4 ms·
That's a pretty serious step with the federal government directly limiting what every business can do. I'm not actually sure if that would even be constitutiona
by flagrant_taco 3y ago
That's a pretty serious step with the federal government directly limiting what every business can do. I'm not actually sure if that would even be constitutional given that it severely limits how potentially privately owned businesses set their own terms of use.
Defining what those limits are is entirely arbitrary, how do we pick a number that makes sense universally? Is that number adjusted for inflation, population size, business market share, etc? Does this only apply to financial service businesses, regulated financial institutions, or any business? What's the legal definition here for freezing an account?
Writing clear laws isn't an easy or fast process, especially when you're talking about a government regulation 300M+ citizens spread across 50 different states with their own laws.
- polski-g 3y ago> That's a pretty serious step with the federal government directly limiting what every business can do. I'm not actually sure if that would even be constitutional given that it severely limits how potentially privately owned businesses set their own terms of use. See: https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/civil-rights-act https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/civil-rights-ac...
- flagrant_taco 3y agoI never said there isn't precedent for the government seeing some limits on what companies can do. It's important to note, though, that this is a constitutional amendment rather than a law and had a much higher requirement to pass. This precedent would also be equating the civil rights protections within American borders with the rights of non-US citizens to use a company's payment service in a foreign territory. Not sure that is be comfortable comparing those two issues.