13 ms·

I had never heard the term "jawboning" before. According to Merriam-Webster it is "the use of public appeals (as by a president) to influence the actions especi

I had never heard the term "jawboning" before. According to Merriam-Webster it is "the use of public appeals (as by a president) to influence the actions especially of business and labor leaders" or "broadly : the use of spoken persuasion". Regarding TFA: I don't think trading freedoms of one group (the platform users) for those of another (the platform operators) is a good solution. Visa/Mastercard should have the right to refuse service. The solution being explored in the EU makes more sense: facilitate competition so users have more choice of platforms. Or another alternative: can we reduce the power of small but vocal minorities to prevent them from "jawboning" companies?

cwillu 1y ago
Companies shouldn't have rights.
- shswkna 1y ago
  Please elaborate?
- willprice89 1y ago
  If I'm the sole owner and only employee of a small business, should I have the right to choose my clients? If so, at what size/scale/level of market capture should I lose my rights?
  - BomberFish 1y ago
    Well there's a difference between a small business and the effective duopoly that is Visa/Mastercard.
  - bfg_9k 1y ago
    It's an interesting one - I've always thought that businesses should have no right to refuse business, and it kind of already exists, for example you can't refuse to serve a customer purely on the basis of their skin color. Likewise, if a casino or betting company (ladbrokes, for example) have customers that win too often, I also think it should be illegal to stop them betting. Fundamentally if you're running a business that is an uneven coin toss (to your favour) and you have customers that are able to make money off you - that's your fault for having a bad business model. So to answer your question, any size.
    - joegibbs 1y ago
      But say you're a concreter, you've worked with a client who's an absolute prick - doesn't do anything illegal exactly but he's a total stickler with your work, calls you all the time with stupid questions, tries to find problems everywhere to justify a discount (despite you having hypothetically done the job perfectly), pays as late as possible. Shouldn't you have the right to not take on another job for this guy?
      - bfg_9k 1y ago
        You're right - but in that instance the justification in my mind (and what you'd presumably argue if challenged legally) is that they're difficult to work with - which I'm okay with. But not wanting to concrete that person's driveway because they're in the army, or because they're a politician or whatever else along those lines I think shouldn't be allowed.
        s1mplicissimus 1y ago
        Okay, I will now say "they are difficult to work with" or "i don't have time" every time a client walks up that I don't want to serve. Infact, that's exactly what a lot of handymen say already to avoid the irritation associated with declining a job. I hope you see how your "ought" will be difficult to implement in practice
      - cwillu 1y ago
        None of this has anything to do with companies having rights. You as a person can choose to not to business with another person.
        joegibbs 1y ago
        But given that companies are made up of people, where does the line get drawn? If your concreting business has a couple of other guys working does it still count?
      - AngryData 1y ago
  - rachofsunshine 1y ago
    "Small" is doing a lot of work there. Large entrenched companies have leverage small businesses do not, in the same way that a large moon orbits in a way a test particle of infinitesimal mass does not. We already recognize this with respect to monopoly law: you lose your right to do certain things to your competitors precisely when you're large enough that you could reasonably suppress them. That is essentially what we are talking about here: a duopoly that is actively suppressing competition. My understanding is that the big-two payment processors don't just refuse to process certain payments, they also refuse to work with banks who work with payment processors who will. Assuming that I am correct in that understanding (I might not be, this is not my area of expertise), that would prevent (or at least hinders) someone from just saying "there is a market need here" and forming their own payment processor to fill that need. To me, that seems like a problem for the exact same reasons that monopolies are a problem, and regulating against monopolies is not particularly controversial.
  - aqme28 1y ago
    To some extent, no. In my opinion* you shouldn't get to say "I refuse to design websites for gay people." *: Not always the same as Sam Alito's
    - throw7 1y ago
      That's not usually the problem (it can be for some). It's really when your art/"identity" is being used to promote something you don't believe in. That happens across the whole religious and political spectrum... e.g. musicians that don't want their art used in certain contexts. About the OP, government is the right place where we "fight it out" and try to sloppily design a system to move forward as one; these seemingly activist campaigns to "jawbone" private companies is absolutely a sign that something needs to be done at the government side. However, there are very entitled, rich interests behind the banking system, so yeah, there isn't one easy solution i think.
  - charlieyu1 1y ago
    Plenty of laws around the world have exemptions for small businesses so it is a moot point
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- tiahura 1y ago
  Agreed. Trump should shut down the NYT, Bluesky, and any other media corporation that questions him.
- baggy_trough 1y ago
  Companies are groups of people. Why should people have rights separately but not when they decide to work together in a group?
  - PopAlongKid 1y ago
    That makes sense only if they also have legal responsibilities to go along with their rights. Take for example PG&E, the large gas/electric utility for the northern 2/3rds of California. PG&E is a convicted felon and was sentenced to five years probation, but they remain un-rehabilitated.[0] Under your theory, the "group" with the rights should have been jailed. Instead, a new layer of rights is created out of thin air for the corporation but no meaningful responsibility was ever assigned, unlike individuals. [0]https://liberationnews.org/pges-rap-sheet-the-criminal-history-of-the-largest-utility-monopoly-in-the-u-s/ https://liberationnews.org/pges-rap-sheet-the-criminal-histo...
