6 ms·

> 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

> 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 ago
They'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 ago
  I 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 ago
  Lots 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 ago
    This isn't an issue of what should be legal. It's an ethical issue.
    - tptacek 8y ago
      If 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 ago
        Censorship is unethical because it's a giant slippery slope of subjectivity. Are we really calling Alex Jones a white supremacist?
        pvg 8y ago
        Censorship 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
        kakarot 8y ago
        "First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak for me." — Martin Niemöller Alex Jones is a paranoid lunatic, misinterpreting a very real assault on demographics like the straight white male as full-on white genocide, as well as many unrelated issues like immigration, but that doesn't really make him a white supremacist. Being afraid that your demographic is being targeted doesn't make you a supremacist. There are many minority demographics right now who validly feel that way. Calling for the extermination of other races would make him a white supremacist. Alex Jones being a white supremacist is a false narrative perpetuated by the informal group of gatekeepers trying to silence his platform. > How would you translate it into any sort of policy short of complete and absolute non-regulation of speech? That's false absolutism. You cannot dismiss censorship as a "scare-word". It's scary for a damn good reason. Right now they're only coming for the socialists. Soon they will come for someone you care about, and then I wonder if you will still be so readily apologetic for the information gatekeepers of the new era.

kakarot 8y ago

They'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 ago
I 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 ago
Lots 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 ago
  This isn't an issue of what should be legal. It's an ethical issue.
  - tptacek 8y ago
    If 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 ago
      Censorship is unethical because it's a giant slippery slope of subjectivity. Are we really calling Alex Jones a white supremacist?
      - pvg 8y ago
        Censorship 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
        kakarot 8y ago
        "First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak for me." — Martin Niemöller Alex Jones is a paranoid lunatic, misinterpreting a very real assault on demographics like the straight white male as full-on white genocide, as well as many unrelated issues like immigration, but that doesn't really make him a white supremacist. Being afraid that your demographic is being targeted doesn't make you a supremacist. There are many minority demographics right now who validly feel that way. Calling for the extermination of other races would make him a white supremacist. Alex Jones being a white supremacist is a false narrative perpetuated by the informal group of gatekeepers trying to silence his platform. > How would you translate it into any sort of policy short of complete and absolute non-regulation of speech? That's false absolutism. You cannot dismiss censorship as a "scare-word". It's scary for a damn good reason. Right now they're only coming for the socialists. Soon they will come for someone you care about, and then I wonder if you will still be so readily apologetic for the information gatekeepers of the new era.