5 ms·

Not doing commerce with someone is not suppression. It's a peaceful activity. They were never responsible for helping wikileaks or anyone else do anything, so t

Not doing commerce with someone is not suppression. It's a peaceful activity. They were never responsible for helping wikileaks or anyone else do anything, so they are not violating an obligation by failing to help. (OK they do have obligations to their customers, but those are governed by contracts which let them cancel service and which they no doubt followed). Whether you agree with Amazon/Visa/etc or not, it's important to keep clear the difference between their actions (no force involved) and the Government's actions (force involved). It's not all the same thing even if they help accomplish some similar ends.

gasull 16y ago
Good point. The problem with this is that this is exactly the reason why the Government is using companies as proxies for suppressing freedom, because it leaves nobody to blame: (1) the Government didn't really forbid donations to WikiLeaks and (2) the companies can always blame the Government or the law for what they were forced to do. I don't have the right answer for this and it just makes me sad that our freedom is being eroded incrementally.
- xenophanes 16y ago
  It's tricky b/c Amazon (for example) denies that they acted b/c the Govt wanted them to. Are they lying? I don't know. It's really hard to tell. They said Wikileaks violated their terms of service which is no doubt technically true; but I don't know if they would have been happy to overlook it without any Govt pressure. So even if I wanted to get mad at companies that do the Govt's bidding without being compelled, I don't really know if Amazon is such a company or not.
  - gasull 16y ago
    [Amazon] said Wikileaks violated their terms of service which is no doubt technically true It's technically wrong since leaked documents, like the Pentagon Papers, are in the public domain, so WikiLeaks does have the right to publish them, contrary to what Amazon said.
    - nerfhammer 16y ago
      The Pentagon Papers were manually put into the public domain when Sen. Mike Gravel (yes, that one) entered them into the Congressional Record.
borism 16y ago
this is far from peaceful and force is very much involved: "Not being able to receive money from the public for a week can cost Wikileaks 7 digit figures in losses, and DataCell as well, as it is unable to process any cards," Fink said. The suit will be filed in the UK against Visa Europe. The company will file a court case with a request for an immediate injunction "to limit further damage," Fink said. Wikileaks donations can still be made via wire transfer, but that MasterCard and Visa handle small donations, which make up the majority, according to Fink. "Wire transfers are good if you want to transfer €10,000, but if you want to pay €10, the costs of the transfer eat up the donation," said Fink. "Visa and MasterCard are vital for the small amount donations, and that's around 99.9 percent of the donations." 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...
- zabuni 16y ago
  Ugh. The person conflates not gaining money with losing money, the same rhetorical trick that the record companies make when talking about piracy.
  - pyre 16y ago
    Not necessarily. If they are consistently pulling in $X per month, then it is reasonable to state that depriving them of service for a month is depriving them of $X (i.e. a good estimate of what they would have made that month).
    - borism 16y ago
      absolutely. donations = 100% income.
    - CWuestefeld 16y ago
      No. You assume that those that would be donating today will never come back. But it's reasonable to believe that many/most of those people will try again next week.
- 16y ago
makmanalp 16y ago
Not doing commerce would be, for example, rejecting a new sale or a renewal or such. Cutting existing service is a pretty direct motion.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
A1kmm 16y ago
The trouble is that there is a duopoly in the financial services industry, especially in credit card processing. Cardholders want to pay Wikileaks, Wikileaks wants to receive the money, but they are being restrained by the actions of the duopoly members, and Wikileaks is left with no alternative. The US has anti-trust laws (15USC1 - see http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sec_15_00000001----000-.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sec_15_0...) which cover similar conduct: "Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal". It sounds like the companies have not admitted a conspiracy with Joe Lieberman to stop Wikileaks from receiving donations - the companies seem to claim to have all come to the conclusion independently - but if such a conspiracy did exist, and was considered unreasonable by the courts, it could be illegal.
zcid 16y ago
Choosing to not do business with an organization for political reasons is a pretty good example of suppression. It's hardly peaceful. At best, it is passive-aggressive. At worst, an outright attack on that organization. It can especially be considered such when the company in question is part of one of the world's biggest anti-competitive conglomerations.
danenania 16y ago
They clearly did this in response to government pressure, which means they are acting as proxies for intimidation and force. They have a unique power to protect the freedom of humanity, but the people running these corporations have abdicated their responsibility toward their fellow man. They have revealed themselves to be cowardly and complicit, and deserve a lot worse than a few ddos attacks for their actions.

