4 ms·

I don't have anything against Paypal or any of the other companies who blocked Wikileaks. I guess in a perfect world it is bad, but if Paypal (and whoever else)

I don't have anything against Paypal or any of the other companies who blocked Wikileaks. I guess in a perfect world it is bad, but if Paypal (and whoever else) weren't to do it and the US government did get angry then who'd be affected? That's right, every other customer (including me). The problem isn't with these companies (although I suspect a lot of this is about how everyone already "hates" Paypal) it's with the governments. It saddens me that these companies are being targeted, people should be shouting at the government(s) putting pressure on the companies, not DDoSing the companies. I'd rather wikileaks had their account closed than the service I receive be affected, however selfish that may be.

throwaway4rant 16y ago
I'm not sure why you are being downvoted here. I suspect it's because people are using the down arrow to disagree with you. Whilst I personally don't agree with your PoV, you raise a perfectly valid point: who is to blame for the heavy-handed treatment of a media outlet (wikileaks). I think it's a great loss that HN has degenerated over the last few years' from a place where you could openly discuss a variety of PoVs in a friendly progressive way, to a place where uncivil rudeness is rewarded and opposing PoV are silenced. I also think it's ironic that in a thread about openness we punish opposing PoVs.
- citricsquid 16y ago
  It's fine, I don't mind downvotes, I'd just like to know why I'm wrong :-) If someone wants to downvote and point out why I'm an idiot, great!
  - throwaway4rant 16y ago
    Hey, very interesting philosophy. I've often self-censored because I hate being downvoted (probably a problem with my psyche). But...I think I might try adopt your philosophy..
    - sausagefeet 16y ago
      Consider it your contrarian score rather than karma points. Lower means you're more contrarian.
    - BrandonM 16y ago
      Downvoted because of throwaway account, not that you care. But I think that points out a silly game that you're playing: 1. Karma is almost meaningless. No one cares what your karma is, and there's effectively no reason that you should care either, yet 2. you seem to rely on your karma score in order to validate yourself in some way, so 3. you create a throwaway account to absorb the negative karma of your controversial comments, even though 4. your throwaway account is still you, so the account's score is still a reflection on you, and yet 5. you somehow convince yourself that your throwaway account's karma "doesn't count" in terms of your self validation, thus 6. your philosophy regarding karma is inconsistent, and you might as well adopt a new philosophy. Just be yourself and contribute from a single account when you have something worthwhile to say, karma be damned. There's no reason to create throwaway accounts or care much about what your "score" on HN is.
eli 16y ago
I agree. Actually, I'd go farther. Why is it wrong for the government to discourage people from doing business with someone they don't like?
- EliRivers 16y ago
  Because the role of the government in an allegedly free market is not to boost or squelch specific businesses. That's what happens in planned economies such as the old Soviet Union. The government already discourages some kinds of business through the creation and enforcement of laws. Going beyond that is not the action of "the government", but can only be the action of individuals within the government abusing power to pursue their own beliefs and agenda.
- michaelchisari 16y ago
  Because the logical result of that is less of a slippery slope and more of a slippery cliff.
- pingswept 16y ago
  Because some of the people that government represents actually do like them. While Assange seems a little bit crazy to me, I can't say that I've seen something that Wikileaks has leaked that I think should have been kept secret. (Of course, I haven't read everything they've released.) I'd rather that the government be guided by laws than who "they don't like."
- algorias 16y ago
  Because the government should not be partial, and treat everyone the same, (barring laws being broken)? AFAIK, it's not (yet) illegal to be disliked by the government.
- steveklabnik 16y ago
  > Italian Fascism and most other fascist movements promote a corporatist economy whereby, in theory, representatives of capital and labour interest groups work together within sectoral corporations to create both harmonious labour relations and maximization of production that would serve the national interest. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
michaelchisari 16y ago
No, the problem is with these companies, too. If there's an issue with a client that is not clearly illegal, then the responsible thing to do is to put the burden of proof on the government. So far, from what I've heard, only a French bank has had the spine to require the government to make specific charges or provide a court order before they would close the account. This isn't just about government, there is a process, and while corporations are within their legal rights to deny service for whatever reason, that doesn't mean they're acting responsibly. Especially with a situation as profound as this.
- citricsquid 16y ago
  So if the government put pressure on Paypal -- I don't know big business so I don't know what they would do, but I assume it's something Paypal don't want -- to the extent that it would affect customers other than Wikileaks what should they do then? Paypal support millions of people and businesses, is it not their responsibility (as a business out for profit) to look out for the majority and not a single one? If standing up for Wikileaks would cause problems for everyone else is that "fair"? I guess I'm spineless then, if I was Paypal I'd do what they've done here, heh.
  - michaelchisari 16y ago
    What kind of pressure are we talking about? Anything beyond a phone call that says "We'd like you to do this" would be illegal (blackmail, extortion, etc), and I'd bring the full weight of my law department if any member of government put tangible, material pressure on my company because of something like this. But if you just get that phone call? You ask for proof, and you wait until they bring it. And you keep going on as business as usual until you get a court order or similar.
ajays 16y ago
> people should be shouting at the government(s) putting pressure on the companies, No, the government never put any pressure on PayPal. They just read about it in a newspaper and acted on it. Same with Amazon: some dumb-ass Senator from Connecticut raises a question, and Amazon pees in their pants. So the problem _does_ lie with the companies, for being so scared of the government. Some could even say that they're not doing their fiduciary duty by refusing to do business with WikiLeaks, when WikiLeaks hasn't been convicted of any crime.
- nitrogen 16y ago
  Maybe Amazon worked out a deal: no national sales tax for an additional year in exchange for dumping WikiLeaks ;) </sarcasm>

