarantee what would happen even if there were five mobile platforms. In such parallel universe all five would maybe take the same action. However I don't think that other platforms which took some drastic actions last week are gatekeepers and I don't see a point in regulating them (Stripe, Twitter, AWS) Regarding collecting money there should definitely be some government sponsored alternative solution for quick inter-bank transfers. In my country political parties collect donations by bank transfers. They provide an IBAN account number and anyone can send money to that account from any other bank in the EU. Same with private initiatives. Recently there was an earthquake in my home country which did some damage to a smaller city and most donation initiatives were collecting through bank accounts. The central bank runs the infrastructure for inter-bank communication (basically a clearing house). Right now they are working on a system where you will be able to associate your phone number and/or an email address to an IBAN (basically a DNS-like service) so you won't even need to know someone's IBAN to send them money.
      - 6y ago
crx07 6y ago
On one hand it feels completely appropriate and even deserved. On the other, yes, this is unfortunately a path to a very serious totalitarian issue. Situations like this one underscore the future importance of cryptocurrencies. Without an uncensorable currency, any political adversary -- especially an incumbent -- can just coerce payment processors into blocking payments to their opponents through threats of imprisonment or violence against a handful of executives.
- hilbertseries 6y ago
  > Without an uncensorable currency, any political adversary -- especially an incumbent -- can just coerce payment processors into blocking payments to their opponents through threats of imprisonment or violence against a handful of executives. How is this a good faith argument. You’ve jumped a situation where somewhere is being deplatformed and banned from various services for encouraging violence. To someone will use violence to kick someone off platforms. Coercing payment processors in that manor would be illegal. So, how exactly are we on the path to fascism? This is absolutely wild to me, that a textbook fascist being banned from things is being spun as... fascism.
  - spijdar 6y ago
    I'd define fascism as a method of government which enforces some specific morality/actions/market through force. By this definition it's entirely possible for two different brands of fascism to have two opposing goals, and for one to use fascist methods on another fascist. If your definition of fascism is specifically centered around nationalism or racism then this doesn't really work, but I don't think the word fascism implies this, only that fascism is usually associated with regimes using fascist authoritarianism to enforce racist and nationalist ideologies.
    - ineedasername 6y ago
      That's not the definition of fascism [0] Although fascist parties and movements differed significantly from one another, they had many characteristics in common, including extreme militaristic nationalism, contempt for electoral democracy and political and cultural liberalism, a belief in natural social hierarchy and the rule of elites, and the desire to create a Volksgemeinschaft (German: “people’s community”), in which individual interests would be subordinated to the good of the nation [0] https://www.britannica.com/topic/fascism https://www.britannica.com/topic/fascism
eternalban 6y ago
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 cloud-fronts. If that line is crossed as well then we'll have a modern society entirely dependent on information infrastructure that is controlled by a handful of companies with pedigree rooted firmly in the defense and intelligence sectors. You can call that whatever you please, but it will not be pleasant. [p.s. I vote Green.]
- freeone3000 6y ago
  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.
  - derptron 6y ago
    Your backbone is missing
  - eternalban 6y ago
    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.
- 6y ago
klaudius 6y ago
You could look at countries as being part of a market. If one country decides to ban your speech, you just move to another one, right? But that's not how it works because switching countries is very difficult. We demand free speech from a government even if we theoretically have the option to move. If you have a colluding oligopoly in something crucial to do business such as payments or communication, where it's difficult to switch due to network effects, being banned by them is like being banned by government.
- na85 6y ago
  Switching online payment providers isn't like moving to a new country, even a little bit.
  - klaudius 6y ago
    Payment networks are where the network effects and scale are. Visa and Mastercard have been known to ban people for political reasons. Payment providers are just a front end for their networks, so it's easy to switch providers like Stripe, but you can still be banned by underlying network like Mastercard and your business will suffer.
    - na85 6y ago
      Then perhaps there's a market opportunity for a credit card and online payment company that caters to white supremacists?
      - ineedasername 6y ago
        ::Announcer Voice:: "Banned from Master Card? Try Master Racecard. Disclaimer: proof of aryan ancestry required; octoroons need not apply.
  - im3w1l 6y ago
    I would honestly and sincerely rather do a year in prison then get permabanned by all of big tech.
Darmody 6y ago
Market remains open? Tell that to Parler. To be honest, after all I'm seeing, maybe all of this is a good idea. Maybe what you need is a taste of authoritarianism to really understand why what's happening now is dangerous. And don't fool yourself. This is cancel culture at another level. All these companies have been wishing to do this for years but they needed an excuse.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
syshum 6y ago
First they banned those they deemed to have wrong think from Social Media, crying Build your own Social media, it is a private company... So they did, but the totalitarians were not satisfied, so then they banned them from app stores users used to connect and find the new service... crying Build your own service it is a private company So they did, but the totalitarian were not satisfied so they banned them from the network infrastructure used to connect them to the service... crying build your own network infrastructure it is private company So they did, but the totalitarians were not satisfied so they banned from the payment services used to generate revenue for the service... crying build your own payment service it is private company So they did, but totalitarians were still not satisfied, still hiding behind the "but its a private company" the totalitarians continue to demand anyone that disagrees with them be banned from all services everywhere all the while screaming that they are not in fact totalitarian, no they are upholding freedom for all... see in 1984 war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength
- eejit_compiler 6y ago
  As a counterexample: The Pirate Bay have successfully dealt with this sort of thing for many years, and they were subject to much harsher and more sustained censorship. Including legal attacks by various nation states. Is it really totalitarianism in this case? Or, just some private companies inconveniencing people by choosing not to do business with them?
  - incrudible 6y ago
    It is divise and it will backfire. Soon there will have to be a separate everything for Republicans and Democrats. Chances are that Trump is going to own a big part of it. That is why Trump is not on Gab or Parler, because he will compete with them.
    - eejit_compiler 6y ago
      I think the issue is more that Trump, who is a highly divisive character, has become the face of the Republican party. So people end up conflating the ostracism of Trump and those in his periphery with an attack on the Republican party.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ffggvv 6y ago
https://twitter.com/navalny/status/1347970421161922560 https://twitter.com/navalny/status/1347970421161922560 does this make you reconsider at all?
- hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
  I'm not sure why you were downvoted. I hadn't seen that thread from Navalny before, and I certainly think it adds a useful perspective to the debate.
- ineedasername 6y ago
  Interesting, but no, it doesn't change my mind. What I agree with is that the ban decision making process should be open and transparent, which this was not.
- chillacy 6y ago
  The author implies it’s worse to be censored by a company because with government you in theory can influence it with voting... but in practice you have about as much direct influence as reversing tides in the ocean by splashing against them.

