4 ms·

This proves too much. By this argument, it’s fine to arbitrarily deny people access to payment services and banking, since anyone can still mail them precious m

by ggreer 6y ago

This proves too much. By this argument, it’s fine to arbitrarily deny people access to payment services and banking, since anyone can still mail them precious metals or send them cryptocurrency. There are many gradations between “all companies allow X” and “the government will send men with guns to your home if you do X”. If only the last threshold counts as censorship, then we need a word for when people want to read what you wrote, but every major company decides to block that transaction. I think “censorship” is fine for that, but if you have a better term I’m all ears.

sneak 6y ago
> By this argument, it’s fine to arbitrarily deny people access to payment services and banking, since anyone can still mail them precious metals or send them cryptocurrency. If anyone could open a bank and provide banking services, this would be true, but the ability to grant a customer access to banking is heavily regulated. No such corresponding thing exists when it comes to "selling stuff on a website". You'd have done better by pointing out the time Visa and Mastercard both started denying donations to a publisher (simply on request of the state) long before any criminal charges against that publisher were filed or made public. https://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2010/12/07/visa-mastercard-move-to-choke-wikileaks/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2010/12/07/visa-m... (Note that the website of said publisher is still up and still publishing.) Again, however, the issue is that not anyone can just start a bank on a whim. Websites and publishing are not similarly restricted. > If only the last threshold counts as censorship, then we need a word for when people want to read what you wrote, but every major company decides to block that transaction. I think “censorship” is fine for that, but if you have a better term I’m all ears. That is indeed censorship. The article is claiming "banned", though, which is inaccurate. I am extremely critical of private organizations engaging in censorship, and think we should engage in activism regarding it, because we actually can. Once something is actually banned though, activism for it is explicit promotion of illegal activity, which is often itself illegal. It's like calling every protest or riot "terrorism": it begins to mean nothing.

by ggreer 6y ago

sneak 6y ago

> By this argument, it’s fine to arbitrarily deny people access to payment services and banking, since anyone can still mail them precious metals or send them cryptocurrency. If anyone could open a bank and provide banking services, this would be true, but the ability to grant a customer access to banking is heavily regulated. No such corresponding thing exists when it comes to "selling stuff on a website". You'd have done better by pointing out the time Visa and Mastercard both started denying donations to a publisher (simply on request of the state) long before any criminal charges against that publisher were filed or made public. https://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2010/12/07/visa-mastercard-move-to-choke-wikileaks/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2010/12/07/visa-m... (Note that the website of said publisher is still up and still publishing.) Again, however, the issue is that not anyone can just start a bank on a whim. Websites and publishing are not similarly restricted. > If only the last threshold counts as censorship, then we need a word for when people want to read what you wrote, but every major company decides to block that transaction. I think “censorship” is fine for that, but if you have a better term I’m all ears. That is indeed censorship. The article is claiming "banned", though, which is inaccurate. I am extremely critical of private organizations engaging in censorship, and think we should engage in activism regarding it, because we actually can. Once something is actually banned though, activism for it is explicit promotion of illegal activity, which is often itself illegal. It's like calling every protest or riot "terrorism": it begins to mean nothing.