5 ms·

I'm really interested in this, and I'm confused as to why people are voting you up. You provided an answer with absolutely no evidence to support what you said

by jlgosse 16y ago

I'm really interested in this, and I'm confused as to why people are voting you up. You provided an answer with absolutely no evidence to support what you said and people find the answer either, a) Helpful or b) Interesting. Can you explain how it isn't their choice? Mastercard, VISA and American Express turn down applicants ALL the time, so doesn't this go against what you are saying here?

defen 16y ago
I'm not sure what his point was, but technically it's true, at least in the U.S. There are a host of "protected classes", and if you refuse to do business with someone because they're in that protected class, you get in Big Trouble. This includes race, color, gender, age, etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class
- marknutter 16y ago
  It's not true, otherwise signs that say "no shirt, no shoes, no service" would be illegal. You're referring to laws against discrimination based on race, sex, or disabilities. This says nothing about refusing service to people for other reasons, such as a rowdy bar patron or someone who violates Terms of Service.
  - jbooth 16y ago
    It's generally understood that refusing to do business with someone for political reasons, unless the person's politics involve genocide or something, is against the social contract. Not illegal, but generally not approved of by anyone (unless you have the whole US media playing the mccarthy card against the person, apparently).
    - neilc 16y ago
      I think there are many people who, given the chance, would not do business with WikiLeaks (on the grounds that their actions are perceived to be against the US national interest and potentially putting lives in danger). So I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that this would be "generally understood ... to be against the social contract."
      - jbooth 16y ago
        If you're a small business and people can take their money elsewhere, that's one thing, if you're one of two giant corporations providing a vital service, that's another.
okaramian 16y ago
There is a difference between turning down an individual for financial reasons and turning down an organization due to political pressure (whose money they were completely okay with taking before the hammer fell down). I'm not saying it isn't their choice, but there is no real advantage to them angering politicians who could screw them on votes or funding at some point in the future.
VMG 16y ago
I vote him up because I don't vote based on agreement. Invisible text simply makes the discussion difficult to read.
vegai 16y ago
They're now collectively turning down something. That's not something they should be allowed to do, given that they control a lot when it comes to moving money. It puts a consumer in a position where he has no choice.
jlgosse 16y ago
Another thing, the people who think that bringing down Mastercard is going to help Wikileaks in any way need a serious reality check. Why would anyone do business with someone if there was even a tiny chance that they would get screwed over the next day to the tune of MILLIONS and MILLIONS of dollars. The fact that mastercard.com is down and their SecureCode service is offline has already cost thousands of small businesses millions of dollars. Do you think these companies are going to support something like Wikileaks after this event?
- fleitz 16y ago
  I know I mean thats like thinking 12 guys back in 1776 could really stop the British Empire with their silly little tea parties.
  - brass_cannon 16y ago
    Except your assertion requires that the availability of imported tea was an essential component to the American Revolution's success. The founders didn't reduce their available resources by making people less likely to import tea. Anon has reduced Wikileaks' available resources by making people less likely to facilitate donations to them.
    - fleitz 16y ago
      http://thenextweb.com/media/2010/12/09/caving-to-pressure-from-supporters-paypal-releases-wikileaks-funds/ http://thenextweb.com/media/2010/12/09/caving-to-pressure-fr... 'nuff said.
borism 16y ago
http://www.zdnet.co.uk/blogs/security-bullet-in-10000166/legal-threat-to-visa-mastercard-over-wikileaks-move-10021271/ http://www.zdnet.co.uk/blogs/security-bullet-in-10000166/leg... Visa and MasterCard can block payment providers if they believe those generate a lot of fraudulent activity, not because they disagree with those organisations activities.

by jlgosse 16y ago

defen 16y ago

I'm not sure what his point was, but technically it's true, at least in the U.S. There are a host of "protected classes", and if you refuse to do business with someone because they're in that protected class, you get in Big Trouble. This includes race, color, gender, age, etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class

marknutter 16y ago
It's not true, otherwise signs that say "no shirt, no shoes, no service" would be illegal. You're referring to laws against discrimination based on race, sex, or disabilities. This says nothing about refusing service to people for other reasons, such as a rowdy bar patron or someone who violates Terms of Service.
- jbooth 16y ago
  It's generally understood that refusing to do business with someone for political reasons, unless the person's politics involve genocide or something, is against the social contract. Not illegal, but generally not approved of by anyone (unless you have the whole US media playing the mccarthy card against the person, apparently).
  - neilc 16y ago
    I think there are many people who, given the chance, would not do business with WikiLeaks (on the grounds that their actions are perceived to be against the US national interest and potentially putting lives in danger). So I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that this would be "generally understood ... to be against the social contract."
    - jbooth 16y ago
      If you're a small business and people can take their money elsewhere, that's one thing, if you're one of two giant corporations providing a vital service, that's another.

okaramian 16y ago

There is a difference between turning down an individual for financial reasons and turning down an organization due to political pressure (whose money they were completely okay with taking before the hammer fell down). I'm not saying it isn't their choice, but there is no real advantage to them angering politicians who could screw them on votes or funding at some point in the future.

VMG 16y ago

I vote him up because I don't vote based on agreement. Invisible text simply makes the discussion difficult to read.

vegai 16y ago

They're now collectively turning down something. That's not something they should be allowed to do, given that they control a lot when it comes to moving money. It puts a consumer in a position where he has no choice.

jlgosse 16y ago

Another thing, the people who think that bringing down Mastercard is going to help Wikileaks in any way need a serious reality check. Why would anyone do business with someone if there was even a tiny chance that they would get screwed over the next day to the tune of MILLIONS and MILLIONS of dollars. The fact that mastercard.com is down and their SecureCode service is offline has already cost thousands of small businesses millions of dollars. Do you think these companies are going to support something like Wikileaks after this event?

fleitz 16y ago
I know I mean thats like thinking 12 guys back in 1776 could really stop the British Empire with their silly little tea parties.
- brass_cannon 16y ago
  Except your assertion requires that the availability of imported tea was an essential component to the American Revolution's success. The founders didn't reduce their available resources by making people less likely to import tea. Anon has reduced Wikileaks' available resources by making people less likely to facilitate donations to them.
  - fleitz 16y ago
    http://thenextweb.com/media/2010/12/09/caving-to-pressure-from-supporters-paypal-releases-wikileaks-funds/ http://thenextweb.com/media/2010/12/09/caving-to-pressure-fr... 'nuff said.

borism 16y ago

http://www.zdnet.co.uk/blogs/security-bullet-in-10000166/legal-threat-to-visa-mastercard-over-wikileaks-move-10021271/ http://www.zdnet.co.uk/blogs/security-bullet-in-10000166/leg... Visa and MasterCard can block payment providers if they believe those generate a lot of fraudulent activity, not because they disagree with those organisations activities.