by awat 6y ago

intricatedetail 6y ago

There is no free financial market.

amelius 6y ago

That's a small market, getting even smaller ...

darkwizard42 6y ago
...which could be viewed as the overall market is deciding not to cater to these views... which is also absolutely legal (and creates a market opportunity for someone else if the group not supported supports it)
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

TheGrim-999 6y ago

It's so interesting when people cheer on censorship because, don't worry, they've been convinced that it's good censorship. Still doesn't change what it is though. I'm sure anybody that's been censored, dehumanized, and removed from society by an evil regime has been comforted by the fact that the people doing it think it's fine to do it, or because the people doing it are doing it legally. Those facts don't make it right ...

danijelb 6y ago
I have a feeling that at least half of people here are using the free market argument ironically. Because until last week it was usually republicans who advocated for the free market, no government regulation, and believing that markets sort themselves out magically. And now they are angry when the free market is going in the direction they don't like.
- incrudible 6y ago
  There are cartel and monopoly arguments to be made that are based on maintaining an efficient free market. This is generally a bipartisan issue, but the sides are taking turns on it. Of course Stripe does not have a monopoly, but the broader discussion involves major players that can function as a cartel.
  - danijelb 6y ago
    I think that Apple and Google should definitely be broken up or somehow regulated because they act as gatekeepers and there are no viable alternatives. Especially Apple where there is no way to even sideload an application. And I say this as an Apple user. But there's no guarantee what would happen even if there were five mobile platforms. In such parallel universe all five would maybe take the same action. However I don't think that other platforms which took some drastic actions last week are gatekeepers and I don't see a point in regulating them (Stripe, Twitter, AWS) Regarding collecting money there should definitely be some government sponsored alternative solution for quick inter-bank transfers. In my country political parties collect donations by bank transfers. They provide an IBAN account number and anyone can send money to that account from any other bank in the EU. Same with private initiatives. Recently there was an earthquake in my home country which did some damage to a smaller city and most donation initiatives were collecting through bank accounts. The central bank runs the infrastructure for inter-bank communication (basically a clearing house). Right now they are working on a system where you will be able to associate your phone number and/or an email address to an IBAN (basically a DNS-like service) so you won't even need to know someone's IBAN to send them money.
    - 6y ago

crx07 6y ago

On one hand it feels completely appropriate and even deserved. On the other, yes, this is unfortunately a path to a very serious totalitarian issue. Situations like this one underscore the future importance of cryptocurrencies. Without an uncensorable currency, any political adversary -- especially an incumbent -- can just coerce payment processors into blocking payments to their opponents through threats of imprisonment or violence against a handful of executives.

