6 ms·
> Gab would like to use Stripe or Paypal because they are trusted payment providers, but those networks felt they'd stop being trusted payment providers if they
by kakarot 8y ago
> Gab would like to use Stripe or Paypal because they are trusted payment providers, but those networks felt they'd stop being trusted payment providers if they let Gab stay on.
That's an extreme simplification that borders on deceptive. No one is going to stop using Paypal and Stripe because they support a platform. Maybe if they were processing payments for ISIS, but Alex Jones isn't ISIS.
No, Paypal and Stripe were given orders from above and this is them carrying out those orders.
> I'm glad our internet is enough of a distributed commons that many platforms are broadly accessible -- but nobody owes you an audience at the most popular ones.
This would only make sense if there wasn't an active campaign to shut out smaller platforms in order to control the ecosystem. What is the point of making a sound if no one is around to hear it?
Saying people should just change platforms is like saying people should just change internet companies. Sure, HughesNet might be an alternative to the only worthwhile provider in my area, but you can't say with a straight face that the experience is comparable. You're dismissing the problems other people face in getting their voices heard because it doesn't directly affect you. It's easy to take the high road with the deplatforming debate but only if you ignore the bigger picture.
- Pfhreak 8y ago> No one is going to stop using Paypal and Stripe because they support a platform. This is objectively false. I would stop supporting a business based on who they support. I have done so many times. From web services to food services, and everything in between.
- kakarot 8y agoThey're a payment processor. If you believe in a non-discriminatory economy, where anyone with a legal, useful service or skill should be able to collect payment for it, then you simply can't have this position. Payment processors must follow the law like anyone else and have no obligation to process payments for illegal services, but we can't start mass boycotting them based on the clients they legally do business with. That's a huge incentive for discriminatory practices which are at the behest of the mob.
- Pfhreak 8y agoI disagree. I doubt we'll get to any sort of shared position via internet forum, I was simply pointing out that the parent comment was objectively false.
- tptacek 8y agoLots of people don't accept your premise that white supremacists deserve FRAND terms for access to commercial hosting providers. I'd go so far as to describe it as the mainstream opinion. So: they can quite simply have that position.
- kakarot 8y agoThis isn't an issue of what should be legal. It's an ethical issue.
- tptacek 8y agoIf it's ethical, it's even more baffling why this would be a problem; providing services to enable and amplify white nationalism is clearly unethical.
- kakarot 8y agoCensorship is unethical because it's a giant slippery slope of subjectivity. Are we really calling Alex Jones a white supremacist?
- pvg 8y agoCensorship is unethical because it's a giant slippery slope of subjectivity What does that actually mean? How would you translate it into any sort of policy short of complete and absolute non-regulation of speech (or, really, anything if you just pick something other than 'censorship' as a scare-word). As to Jones, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Jones#White_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Jones#White_genocide
- atq2119 8y ago> No, Paypal and Stripe were given orders from above and this is them carrying out those orders. Who is this "above" giving orders? Frankly, this is conspiracy theory material. Sure, those companies are reacting to pressure, but it's distributed social pressure, not shady backroom dealings.
- kakarot 8y agoI have no idea who is the "above", and nothing on which to speculate. The internet's two largest payment processors both pulling out at the same time that Gab loses hosting, and becomes the target of a widespread slander campaign, definitely seems orchestrated. You can't dismiss that as "conspiracy theory material". Sure, it could be distributed social pressure, but even that would just be a standalone event resulting from a larger and more subtle push from above to use social pressure as a mechanism for modern information gatekeeping. Like I said, I'm not speculating as to who or what is behind this push for modern censorship but don't delude yourself into thinking it isn't there.
- dagenix 8y agoThe definition of conspiracy theory is: "a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators" (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspiracy%20theory https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspiracy%20theo...) So, here we have an event - payment processors refusing to serve Gab. The theory is that this is explained by from some entity "above" that we don't know anything about and that clearly acted in secret to force them to do this. Using the dictionary definition of a conspiracy theory, this is a conspiracy theory.
- kakarot 8y agoOh, hush. "Conspiracy theory material" has a strong connotation that a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators doesn't capture at all. The connotation heavily implies that the theory is to be disregarded as ridiculous and false. But you know that already, so why am I even telling you?