    - baggy_trough 1y ago
      PG&E is certainly a grotesque entity, no argument there. Of course, it's a government created and strictly regulated monopoly as well.
anal_reactor 1y ago
> Visa/Mastercard should have the right to refuse service. No. A company beyond certain size functions more akin to a government body providing public service, and should be treated as such. Imagine the only ISP in the area refusing to provide service because fuck you that's why. Or Microsoft banning you from using Windows ever again. Think about it for a second - if Apple made a policy "iPhones cannot be sold to black people" would you say that a private company has all the rights to refuse service?
- willprice89 1y ago
  I think the market would punish Apple sufficiently enough for something like that and government intervention wouldn't be required... What about a small, local ISP? Should they be able to refuse to provide service? At what size can/should the government step in a force companies to do things?
  - anal_reactor 1y ago
    > I think the market would punish Apple sufficiently enough for something like that and government intervention wouldn't be required... Ah yes. The invisible magic hand of free market that solves all problems. Except it doesn't. See Uber expanding its service where for a small fee you can avoid dealing with people from undesirable social class. Not exactly the same thing, but still the idea of free market promoting immoral solutions rather than eliminating them. > At what size can/should the government step in a force companies to do things? At a size when the society starts depending on your service for daily functioning. When it becomes essential. For example in my country it's an issue that you can't have a business without a bank account but sometimes banks just... refuse to make an account for you and your company won't function.
    - Workaccount2 1y ago
      >Ah yes. The invisible magic hand of free market that solves all problems. Except it doesn't. See Uber expanding its service where for a small fee you can avoid dealing with people from undesirable social class. Not exactly the same thing, but still the idea of free market promoting immoral solutions rather than eliminating them. I think you are mistaking the market for the people. The market is a natural manifestation of what people want. If people want high social class drivers and are willing to pay for it...taking away the option is not going to make them not want those drivers. This a myopia similar to the war on drugs. The government thought regulating the drug market (that is, total ban) would make people not want to do drugs. We all know how well that worked out. The market is the messenger, don't shoot it.
sunrunner 1y ago
> Visa/Mastercard should have the right to refuse service Really? If this was any other small to medium business where there were potentially tens, hundreds or even thousands of viable alternate businesses that provide what could be deemed as an equivalent service I might agree, but a global payments duopoly is essentially public infrastructure and should not be able to discriminate based on protected characteristics or personal subjective moral compass.
- willprice89 1y ago
  I agree with your assessment of the current situation. But I think the solution is to break up the duopoly, either by leveling the playing field or creating government-run alternatives, rather than force the duopoly to do certain things.
  - brookst 1y ago
    This is the “instead of providing school lunches, eliminate poverty” argument. I am fully supportive of fostering competition. But until the market actualky changes, monopilies / duopolies should be regulated to prevent this abuse of power. Rejecting a simple tactical solution in favor of a future systemic overhaul is classic perfect vs good.
    - hx8 1y ago
      Calling for the creation of a government run alternative isn't arguing against School Lunches. It's the exact opposite.
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      - charlieyu1 1y ago
        There is still an alternative, plain paper cash, and is run by the government. Won't trust most governments these days to do it though
    - deleted 1y ago
jjav 1y ago
> Visa/Mastercard should have the right to refuse service. Given their market dominance, they should absolutely not have any right to refuse service. At that level of scale, they need to be treated like common carriers, who must handle all communications/transactions.
- FirmwareBurner 1y ago
  THIS. Why is this PoV even controversial? Especially given that the videogames in question weren't even illegal. Hell, I don't even like those games, but it's about the precedent of corporate overreach: if it's all legal, Visa/MasterCard shouldn't be able to decide for me what games I'm allowed to buy, no matter how weird they may be. It's not their job to judge the legal kinks I'm up to in the privacy of my own home. If the gov doesn't clamp down hard on them, I can only assume the gov is in on this grift of having corporations acting as unofficial censors and freedom of speech moderators for the state under the loophole of "the state didn't mess with your constitutional rights to freedom of expression, but what you did broke the ToS of the payment processors, so now they're free to de-bank you and take away your ability to buy and sell things. Tsk tsk, shouldn't have sent those memes making fun of JD Vance and Trump I guess".
  - coldpie 1y ago
    > THIS. Why is this PoV even controversial? Because it is stating that the government should control private behavior, which bumps into free speech and freedom of association issues. That gets pretty controversial. There are other solutions to the stated problem: > Given their market dominance, they should absolutely not have any right to refuse service. The fix is to address the precondition in that statement: their market dominance. If a single entity is so powerful that it can control entire markets, then the problem is not what it does with that power, but that it has that power in the first place. The solution to this problem is enforcing our existing anti-trust laws, not passing new laws to compel private behavior. We should not have only one or two entities that control this entire market. That's a sign of a broken market, and that's what must be addressed.
    - 1y ago

