7 ms·

More than ten years ago since Visa, Mastercard etc blocked access to WikiLeaks: https://wikileaks.org/Banking-Blockade.html https://wikileaks.org/Banking-Blocka

by kmfrk 5y ago

More than ten years ago since Visa, Mastercard etc blocked access to WikiLeaks: https://wikileaks.org/Banking-Blockade.html https://wikileaks.org/Banking-Blockade.html. I guess they started blocking things The Economist care about.

koheripbal 5y ago
That was not optional. The gov't forced them.
BiteCode_dev 5y ago
Yeah, and didn't seem reluctant at all at the time.
- ews 5y ago
  they just shrugged back then "But calibrating that response raises questions of principle, practice and priority. Businesses will go their own way. Some, such as PayPal, Visa and MasterCard, which handled donations to WikiLeaks, and Amazon, which provided web-hosting services, have dumped it as a customer in response to American outrage. More may follow. They risk attacks from its fans, just as those that refuse face hostility from their customers in America. Too bad: business is full of hard choices." https://www.economist.com/leaders/2010/12/09/the-right-reaction https://www.economist.com/leaders/2010/12/09/the-right-react...
- busymom0 5y ago
  Every single time there’s a HN discussion about censorship and I comment about how we shouldn’t be okay with censorship of anyone regardless of how offensive they might be or whether or not it’s some private corporation and usually it gets downvoted. When the wind starts blowing the opposite direction, only then do people wake up.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - shapefrog 5y ago
    So you demand freedom for all ... except those that are using their freedom in the way you dont like. For the avoidence of doubt, I am talking about the freedom to not have someone in your house / your company platform.
    - TeMPOraL 5y ago
      No, they demand a principled balance between the two freedoms, that's independent of the content of the speech. What you're talking about is what's status quo - freedom for private businesses to not serve someone, except when it contradicts certain narratives, at which point it becomes a national news story about bigoted business owners.
      - SiempreViernes 5y ago
        Saying the balance should be predicated on ignoring the content of the speech makes sense only if speech itself was a pure function without side-effects, only if saying something truly had no other consequence than it being said can we safely ignore the content. But the precise content of speech is exactly the part that matters! If a death sentence is read out aloud in verse, or just sent in via a short text message (that is via two very different types of speech) is clearly not very important if the end result in either case is an aid worker being blown up with a Hellfire. Speech very often triggers actions, to ignore this fact is to state nothing may be prevented because judgment is only possible by examining actions committed to reality.
      - shapefrog 5y ago
        > we shouldn’t be okay with censorship of anyone regardless That is not a balance, that is an absolute position in favour of one side of the coin ... regardless
        saurik 5y ago
        The "balance" is based on something that, while explicitly stated, you somehow disregarded: that some--and, by and large, the current legal landscape--considers the freedom of speech right of the platform to censor people, and so to obtain "anyone can say anything" we have to take away "the freedom to not say something"... which we actually already do in various instances (often involving protected classes) and so, personally, I consider that to be a tractable goal to regulate: some things are "utilities" or even "quasi-governmental entities" and should be forced to be something like a common carrier.
- webspinner 5y ago
  I remember this whole thing. No one was ever reluctant! It happened pretty quickly.

by kmfrk 5y ago

koheripbal 5y ago

That was not optional. The gov't forced them.

BiteCode_dev 5y ago

Yeah, and didn't seem reluctant at all at the time.

ews 5y ago
they just shrugged back then "But calibrating that response raises questions of principle, practice and priority. Businesses will go their own way. Some, such as PayPal, Visa and MasterCard, which handled donations to WikiLeaks, and Amazon, which provided web-hosting services, have dumped it as a customer in response to American outrage. More may follow. They risk attacks from its fans, just as those that refuse face hostility from their customers in America. Too bad: business is full of hard choices." https://www.economist.com/leaders/2010/12/09/the-right-reaction https://www.economist.com/leaders/2010/12/09/the-right-react...
busymom0 5y ago
Every single time there’s a HN discussion about censorship and I comment about how we shouldn’t be okay with censorship of anyone regardless of how offensive they might be or whether or not it’s some private corporation and usually it gets downvoted. When the wind starts blowing the opposite direction, only then do people wake up.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- shapefrog 5y ago
  So you demand freedom for all ... except those that are using their freedom in the way you dont like. For the avoidence of doubt, I am talking about the freedom to not have someone in your house / your company platform.
  - TeMPOraL 5y ago
    No, they demand a principled balance between the two freedoms, that's independent of the content of the speech. What you're talking about is what's status quo - freedom for private businesses to not serve someone, except when it contradicts certain narratives, at which point it becomes a national news story about bigoted business owners.
    - SiempreViernes 5y ago
      Saying the balance should be predicated on ignoring the content of the speech makes sense only if speech itself was a pure function without side-effects, only if saying something truly had no other consequence than it being said can we safely ignore the content. But the precise content of speech is exactly the part that matters! If a death sentence is read out aloud in verse, or just sent in via a short text message (that is via two very different types of speech) is clearly not very important if the end result in either case is an aid worker being blown up with a Hellfire. Speech very often triggers actions, to ignore this fact is to state nothing may be prevented because judgment is only possible by examining actions committed to reality.
    - shapefrog 5y ago
      > we shouldn’t be okay with censorship of anyone regardless That is not a balance, that is an absolute position in favour of one side of the coin ... regardless
      - saurik 5y ago
        The "balance" is based on something that, while explicitly stated, you somehow disregarded: that some--and, by and large, the current legal landscape--considers the freedom of speech right of the platform to censor people, and so to obtain "anyone can say anything" we have to take away "the freedom to not say something"... which we actually already do in various instances (often involving protected classes) and so, personally, I consider that to be a tractable goal to regulate: some things are "utilities" or even "quasi-governmental entities" and should be forced to be something like a common carrier.
webspinner 5y ago
I remember this whole thing. No one was ever reluctant! It happened pretty quickly.