throwaway4rant 16y ago

I'm not sure why you are being downvoted here. I suspect it's because people are using the down arrow to disagree with you. Whilst I personally don't agree with your PoV, you raise a perfectly valid point: who is to blame for the heavy-handed treatment of a media outlet (wikileaks). I think it's a great loss that HN has degenerated over the last few years' from a place where you could openly discuss a variety of PoVs in a friendly progressive way, to a place where uncivil rudeness is rewarded and opposing PoV are silenced. I also think it's ironic that in a thread about openness we punish opposing PoVs.

citricsquid 16y ago
It's fine, I don't mind downvotes, I'd just like to know why I'm wrong :-) If someone wants to downvote and point out why I'm an idiot, great!
- throwaway4rant 16y ago
  Hey, very interesting philosophy. I've often self-censored because I hate being downvoted (probably a problem with my psyche). But...I think I might try adopt your philosophy..
  - sausagefeet 16y ago
    Consider it your contrarian score rather than karma points. Lower means you're more contrarian.
  - BrandonM 16y ago
    Downvoted because of throwaway account, not that you care. But I think that points out a silly game that you're playing: 1. Karma is almost meaningless. No one cares what your karma is, and there's effectively no reason that you should care either, yet 2. you seem to rely on your karma score in order to validate yourself in some way, so 3. you create a throwaway account to absorb the negative karma of your controversial comments, even though 4. your throwaway account is still you, so the account's score is still a reflection on you, and yet 5. you somehow convince yourself that your throwaway account's karma "doesn't count" in terms of your self validation, thus 6. your philosophy regarding karma is inconsistent, and you might as well adopt a new philosophy. Just be yourself and contribute from a single account when you have something worthwhile to say, karma be damned. There's no reason to create throwaway accounts or care much about what your "score" on HN is.

eli 16y ago

I agree. Actually, I'd go farther. Why is it wrong for the government to discourage people from doing business with someone they don't like?

EliRivers 16y ago
Because the role of the government in an allegedly free market is not to boost or squelch specific businesses. That's what happens in planned economies such as the old Soviet Union. The government already discourages some kinds of business through the creation and enforcement of laws. Going beyond that is not the action of "the government", but can only be the action of individuals within the government abusing power to pursue their own beliefs and agenda.
michaelchisari 16y ago
Because the logical result of that is less of a slippery slope and more of a slippery cliff.
pingswept 16y ago
Because some of the people that government represents actually do like them. While Assange seems a little bit crazy to me, I can't say that I've seen something that Wikileaks has leaked that I think should have been kept secret. (Of course, I haven't read everything they've released.) I'd rather that the government be guided by laws than who "they don't like."
algorias 16y ago
Because the government should not be partial, and treat everyone the same, (barring laws being broken)? AFAIK, it's not (yet) illegal to be disliked by the government.
steveklabnik 16y ago
> Italian Fascism and most other fascist movements promote a corporatist economy whereby, in theory, representatives of capital and labour interest groups work together within sectoral corporations to create both harmonious labour relations and maximization of production that would serve the national interest. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

michaelchisari 16y ago

No, the problem is with these companies, too. If there's an issue with a client that is not clearly illegal, then the responsible thing to do is to put the burden of proof on the government. So far, from what I've heard, only a French bank has had the spine to require the government to make specific charges or provide a court order before they would close the account. This isn't just about government, there is a process, and while corporations are within their legal rights to deny service for whatever reason, that doesn't mean they're acting responsibly. Especially with a situation as profound as this.

citricsquid 16y ago
So if the government put pressure on Paypal -- I don't know big business so I don't know what they would do, but I assume it's something Paypal don't want -- to the extent that it would affect customers other than Wikileaks what should they do then? Paypal support millions of people and businesses, is it not their responsibility (as a business out for profit) to look out for the majority and not a single one? If standing up for Wikileaks would cause problems for everyone else is that "fair"? I guess I'm spineless then, if I was Paypal I'd do what they've done here, heh.
- michaelchisari 16y ago
  What kind of pressure are we talking about? Anything beyond a phone call that says "We'd like you to do this" would be illegal (blackmail, extortion, etc), and I'd bring the full weight of my law department if any member of government put tangible, material pressure on my company because of something like this. But if you just get that phone call? You ask for proof, and you wait until they bring it. And you keep going on as business as usual until you get a court order or similar.

ajays 16y ago

> people should be shouting at the government(s) putting pressure on the companies, No, the government never put any pressure on PayPal. They just read about it in a newspaper and acted on it. Same with Amazon: some dumb-ass Senator from Connecticut raises a question, and Amazon pees in their pants. So the problem _does_ lie with the companies, for being so scared of the government. Some could even say that they're not doing their fiduciary duty by refusing to do business with WikiLeaks, when WikiLeaks hasn't been convicted of any crime.

nitrogen 16y ago
Maybe Amazon worked out a deal: no national sales tax for an additional year in exchange for dumping WikiLeaks ;) </sarcasm>