cwillu 1y ago

Companies shouldn't have rights.

shswkna 1y ago
Please elaborate?
willprice89 1y ago
If I'm the sole owner and only employee of a small business, should I have the right to choose my clients? If so, at what size/scale/level of market capture should I lose my rights?
- BomberFish 1y ago
  Well there's a difference between a small business and the effective duopoly that is Visa/Mastercard.
- bfg_9k 1y ago
  It's an interesting one - I've always thought that businesses should have no right to refuse business, and it kind of already exists, for example you can't refuse to serve a customer purely on the basis of their skin color. Likewise, if a casino or betting company (ladbrokes, for example) have customers that win too often, I also think it should be illegal to stop them betting. Fundamentally if you're running a business that is an uneven coin toss (to your favour) and you have customers that are able to make money off you - that's your fault for having a bad business model. So to answer your question, any size.
  - joegibbs 1y ago
    But say you're a concreter, you've worked with a client who's an absolute prick - doesn't do anything illegal exactly but he's a total stickler with your work, calls you all the time with stupid questions, tries to find problems everywhere to justify a discount (despite you having hypothetically done the job perfectly), pays as late as possible. Shouldn't you have the right to not take on another job for this guy?
    - bfg_9k 1y ago
      You're right - but in that instance the justification in my mind (and what you'd presumably argue if challenged legally) is that they're difficult to work with - which I'm okay with. But not wanting to concrete that person's driveway because they're in the army, or because they're a politician or whatever else along those lines I think shouldn't be allowed.
      - s1mplicissimus 1y ago
        Okay, I will now say "they are difficult to work with" or "i don't have time" every time a client walks up that I don't want to serve. Infact, that's exactly what a lot of handymen say already to avoid the irritation associated with declining a job. I hope you see how your "ought" will be difficult to implement in practice
    - cwillu 1y ago
      None of this has anything to do with companies having rights. You as a person can choose to not to business with another person.
      - joegibbs 1y ago
        But given that companies are made up of people, where does the line get drawn? If your concreting business has a couple of other guys working does it still count?
    - AngryData 1y ago
- rachofsunshine 1y ago
  "Small" is doing a lot of work there. Large entrenched companies have leverage small businesses do not, in the same way that a large moon orbits in a way a test particle of infinitesimal mass does not. We already recognize this with respect to monopoly law: you lose your right to do certain things to your competitors precisely when you're large enough that you could reasonably suppress them. That is essentially what we are talking about here: a duopoly that is actively suppressing competition. My understanding is that the big-two payment processors don't just refuse to process certain payments, they also refuse to work with banks who work with payment processors who will. Assuming that I am correct in that understanding (I might not be, this is not my area of expertise), that would prevent (or at least hinders) someone from just saying "there is a market need here" and forming their own payment processor to fill that need. To me, that seems like a problem for the exact same reasons that monopolies are a problem, and regulating against monopolies is not particularly controversial.
- aqme28 1y ago
  To some extent, no. In my opinion* you shouldn't get to say "I refuse to design websites for gay people." *: Not always the same as Sam Alito's
  - throw7 1y ago
    That's not usually the problem (it can be for some). It's really when your art/"identity" is being used to promote something you don't believe in. That happens across the whole religious and political spectrum... e.g. musicians that don't want their art used in certain contexts. About the OP, government is the right place where we "fight it out" and try to sloppily design a system to move forward as one; these seemingly activist campaigns to "jawbone" private companies is absolutely a sign that something needs to be done at the government side. However, there are very entitled, rich interests behind the banking system, so yeah, there isn't one easy solution i think.
- charlieyu1 1y ago
  Plenty of laws around the world have exemptions for small businesses so it is a moot point
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
tiahura 1y ago
Agreed. Trump should shut down the NYT, Bluesky, and any other media corporation that questions him.
baggy_trough 1y ago
Companies are groups of people. Why should people have rights separately but not when they decide to work together in a group?
- PopAlongKid 1y ago
  That makes sense only if they also have legal responsibilities to go along with their rights. Take for example PG&E, the large gas/electric utility for the northern 2/3rds of California. PG&E is a convicted felon and was sentenced to five years probation, but they remain un-rehabilitated.[0] Under your theory, the "group" with the rights should have been jailed. Instead, a new layer of rights is created out of thin air for the corporation but no meaningful responsibility was ever assigned, unlike individuals. [0]https://liberationnews.org/pges-rap-sheet-the-criminal-history-of-the-largest-utility-monopoly-in-the-u-s/ https://liberationnews.org/pges-rap-sheet-the-criminal-histo...
  - baggy_trough 1y ago
    PG&E is certainly a grotesque entity, no argument there. Of course, it's a government created and strictly regulated monopoly as well.

