5 ms·

To a less egregious extent this is happening even in western democracies. For example people are losing access to payment processing functionality for essenti

by tux1968 8y ago

To a less egregious extent this is happening even in western democracies. For example people are losing access to payment processing functionality for essentially thought-crimes. Of course, it's a bit different because it's private sector, but the end result is the same for the individual.

JulianMorrison 8y ago
*for being fascists who are pushing an ideology that leads directly to genocide, but okay.
- smhost 8y ago
  hn has become such a dumpfest of cryptofascists thinking that they are 9000 IQ brain geniuses and that no one can see through what they're trying to do.
- tux1968 8y ago
  I don't think that's true. There are many cases of this happening where the person could not be called a fascist at all. (Look at the case of Sargon for instance). If you asked the Chinese government, i'd bet they feel 100% justified that the people on their blacklist are subversive and dangerous too.
- sharpneli 8y ago
  And in communist countries its for being bourgeois imperialists who are pushing an ideology that directly leads to oppression of the working class. Unless one basically says ”But the difference is that our ideology is actually correct and theirs is wrong”. That leads to the conclusion that there is nothing wrong with that kind of oppression in itself, but only if the targets are the wrong targets.
- dleslie 8y ago
  A price of freedom and tolerance is that you must share it with people you don't like. And you must remain vigilant that they do not undermine your freedom.
  - ceejayoz 8y ago
    "Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
    - dleslie 8y ago
      Even less known is that the author of the paradox advocated tolerance and only to use violence when it is clear that discussion is impossible. > I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.
      - fixermark 8y ago
        People will, of course, disagree on where the threshold is where violence becomes acceptable. They'll also disagree that it's "violence" to refuse to enter into a business relationship with someone.
        dleslie 8y ago
        Indeed, what constitutes violence isn't a universally shared understanding.
      - ceejayoz 8y ago
        Do let me know when PayPal starts beating up customers as part of their offboarding process, and I will probably object to such behavior. It's fairly clear that the various hate groups SPLC tracks "are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument".
- lykr0n 8y ago
  More like having an idea that doesn't perfectly align with what the very vocal radical minority believes in. Actual fascists and what people call fascists online are worlds apart.
moosey 8y ago
I think that a more accurate western comparison would the the 'No Fly List'. We had this for years, but instead of using 'social credit', we used 'security'. I'm not defending either, each one is largely arbitrary.
- 420codebro 8y ago
  Oh, Please. You don't get put on the TSC's No Fly List for unpaid taxes and being a douchebag on a train. Let's not act like the standards between these two systems are anywhere near the same.
Aunche 8y ago
In the US, you can lose your driver's license for failing to pay fines. This is much more restrictive, since you basically need a car to get anywhere in the US. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/more-than-7-million-people-may-have-lost-drivers-licenses-because-of-traffic-debt/2018/05/19/97678c08-5785-11e8-b656-a5f8c2a9295d_story.html?utm_term=.c86b5f57ff25 https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/more-than...
Wowfunhappy 8y ago
I know for a fact you can still buy Amtrak tickets via cash. I also knew some airlines wouldn't accept cash anymore—but do none accept cash? Would those prepaid Visa gift card thingies work? I didn't realize the situation was that dire.
fixermark 8y ago
As people have pointed out to me repeatedly, there's generally a world of difference between the government (with the monopoly on violence) deciding you can / cannot do an activity and individual businesses or consumers deciding not to form a relationship of mutual trust and profit. Indeed, in the situations where the difference really is too minimal (such as there being no alternatives to do business with in a town because of rampant racism), we pass laws (such as the Civil Rights Act) to compel private actors to cease to bar business based on signal that has been deemed invalid.
- hrktb 8y ago
  The difference can get very thin and yet no law gets passes though. For instance there is a no-banking list in most countries: you won’t be able to use any banking service in that country if a single bank puts you on it. That’s usually a default of payment of a cheque, but it’s not limited to, and banks can trigger conditions where the customer will hit a provable offense. In that instance the private entities coordinate to enforce a ban on an individual and no law will pass against that. I’d assume the same would happen for insurances, where there must be a ban on people commiting insurance fraud, and I’d assume it’s not limited to only provable offenses, or charges can be just provoked. Passing a law against these practices requires buy-in from the public and people not just assuming “they have done something very wrong on paper, why should we care ?”
  - fixermark 8y ago
    The US recently did pass a law banning one type of this practice in insurance companies (though not for behavior purposes; due to the US's general disdain for punishing a person for that which they have no control over, they made it illegal to deny health insurance for a wide swath of preexisting conditions).
johnisgood 8y ago
It is loosely related but: let us not forget that we only buy access to games, movies, music, books, and so on. It can be revoked at any time for arbitrary reasons. I would say that the majority of us are too dependent on them. What would happen if Steam, Netflix, Amazon, Spotify etc. revoked your access? How dependent are you on their good-will? Mind you, there have been occasions where your account was deleted because you said something somewhere else that they did not like. I do not know how common is, but it did happen, one too many times. I prefer having my own, DRM-free local copies.
thisisit 8y ago
I am always confused by these "what-about" posts. Are you saying western democracies are the shining examples of equality so if they enact something bad, everyone should follow ? Or that China given a free pass because western democracies do it? Or that this is not a big deal because everyone does it?
dwild 8y ago
> For example people are losing access to payment processing functionality for essentially thought-crimes Can you be more specific? I have an hard time figuring out what you are talking about here. Are you talking about like losing access to Patreon?
- Ruthalas 8y ago
  Perhaps they are referring more generally to payment processors refusing to work with companies that provide services related to things like pornography? Technically legal, but ostensibly morally distasteful?

