3 ms·
Considering the places whose accounts are being shut down, I'm not surprised. A private company isn't going to want to end up on the wrong end of sanctions due
by kstenerud 5y ago
Considering the places whose accounts are being shut down, I'm not surprised. A private company isn't going to want to end up on the wrong end of sanctions due to whom they're enabling. Places like Consortium News and Mint Press are pretty far out there with the conspiracy theories already, but the Russian propaganda would be what killed their accounts.
All of these financial companies that don't have legal requirements otherwise use the same playbook: Be very trigger-happy, and have a boilerplate "go away" message that gives them maximum maneuverability and reveals no further information that would invite argument (the more their representatives talk, the greater the risk of legal liability).
When I got booted from N26, I kept calling customer service to inquire about it until finally one of the operators broke protocol and told me that the rules require her to hang up on me the moment I mention the closure of my account (and then hung up, of course).
It's nothing personal; they're just protecting their bottom line (which is why most financial institutions are bound by consumer protection laws).
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- raxxorraxor 5y agoA legal scholar in my country just argued that overblocking doesn't exist. I sometimes fail to imagine where these people live. Of course there are bad actors in the profession but from someone in a public position this came as a surprise. Without an ounce of predictability of legal decisions any provider will block generously, any half-arsed lawyer should know this. If our legal scholars are that dense or self-interested, I don't see how any provider could ever make sensible decisions.