gasull 16y ago

Good point. The problem with this is that this is exactly the reason why the Government is using companies as proxies for suppressing freedom, because it leaves nobody to blame: (1) the Government didn't really forbid donations to WikiLeaks and (2) the companies can always blame the Government or the law for what they were forced to do. I don't have the right answer for this and it just makes me sad that our freedom is being eroded incrementally.

xenophanes 16y ago
It's tricky b/c Amazon (for example) denies that they acted b/c the Govt wanted them to. Are they lying? I don't know. It's really hard to tell. They said Wikileaks violated their terms of service which is no doubt technically true; but I don't know if they would have been happy to overlook it without any Govt pressure. So even if I wanted to get mad at companies that do the Govt's bidding without being compelled, I don't really know if Amazon is such a company or not.
- gasull 16y ago
  [Amazon] said Wikileaks violated their terms of service which is no doubt technically true It's technically wrong since leaked documents, like the Pentagon Papers, are in the public domain, so WikiLeaks does have the right to publish them, contrary to what Amazon said.
  - nerfhammer 16y ago
    The Pentagon Papers were manually put into the public domain when Sen. Mike Gravel (yes, that one) entered them into the Congressional Record.

borism 16y ago

this is far from peaceful and force is very much involved: "Not being able to receive money from the public for a week can cost Wikileaks 7 digit figures in losses, and DataCell as well, as it is unable to process any cards," Fink said. The suit will be filed in the UK against Visa Europe. The company will file a court case with a request for an immediate injunction "to limit further damage," Fink said. Wikileaks donations can still be made via wire transfer, but that MasterCard and Visa handle small donations, which make up the majority, according to Fink. "Wire transfers are good if you want to transfer €10,000, but if you want to pay €10, the costs of the transfer eat up the donation," said Fink. "Visa and MasterCard are vital for the small amount donations, and that's around 99.9 percent of the donations." 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...

zabuni 16y ago
Ugh. The person conflates not gaining money with losing money, the same rhetorical trick that the record companies make when talking about piracy.
- pyre 16y ago
  Not necessarily. If they are consistently pulling in $X per month, then it is reasonable to state that depriving them of service for a month is depriving them of $X (i.e. a good estimate of what they would have made that month).
  - borism 16y ago
    absolutely. donations = 100% income.
  - CWuestefeld 16y ago
    No. You assume that those that would be donating today will never come back. But it's reasonable to believe that many/most of those people will try again next week.
16y ago

makmanalp 16y ago

Not doing commerce would be, for example, rejecting a new sale or a renewal or such. Cutting existing service is a pretty direct motion.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

A1kmm 16y ago

The trouble is that there is a duopoly in the financial services industry, especially in credit card processing. Cardholders want to pay Wikileaks, Wikileaks wants to receive the money, but they are being restrained by the actions of the duopoly members, and Wikileaks is left with no alternative. The US has anti-trust laws (15USC1 - see http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sec_15_00000001----000-.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sec_15_0...) which cover similar conduct: "Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal". It sounds like the companies have not admitted a conspiracy with Joe Lieberman to stop Wikileaks from receiving donations - the companies seem to claim to have all come to the conclusion independently - but if such a conspiracy did exist, and was considered unreasonable by the courts, it could be illegal.

zcid 16y ago

Choosing to not do business with an organization for political reasons is a pretty good example of suppression. It's hardly peaceful. At best, it is passive-aggressive. At worst, an outright attack on that organization. It can especially be considered such when the company in question is part of one of the world's biggest anti-competitive conglomerations.

danenania 16y ago

They clearly did this in response to government pressure, which means they are acting as proxies for intimidation and force. They have a unique power to protect the freedom of humanity, but the people running these corporations have abdicated their responsibility toward their fellow man. They have revealed themselves to be cowardly and complicit, and deserve a lot worse than a few ddos attacks for their actions.