3 ms·
Because it’s not automatically the same thing just because both are private (e.g., non-governmental) organizations. A newspaper can exercise editorial control o
by chipotle_coyote 4y ago
Because it’s not automatically the same thing just because both are private (e.g., non-governmental) organizations. A newspaper can exercise editorial control over what it publishes, but AT&T can’t exercise editorial control over your phone calls. Hacker News can moderate user content, but an ISP can’t moderate what you send over its network.
The question of whether Twitter and Facebook should be treated like a phone company than they are like Hacker News isn’t a stupid one, and I don’t think it’s as clearcut as people on both sides of this debate would like it to be. But the question of whether a payment processor should be able to exercise this kind of editorial control over transactions using them as an intermediary is not really the same question.
Also, keep your paws off my furry porn.
- willcipriano 4y agoPayment processors similarly prevented right wing sites from accepting donations and payments. Gab as one example had to create their own server farm and payment system in order to operate since they were shut out of every other provider. Did you have a problem then?
- chipotle_coyote 4y agoIf we want to subject payment processors—or social media—to the common carrier standard, then obviously, they can’t deny services to anyone who isn’t violating the law. Having politics Visa, Mastercard, or Stripe doesn’t like isn’t illegal. The point I’m making is that I don’t think it’s hypocritical to suggest that such a standard applies to some companies, not all companies, which is what your original post seemed to suggest. I’d personally want to set the bar pretty high when it comes to taking away any business’s right to choose their own customers.
- Dylan16807 4y agoI thought it was funny but yes I definitely had a problem with payment processors' ability to do so.
- themitigating 4y agoThere are alternative payment methods.