4 ms·

If you dominate a market, a serious ethical duty devolves upon you to do right by your customers, but Paypal, Visa, and MC, on which donation-supported non-prof

If you dominate a market, a serious ethical duty devolves upon you to do right by your customers, but Paypal, Visa, and MC, on which donation-supported non-profit orgs like Wikileaks almost entirely depend, have utterly failed to fulfill that duty; in fact they didn't even try. Their actions, arbitrary or spineless, have almost completely choked off funding for Wikileaks. I never imagined ending up saying this, but I'm impressed and grateful that there exists an international, anonymous horde able to begin the process of making companies like this at least minimally answerable for their actions, which no one else seems capable or desirous of doing.

citricsquid 16y ago
You're ignoring the thousands (hundreds of thousands, millions?) of "innocent" businesses that are having problems because of this. Sure try and hurt Visa, Mastercard and Paypal, but hurting innocent people? Isn't that exactly what the US government have done? "It's for the greater good". The people involved in these attacks are just as bad.
- alnayyir 16y ago
  I'm going to preface this by saying that I'm not actually a huge fan of WikiLeaks or of Anon, but... Try to keep things in perspective. We're facing a substantial progression towards a hybridization of the scenarios outlined in 1984 and Brave New World, and you're worried about the disruption of commerce? Are your priorities really that warped? There's always collateral damage, whether it's merchants or your civil rights. I should've guessed that there would be hand-wringing about commerce on here, but I never knew it would be so ridiculous considering what's being hashed out here.
  - citricsquid 16y ago
    I'm sorry, but do you honestly think this is anymore than a bunch of angry teenagers who will be bored in a week? Look back on every other instance of "Anon" "protesting" and work out what has changed. Please do show what they've actually done beyond cause minor temporary disruption, it just so happens that this time the minor disruption has real world repercussions and is hurting businesses. The people who are responsible for this are those in US government, I think it's pathetic companies like Visa, Paypal and Mastercard are being attacked when they've done nothing wrong, it's the US government at fault but they're "untouchable" to these angsty teenagers so they do the thing they always do and attack the weakest targets. Give it a week and nobody will remember any of this, besides the businesses that lost money.
    - alnayyir 16y ago
      >Give it a week and nobody will remember any of this That's the tragedy not >besides the businesses that lost money. Nobody cares about citizenship or rights anymore. Just money.
    - nmcfarl 16y ago
      Which if it's enough businesses loose money might be a lot of people. I'm completely opposed to these actions, but I've got to say that causing financial losses is a fairly effective protest.
    - jquery 16y ago
      This is nothing more than Eco-terrorism for nerds. What's wrong with blowing up some buildings, after all they only cost money, and the fate of the world is at stake! Please. This is terrorism pure and simple--do right by Wikileaks or we will hurt you. Maybe it's terrorism you finally agree with because this time it's for the Internet, but let's be under no illusions it won't utterly backfire.
      - alnayyir 16y ago
        I oppose ALF and ELF both.
    - blhack 16y ago
      I wouldn't be so sure that they're just going to lose interest in a week. Look at scientology, that's still going on.
pbhjpbhj 16y ago
>If you dominate a market, a serious ethical duty devolves upon you to do right by your customers, but Paypal, Visa, and MC, on which donation-supported non-profit orgs like Wikileaks almost entirely depend, have utterly failed to fulfill that duty; in fact they didn't even try. The majority of Paypal Visa and Mastercard customers rely to some extent on a stable international environment. Suggesting that these companies need to change their moral stance to accommodate anarchists is silly. Wikileaks actions suggest they want to take down the establishment that in a large part enables such companies to operate. Indeed the fact that these companies have now been attacked by the associates of those they chose not to support means that they made the right decision. Why would they want to bolster groups that will turn and attack them? If Paypal, for example, hadn't accepted Wikileaks as a customer in the first place then they wouldn't be having to deal with the current situation and could serve the majority of their customers better. Taking a capitalist view basically Wikileaks supports believe that the rest of us should be screwed over so they can make their point. It's not civilised it's brutish anarchism.
- chopsueyar 16y ago
  I think you've watched 'Fight Club' too many times.
  - pbhjpbhj 16y ago
    I've seen it, perhaps if I saw it again I'd have clue what you're on about?
    - chopsueyar 16y ago
      "Project Mayhem"
- jokermatt999 16y ago
  You seem to be implying Wikileaks ordered the DDoSing. Anon is a completely separate "organization" and completely unaffiliated with Wikileaks. They supported Wikileaks' views, and so decided to DDoS MC/Visa/Paypal, but Wikileaks had no part in ordering the attack from my understanding. This is an important distinction to make.