hilbertseries 6y ago
> Without an uncensorable currency, any political adversary -- especially an incumbent -- can just coerce payment processors into blocking payments to their opponents through threats of imprisonment or violence against a handful of executives. How is this a good faith argument. You’ve jumped a situation where somewhere is being deplatformed and banned from various services for encouraging violence. To someone will use violence to kick someone off platforms. Coercing payment processors in that manor would be illegal. So, how exactly are we on the path to fascism? This is absolutely wild to me, that a textbook fascist being banned from things is being spun as... fascism.
- spijdar 6y ago
  I'd define fascism as a method of government which enforces some specific morality/actions/market through force. By this definition it's entirely possible for two different brands of fascism to have two opposing goals, and for one to use fascist methods on another fascist. If your definition of fascism is specifically centered around nationalism or racism then this doesn't really work, but I don't think the word fascism implies this, only that fascism is usually associated with regimes using fascist authoritarianism to enforce racist and nationalist ideologies.
  - ineedasername 6y ago
    That's not the definition of fascism [0] Although fascist parties and movements differed significantly from one another, they had many characteristics in common, including extreme militaristic nationalism, contempt for electoral democracy and political and cultural liberalism, a belief in natural social hierarchy and the rule of elites, and the desire to create a Volksgemeinschaft (German: “people’s community”), in which individual interests would be subordinated to the good of the nation [0] https://www.britannica.com/topic/fascism https://www.britannica.com/topic/fascism

eternalban 6y ago

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 cloud-fronts. If that line is crossed as well then we'll have a modern society entirely dependent on information infrastructure that is controlled by a handful of companies with pedigree rooted firmly in the defense and intelligence sectors. You can call that whatever you please, but it will not be pleasant. [p.s. I vote Green.]

freeone3000 6y ago
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.
- derptron 6y ago
  Your backbone is missing
- eternalban 6y ago
  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.
6y ago

klaudius 6y ago

You could look at countries as being part of a market. If one country decides to ban your speech, you just move to another one, right? But that's not how it works because switching countries is very difficult. We demand free speech from a government even if we theoretically have the option to move. If you have a colluding oligopoly in something crucial to do business such as payments or communication, where it's difficult to switch due to network effects, being banned by them is like being banned by government.

na85 6y ago
Switching online payment providers isn't like moving to a new country, even a little bit.
- klaudius 6y ago
  Payment networks are where the network effects and scale are. Visa and Mastercard have been known to ban people for political reasons. Payment providers are just a front end for their networks, so it's easy to switch providers like Stripe, but you can still be banned by underlying network like Mastercard and your business will suffer.
  - na85 6y ago
    Then perhaps there's a market opportunity for a credit card and online payment company that caters to white supremacists?
    - ineedasername 6y ago
      ::Announcer Voice:: "Banned from Master Card? Try Master Racecard. Disclaimer: proof of aryan ancestry required; octoroons need not apply.
- im3w1l 6y ago
  I would honestly and sincerely rather do a year in prison then get permabanned by all of big tech.

Darmody 6y ago

Market remains open? Tell that to Parler. To be honest, after all I'm seeing, maybe all of this is a good idea. Maybe what you need is a taste of authoritarianism to really understand why what's happening now is dangerous. And don't fool yourself. This is cancel culture at another level. All these companies have been wishing to do this for years but they needed an excuse.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

syshum 6y ago

First they banned those they deemed to have wrong think from Social Media, crying Build your own Social media, it is a private company... So they did, but the totalitarians were not satisfied, so then they banned them from app stores users used to connect and find the new service... crying Build your own service it is a private company So they did, but the totalitarian were not satisfied so they banned them from the network infrastructure used to connect them to the service... crying build your own network infrastructure it is private company So they did, but the totalitarians were not satisfied so they banned from the payment services used to generate revenue for the service... crying build your own payment service it is private company So they did, but totalitarians were still not satisfied, still hiding behind the "but its a private company" the totalitarians continue to demand anyone that disagrees with them be banned from all services everywhere all the while screaming that they are not in fact totalitarian, no they are upholding freedom for all... see in 1984 war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength

eejit_compiler 6y ago
As a counterexample: The Pirate Bay have successfully dealt with this sort of thing for many years, and they were subject to much harsher and more sustained censorship. Including legal attacks by various nation states. Is it really totalitarianism in this case? Or, just some private companies inconveniencing people by choosing not to do business with them?
- incrudible 6y ago
  It is divise and it will backfire. Soon there will have to be a separate everything for Republicans and Democrats. Chances are that Trump is going to own a big part of it. That is why Trump is not on Gab or Parler, because he will compete with them.
  - eejit_compiler 6y ago
    I think the issue is more that Trump, who is a highly divisive character, has become the face of the Republican party. So people end up conflating the ostracism of Trump and those in his periphery with an attack on the Republican party.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

ffggvv 6y ago

https://twitter.com/navalny/status/1347970421161922560 https://twitter.com/navalny/status/1347970421161922560 does this make you reconsider at all?

hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
I'm not sure why you were downvoted. I hadn't seen that thread from Navalny before, and I certainly think it adds a useful perspective to the debate.
ineedasername 6y ago
Interesting, but no, it doesn't change my mind. What I agree with is that the ban decision making process should be open and transparent, which this was not.
chillacy 6y ago
The author implies it’s worse to be censored by a company because with government you in theory can influence it with voting... but in practice you have about as much direct influence as reversing tides in the ocean by splashing against them.