4 ms·

For someone with such deep knowledge of the law you surely must know that a person can be considered a criminal only after being convicted by a court. So in thi

For someone with such deep knowledge of the law you surely must know that a person can be considered a criminal only after being convicted by a court. So in this case the punishment was carried out based on allegations only.

ineedasername 6y ago
They weren't criminal punishments. They were enforcements of ToS agreements. There's no need for an arrest, a conviction, or even a crime for them to ban users who violate ToS agreements. And, it being their own ToS, they don't need a court or any 3rd party to render judgment: they are the arbiter and interpreter of their own ToS and the enforcement actions taken.
- Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
  Yeah yeah those ToS, the new founding document of the United States of America. One little warning from someone living in a real fascist state (Russia). It wasn't always a fascist state, but when it began to morph into one, censorship what what they started with. Of course, it was legal, because it was all private companies, rightfully executing their liberty to not show anyone they don't like... The rich irony, of course, is that regular fascist masses that support government are brainwashed to think, they it is the marginalized opposition who are fascists.
  - ineedasername 6y ago
    So the government should instead step in and decide what companies can and can't do with their own services & infrastructure? That sounds a lot more fascist to me than a company saying, up front, "Here's the rules for using our service. Violate them and you can take your business elsewhere." And considering the ToS citations were I service of a potentially criminal act, fascism doesn't enter the picture: This is as much about these companies' own legal liability if they allow their platform to facilitate potential criminal activity even though it's against their own rules.
    - Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
      > Violate them and you can take your business elsewhere. Here, I fixed it for you: Violate them, and if you are not someone whose political views we support, you can take your business elsewhere.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - edmundsauto 6y ago
        As has been said elsewhere, this is not about disagreeing with someone’s political views. This is about not amplifying a voice that incites a mob to attack congress and overturn an election. And they aren’t even banning people for solely the latter! Representatives who continue to support the president have had no issues.
        Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
        So, only Congress is shielded from angry mobs by ToS, other, good mobs are ok and are allowed?
        edmundsauto 6y ago
        No, why would you make that leap?
        jeltz 6y ago
        But when mainstream media published lies to support the Iraq War nobody was banned because to served the interests of the government. Or when Facebook was used as a platform for inciting etjinc violence in Burma. No, this is all about selective enforcement against people we do not like. For the record I hate Trump and am a European Social Democrat.
        edmundsauto 6y ago
        Did Twitter and FB's newsfeed exist when the NY Times was spreading their misinformation? (For context - were they promoting what they were told by the gov't, or were they caught lying on their own?)
klyrs 6y ago
That is true. But if your buddy is packing heat, wearing a Nixon mask and asks you for a ride to and from the bank, then you don't get a free pass just because your buddy wasn't deemed a criminal at the time.
nobody9999 6y ago
>For someone with such deep knowledge of the law you surely must know that a person can be considered a criminal only after being convicted by a court. So in this case the punishment was carried out based on allegations only. You're absolutely correct that in the US no one may be punished by the state without due process. But Stripe isn't a government and refusing to do business with someone doesn't require a criminal trial. Or are you claiming that Stripe cannot choose its customers unless a court has convicted that customer of a crime?

ineedasername 6y ago

They weren't criminal punishments. They were enforcements of ToS agreements. There's no need for an arrest, a conviction, or even a crime for them to ban users who violate ToS agreements. And, it being their own ToS, they don't need a court or any 3rd party to render judgment: they are the arbiter and interpreter of their own ToS and the enforcement actions taken.

Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
Yeah yeah those ToS, the new founding document of the United States of America. One little warning from someone living in a real fascist state (Russia). It wasn't always a fascist state, but when it began to morph into one, censorship what what they started with. Of course, it was legal, because it was all private companies, rightfully executing their liberty to not show anyone they don't like... The rich irony, of course, is that regular fascist masses that support government are brainwashed to think, they it is the marginalized opposition who are fascists.
- ineedasername 6y ago
  So the government should instead step in and decide what companies can and can't do with their own services & infrastructure? That sounds a lot more fascist to me than a company saying, up front, "Here's the rules for using our service. Violate them and you can take your business elsewhere." And considering the ToS citations were I service of a potentially criminal act, fascism doesn't enter the picture: This is as much about these companies' own legal liability if they allow their platform to facilitate potential criminal activity even though it's against their own rules.
  - Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
    > Violate them and you can take your business elsewhere. Here, I fixed it for you: Violate them, and if you are not someone whose political views we support, you can take your business elsewhere.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - edmundsauto 6y ago
      As has been said elsewhere, this is not about disagreeing with someone’s political views. This is about not amplifying a voice that incites a mob to attack congress and overturn an election. And they aren’t even banning people for solely the latter! Representatives who continue to support the president have had no issues.
      - Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
        So, only Congress is shielded from angry mobs by ToS, other, good mobs are ok and are allowed?
        edmundsauto 6y ago
        No, why would you make that leap?
      - jeltz 6y ago
        But when mainstream media published lies to support the Iraq War nobody was banned because to served the interests of the government. Or when Facebook was used as a platform for inciting etjinc violence in Burma. No, this is all about selective enforcement against people we do not like. For the record I hate Trump and am a European Social Democrat.
        edmundsauto 6y ago
        Did Twitter and FB's newsfeed exist when the NY Times was spreading their misinformation? (For context - were they promoting what they were told by the gov't, or were they caught lying on their own?)

klyrs 6y ago

That is true. But if your buddy is packing heat, wearing a Nixon mask and asks you for a ride to and from the bank, then you don't get a free pass just because your buddy wasn't deemed a criminal at the time.

nobody9999 6y ago

>For someone with such deep knowledge of the law you surely must know that a person can be considered a criminal only after being convicted by a court. So in this case the punishment was carried out based on allegations only. You're absolutely correct that in the US no one may be punished by the state without due process. But Stripe isn't a government and refusing to do business with someone doesn't require a criminal trial. Or are you claiming that Stripe cannot choose its customers unless a court has convicted that customer of a crime?