citricsquid 16y ago

You're ignoring the thousands (hundreds of thousands, millions?) of "innocent" businesses that are having problems because of this. Sure try and hurt Visa, Mastercard and Paypal, but hurting innocent people? Isn't that exactly what the US government have done? "It's for the greater good". The people involved in these attacks are just as bad.

alnayyir 16y ago
I'm going to preface this by saying that I'm not actually a huge fan of WikiLeaks or of Anon, but... Try to keep things in perspective. We're facing a substantial progression towards a hybridization of the scenarios outlined in 1984 and Brave New World, and you're worried about the disruption of commerce? Are your priorities really that warped? There's always collateral damage, whether it's merchants or your civil rights. I should've guessed that there would be hand-wringing about commerce on here, but I never knew it would be so ridiculous considering what's being hashed out here.
- citricsquid 16y ago
  I'm sorry, but do you honestly think this is anymore than a bunch of angry teenagers who will be bored in a week? Look back on every other instance of "Anon" "protesting" and work out what has changed. Please do show what they've actually done beyond cause minor temporary disruption, it just so happens that this time the minor disruption has real world repercussions and is hurting businesses. The people who are responsible for this are those in US government, I think it's pathetic companies like Visa, Paypal and Mastercard are being attacked when they've done nothing wrong, it's the US government at fault but they're "untouchable" to these angsty teenagers so they do the thing they always do and attack the weakest targets. Give it a week and nobody will remember any of this, besides the businesses that lost money.
  - alnayyir 16y ago
    >Give it a week and nobody will remember any of this That's the tragedy not >besides the businesses that lost money. Nobody cares about citizenship or rights anymore. Just money.
  - nmcfarl 16y ago
    Which if it's enough businesses loose money might be a lot of people. I'm completely opposed to these actions, but I've got to say that causing financial losses is a fairly effective protest.
  - jquery 16y ago
    This is nothing more than Eco-terrorism for nerds. What's wrong with blowing up some buildings, after all they only cost money, and the fate of the world is at stake! Please. This is terrorism pure and simple--do right by Wikileaks or we will hurt you. Maybe it's terrorism you finally agree with because this time it's for the Internet, but let's be under no illusions it won't utterly backfire.
    - alnayyir 16y ago
      I oppose ALF and ELF both.
  - blhack 16y ago
    I wouldn't be so sure that they're just going to lose interest in a week. Look at scientology, that's still going on.

pbhjpbhj 16y ago

>If you dominate a market, a serious ethical duty devolves upon you to do right by your customers, but Paypal, Visa, and MC, on which donation-supported non-profit orgs like Wikileaks almost entirely depend, have utterly failed to fulfill that duty; in fact they didn't even try. The majority of Paypal Visa and Mastercard customers rely to some extent on a stable international environment. Suggesting that these companies need to change their moral stance to accommodate anarchists is silly. Wikileaks actions suggest they want to take down the establishment that in a large part enables such companies to operate. Indeed the fact that these companies have now been attacked by the associates of those they chose not to support means that they made the right decision. Why would they want to bolster groups that will turn and attack them? If Paypal, for example, hadn't accepted Wikileaks as a customer in the first place then they wouldn't be having to deal with the current situation and could serve the majority of their customers better. Taking a capitalist view basically Wikileaks supports believe that the rest of us should be screwed over so they can make their point. It's not civilised it's brutish anarchism.

chopsueyar 16y ago
I think you've watched 'Fight Club' too many times.
- pbhjpbhj 16y ago
  I've seen it, perhaps if I saw it again I'd have clue what you're on about?
  - chopsueyar 16y ago
    "Project Mayhem"
jokermatt999 16y ago
You seem to be implying Wikileaks ordered the DDoSing. Anon is a completely separate "organization" and completely unaffiliated with Wikileaks. They supported Wikileaks' views, and so decided to DDoS MC/Visa/Paypal, but Wikileaks had no part in ordering the attack from my understanding. This is an important distinction to make.