> Now, it's entirely possible that there are more accounts wrongly closed than closed for actual fraud. Personally I would doubt it, Ok, then you can rephrase

> Now, it's entirely possible that there are more accounts wrongly closed than closed for actual fraud. Personally I would doubt it, Ok, then you can rephrase my argument as "one of the most common examples of financial censorship", or "common enough that it is still bad", instead of "the most common". It still does not take away from my main point here, which is that it is still useful for people who are breaking no laws, to be able to get around arbitrary financial censorship of their perfectly legal transactions. That was my main point. > conflates a ton of individual issues in a way that I don't think is constructive People who are doing the censoring, or support the censorship, usually don't want their actions to be called censorship, yes. I think it is a good term, though. The reason is because I am specifically referring to financial transactions that are perfectly legal, and are being censored for the political content of transaction. The examples I gave were donations to WikiLeaks, which were perfectly legal, but were arbitrarily blocked, due to the political nature of such a donation, as well as the example of sexual content related financial transactions, which are also legal, but often arbitrarily blocked. > it will one day backfire, harming traditional freedom of speech in the process. I am not really sure how it could backfire, to give people more ways of making perfectly legal financial transactions, that are more difficult to arbitrarily block, due to the political content of those transactions. If you think something is bad, and should be blocked, then make a law. Don't rely on intermediaries to block things that aren't illegal.