4 ms·

Use American Express or ACH or wire transfers or cash or Paypal/Venmo/Cashapp or bitcoin. As to your other point, an alternative to Twitter was made. Then it w

Use American Express or ACH or wire transfers or cash or Paypal/Venmo/Cashapp or bitcoin. As to your other point, an alternative to Twitter was made. Then it was banned by Google and Apple from devices, and then Amazon from computing infrastructure. It's no longer about an alternative of the primary service but all through the stack and that is much more concerning.

PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
In the USA, domestic wire transfers typically US$20. ACH requires that the receiver provides you with their bank account and routing number, which while common in the EU, is extremely unusual and invasive in a US context. You are right that PayPal/Venmo (same company) may be an alternative for now, although they generally end up applying the same restrictions as Visa/MC. American Express ... wow, it's been years since I did this but I think it involves actually going to an Amex brick-and-mortar location, and so wouldn't actually count. Bitcoin is equivalent to paying in a different currency, which while possible, mostly breaks the terms of the comparison, since you could argue for using some other non-crypto-currency to avoid some or all of the limitations of Visa/MC. Parler failed to meets the ToS set by its chosen platform (picked in all likelihood because its founder was ex-AWS). Had it either met the ToS by providing sufficient moderation, or picked a different hosting service, it would have had a different experience. As I said in my opening comment, if there is really no alternative hosting service where Parler can allow people to openly discuss violence towards specific individuals, violence towards state actors and generally be as obnoxious and wrong as they feel like, then sure, I'd agree there's a problem.
- Anon1096 6y ago
  > bank account and routing number, which while common in the EU, is extremely unusual and invasive in a US context So now you're moving the goalposts and saying that it being extremely unusual precludes it as an option? Of course any alternative to the Mastercard/VISA duopoly is going to be unusual. By definition, since they are dominant, any other way of payment will have to be outside the norm. > American Express ... wow, it's been years since I did this but I think it involves actually going to an Amex brick-and-mortar location, and so wouldn't actually count. It does not require going in person at all. You can get qualified for a card online and they'll ship it to you. > Bitcoin is equivalent to paying in a different currency, which while possible, mostly breaks the terms of the comparison Again, by construction of the question, alternative payment schemes will necessarily be different. The other players here are PayPal, Discover, and AMEX. The alternatives for Parler (going to another hosting provider than AWS, alternate App Store on Android, and no app on iOS) are at least as unusual compared to the alternatives for payment. Just like your Discover card won't be accepted at most places, or Bitcoin or PayPal, most users are not going to accept a modern day service that doesn't have an app. Or even more egregiously, in Stormfront's case, users are absolutely not going to learn how to use Tor just to access a site. Parler isn't there yet, but it may well be soon if their domain registrar drops them. Or even Level3 or BGP providers.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
    >So now you're moving the goalposts and saying that it being extremely unusual precludes it as an option Well, what I should have said was "ACH rarely completes inside 24 hours to a new account", which doesn't move the goalposts. >(Amex) It does not require going in person at all. You can get qualified for a card online and they'll ship it to you. Not sure this has anything to do with the ability to pay a 3rd party. They would need to have an Amex merchant account or an equivalent proxy via an intermediate payment processor, and my impression is that when Visa/MC drops you, the 3rd party will too, even if Amex didn't. > users are absolutely not going to learn how to use Tor just to access a site Parler had no privacy (and from what I read, very lax security), so I don't think that a Tor-accessed site is a part of the replacement for what they had. They just a hosting site that can run some moderately but not extraordinarily complex backend stack. The "lack of app" question goes back to a comment I made here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25719115 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25719115
- manigandham 6y ago
  You're arbitrarily discounting alternatives to fit your narrative. If you think that ACH or Amex is less accessible then that's no different than other networks not having the same scale or distribution as Twitter and Apple. Why is it ok for some but not others when they all technically have alternatives? Anyways my greater point is that illegal actions should be forwarded to the appropriate state department which can investigate and prosecute with appropriate authority and accountability. Private companies are setting a dangerous precedent, especially as they gain superior scale and then collude at multiple layers against the same organization.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
    ACH takes longer than 24 hours, so there's no goal post moving there. As I indicated below, I think it is pretty hard to get paid via Amex if Visa/MC have blocked you (3rd party payment processors such as paypal will likely block you too). I would agree about the "forward to the government" part if that was part of normal business to find the illegal actions. I read the Visa/MC - Pornhub thing as more as a case of of Visa/MC saying "look, we think its clear that there's illegal stuff happening on your platform; we're not going to play detective here; we don't want to run the risk of being complicit of processing payments for illegal stuff, so we're cutting you off." That is, it's a statement about their desire to (not) take legal risks. They are operating within a legal context where others may do what you are suggesting and then put them in legal jeopardy.
    - manigandham 6y ago
      They wouldn't be complicit. The legal structure allows companies to operate with protection from their users engaging in illegal activities until it's explicitly proven or otherwise ordered by the state. The "we think it's clear" is the dangerous part, especially when applied outside of a few easy targets discussed here. MC/Visa have numerous examples of shutting down completely legitimate businesses, and so do Google and Apple usually with a weekly HN thread highlighting yet another startup/app unceremoniously wiped off the net. Either it's all a problem or none of it is. Do you disagree with this?

PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago

In the USA, domestic wire transfers typically US$20. ACH requires that the receiver provides you with their bank account and routing number, which while common in the EU, is extremely unusual and invasive in a US context. You are right that PayPal/Venmo (same company) may be an alternative for now, although they generally end up applying the same restrictions as Visa/MC. American Express ... wow, it's been years since I did this but I think it involves actually going to an Amex brick-and-mortar location, and so wouldn't actually count. Bitcoin is equivalent to paying in a different currency, which while possible, mostly breaks the terms of the comparison, since you could argue for using some other non-crypto-currency to avoid some or all of the limitations of Visa/MC. Parler failed to meets the ToS set by its chosen platform (picked in all likelihood because its founder was ex-AWS). Had it either met the ToS by providing sufficient moderation, or picked a different hosting service, it would have had a different experience. As I said in my opening comment, if there is really no alternative hosting service where Parler can allow people to openly discuss violence towards specific individuals, violence towards state actors and generally be as obnoxious and wrong as they feel like, then sure, I'd agree there's a problem.

Anon1096 6y ago
> bank account and routing number, which while common in the EU, is extremely unusual and invasive in a US context So now you're moving the goalposts and saying that it being extremely unusual precludes it as an option? Of course any alternative to the Mastercard/VISA duopoly is going to be unusual. By definition, since they are dominant, any other way of payment will have to be outside the norm. > American Express ... wow, it's been years since I did this but I think it involves actually going to an Amex brick-and-mortar location, and so wouldn't actually count. It does not require going in person at all. You can get qualified for a card online and they'll ship it to you. > Bitcoin is equivalent to paying in a different currency, which while possible, mostly breaks the terms of the comparison Again, by construction of the question, alternative payment schemes will necessarily be different. The other players here are PayPal, Discover, and AMEX. The alternatives for Parler (going to another hosting provider than AWS, alternate App Store on Android, and no app on iOS) are at least as unusual compared to the alternatives for payment. Just like your Discover card won't be accepted at most places, or Bitcoin or PayPal, most users are not going to accept a modern day service that doesn't have an app. Or even more egregiously, in Stormfront's case, users are absolutely not going to learn how to use Tor just to access a site. Parler isn't there yet, but it may well be soon if their domain registrar drops them. Or even Level3 or BGP providers.
- PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
  >So now you're moving the goalposts and saying that it being extremely unusual precludes it as an option Well, what I should have said was "ACH rarely completes inside 24 hours to a new account", which doesn't move the goalposts. >(Amex) It does not require going in person at all. You can get qualified for a card online and they'll ship it to you. Not sure this has anything to do with the ability to pay a 3rd party. They would need to have an Amex merchant account or an equivalent proxy via an intermediate payment processor, and my impression is that when Visa/MC drops you, the 3rd party will too, even if Amex didn't. > users are absolutely not going to learn how to use Tor just to access a site Parler had no privacy (and from what I read, very lax security), so I don't think that a Tor-accessed site is a part of the replacement for what they had. They just a hosting site that can run some moderately but not extraordinarily complex backend stack. The "lack of app" question goes back to a comment I made here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25719115 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25719115
manigandham 6y ago
You're arbitrarily discounting alternatives to fit your narrative. If you think that ACH or Amex is less accessible then that's no different than other networks not having the same scale or distribution as Twitter and Apple. Why is it ok for some but not others when they all technically have alternatives? Anyways my greater point is that illegal actions should be forwarded to the appropriate state department which can investigate and prosecute with appropriate authority and accountability. Private companies are setting a dangerous precedent, especially as they gain superior scale and then collude at multiple layers against the same organization.
- PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
  ACH takes longer than 24 hours, so there's no goal post moving there. As I indicated below, I think it is pretty hard to get paid via Amex if Visa/MC have blocked you (3rd party payment processors such as paypal will likely block you too). I would agree about the "forward to the government" part if that was part of normal business to find the illegal actions. I read the Visa/MC - Pornhub thing as more as a case of of Visa/MC saying "look, we think its clear that there's illegal stuff happening on your platform; we're not going to play detective here; we don't want to run the risk of being complicit of processing payments for illegal stuff, so we're cutting you off." That is, it's a statement about their desire to (not) take legal risks. They are operating within a legal context where others may do what you are suggesting and then put them in legal jeopardy.
  - manigandham 6y ago
    They wouldn't be complicit. The legal structure allows companies to operate with protection from their users engaging in illegal activities until it's explicitly proven or otherwise ordered by the state. The "we think it's clear" is the dangerous part, especially when applied outside of a few easy targets discussed here. MC/Visa have numerous examples of shutting down completely legitimate businesses, and so do Google and Apple usually with a weekly HN thread highlighting yet another startup/app unceremoniously wiped off the net. Either it's all a problem or none of it is. Do you disagree with this?