JulianMorrison 8y ago

*for being fascists who are pushing an ideology that leads directly to genocide, but okay.

smhost 8y ago
hn has become such a dumpfest of cryptofascists thinking that they are 9000 IQ brain geniuses and that no one can see through what they're trying to do.
tux1968 8y ago
I don't think that's true. There are many cases of this happening where the person could not be called a fascist at all. (Look at the case of Sargon for instance). If you asked the Chinese government, i'd bet they feel 100% justified that the people on their blacklist are subversive and dangerous too.
sharpneli 8y ago
And in communist countries its for being bourgeois imperialists who are pushing an ideology that directly leads to oppression of the working class. Unless one basically says ”But the difference is that our ideology is actually correct and theirs is wrong”. That leads to the conclusion that there is nothing wrong with that kind of oppression in itself, but only if the targets are the wrong targets.
dleslie 8y ago
A price of freedom and tolerance is that you must share it with people you don't like. And you must remain vigilant that they do not undermine your freedom.
- ceejayoz 8y ago
  "Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
  - dleslie 8y ago
    Even less known is that the author of the paradox advocated tolerance and only to use violence when it is clear that discussion is impossible. > I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.
    - fixermark 8y ago
      People will, of course, disagree on where the threshold is where violence becomes acceptable. They'll also disagree that it's "violence" to refuse to enter into a business relationship with someone.
      - dleslie 8y ago
        Indeed, what constitutes violence isn't a universally shared understanding.
    - ceejayoz 8y ago
      Do let me know when PayPal starts beating up customers as part of their offboarding process, and I will probably object to such behavior. It's fairly clear that the various hate groups SPLC tracks "are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument".
lykr0n 8y ago
More like having an idea that doesn't perfectly align with what the very vocal radical minority believes in. Actual fascists and what people call fascists online are worlds apart.

moosey 8y ago

I think that a more accurate western comparison would the the 'No Fly List'. We had this for years, but instead of using 'social credit', we used 'security'. I'm not defending either, each one is largely arbitrary.

420codebro 8y ago
Oh, Please. You don't get put on the TSC's No Fly List for unpaid taxes and being a douchebag on a train. Let's not act like the standards between these two systems are anywhere near the same.

Aunche 8y ago

In the US, you can lose your driver's license for failing to pay fines. This is much more restrictive, since you basically need a car to get anywhere in the US. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/more-than-7-million-people-may-have-lost-drivers-licenses-because-of-traffic-debt/2018/05/19/97678c08-5785-11e8-b656-a5f8c2a9295d_story.html?utm_term=.c86b5f57ff25 https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/more-than...

Wowfunhappy 8y ago

I know for a fact you can still buy Amtrak tickets via cash. I also knew some airlines wouldn't accept cash anymore—but do none accept cash? Would those prepaid Visa gift card thingies work? I didn't realize the situation was that dire.

fixermark 8y ago

As people have pointed out to me repeatedly, there's generally a world of difference between the government (with the monopoly on violence) deciding you can / cannot do an activity and individual businesses or consumers deciding not to form a relationship of mutual trust and profit. Indeed, in the situations where the difference really is too minimal (such as there being no alternatives to do business with in a town because of rampant racism), we pass laws (such as the Civil Rights Act) to compel private actors to cease to bar business based on signal that has been deemed invalid.

hrktb 8y ago
The difference can get very thin and yet no law gets passes though. For instance there is a no-banking list in most countries: you won’t be able to use any banking service in that country if a single bank puts you on it. That’s usually a default of payment of a cheque, but it’s not limited to, and banks can trigger conditions where the customer will hit a provable offense. In that instance the private entities coordinate to enforce a ban on an individual and no law will pass against that. I’d assume the same would happen for insurances, where there must be a ban on people commiting insurance fraud, and I’d assume it’s not limited to only provable offenses, or charges can be just provoked. Passing a law against these practices requires buy-in from the public and people not just assuming “they have done something very wrong on paper, why should we care ?”
- fixermark 8y ago
  The US recently did pass a law banning one type of this practice in insurance companies (though not for behavior purposes; due to the US's general disdain for punishing a person for that which they have no control over, they made it illegal to deny health insurance for a wide swath of preexisting conditions).

johnisgood 8y ago

It is loosely related but: let us not forget that we only buy access to games, movies, music, books, and so on. It can be revoked at any time for arbitrary reasons. I would say that the majority of us are too dependent on them. What would happen if Steam, Netflix, Amazon, Spotify etc. revoked your access? How dependent are you on their good-will? Mind you, there have been occasions where your account was deleted because you said something somewhere else that they did not like. I do not know how common is, but it did happen, one too many times. I prefer having my own, DRM-free local copies.

thisisit 8y ago

I am always confused by these "what-about" posts. Are you saying western democracies are the shining examples of equality so if they enact something bad, everyone should follow ? Or that China given a free pass because western democracies do it? Or that this is not a big deal because everyone does it?

dwild 8y ago

> For example people are losing access to payment processing functionality for essentially thought-crimes Can you be more specific? I have an hard time figuring out what you are talking about here. Are you talking about like losing access to Patreon?

Ruthalas 8y ago
Perhaps they are referring more generally to payment processors refusing to work with companies that provide services related to things like pornography? Technically legal, but ostensibly morally distasteful?