anal_reactor 1y ago

> Visa/Mastercard should have the right to refuse service. No. A company beyond certain size functions more akin to a government body providing public service, and should be treated as such. Imagine the only ISP in the area refusing to provide service because fuck you that's why. Or Microsoft banning you from using Windows ever again. Think about it for a second - if Apple made a policy "iPhones cannot be sold to black people" would you say that a private company has all the rights to refuse service?

willprice89 1y ago
I think the market would punish Apple sufficiently enough for something like that and government intervention wouldn't be required... What about a small, local ISP? Should they be able to refuse to provide service? At what size can/should the government step in a force companies to do things?
- anal_reactor 1y ago
  > I think the market would punish Apple sufficiently enough for something like that and government intervention wouldn't be required... Ah yes. The invisible magic hand of free market that solves all problems. Except it doesn't. See Uber expanding its service where for a small fee you can avoid dealing with people from undesirable social class. Not exactly the same thing, but still the idea of free market promoting immoral solutions rather than eliminating them. > At what size can/should the government step in a force companies to do things? At a size when the society starts depending on your service for daily functioning. When it becomes essential. For example in my country it's an issue that you can't have a business without a bank account but sometimes banks just... refuse to make an account for you and your company won't function.
  - Workaccount2 1y ago
    >Ah yes. The invisible magic hand of free market that solves all problems. Except it doesn't. See Uber expanding its service where for a small fee you can avoid dealing with people from undesirable social class. Not exactly the same thing, but still the idea of free market promoting immoral solutions rather than eliminating them. I think you are mistaking the market for the people. The market is a natural manifestation of what people want. If people want high social class drivers and are willing to pay for it...taking away the option is not going to make them not want those drivers. This a myopia similar to the war on drugs. The government thought regulating the drug market (that is, total ban) would make people not want to do drugs. We all know how well that worked out. The market is the messenger, don't shoot it.

sunrunner 1y ago

> Visa/Mastercard should have the right to refuse service Really? If this was any other small to medium business where there were potentially tens, hundreds or even thousands of viable alternate businesses that provide what could be deemed as an equivalent service I might agree, but a global payments duopoly is essentially public infrastructure and should not be able to discriminate based on protected characteristics or personal subjective moral compass.

willprice89 1y ago
I agree with your assessment of the current situation. But I think the solution is to break up the duopoly, either by leveling the playing field or creating government-run alternatives, rather than force the duopoly to do certain things.
- brookst 1y ago
  This is the “instead of providing school lunches, eliminate poverty” argument. I am fully supportive of fostering competition. But until the market actualky changes, monopilies / duopolies should be regulated to prevent this abuse of power. Rejecting a simple tactical solution in favor of a future systemic overhaul is classic perfect vs good.
  - hx8 1y ago
    Calling for the creation of a government run alternative isn't arguing against School Lunches. It's the exact opposite.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - charlieyu1 1y ago
      There is still an alternative, plain paper cash, and is run by the government. Won't trust most governments these days to do it though
  - deleted 1y ago

jjav 1y ago

> Visa/Mastercard should have the right to refuse service. Given their market dominance, they should absolutely not have any right to refuse service. At that level of scale, they need to be treated like common carriers, who must handle all communications/transactions.

FirmwareBurner 1y ago
THIS. Why is this PoV even controversial? Especially given that the videogames in question weren't even illegal. Hell, I don't even like those games, but it's about the precedent of corporate overreach: if it's all legal, Visa/MasterCard shouldn't be able to decide for me what games I'm allowed to buy, no matter how weird they may be. It's not their job to judge the legal kinks I'm up to in the privacy of my own home. If the gov doesn't clamp down hard on them, I can only assume the gov is in on this grift of having corporations acting as unofficial censors and freedom of speech moderators for the state under the loophole of "the state didn't mess with your constitutional rights to freedom of expression, but what you did broke the ToS of the payment processors, so now they're free to de-bank you and take away your ability to buy and sell things. Tsk tsk, shouldn't have sent those memes making fun of JD Vance and Trump I guess".
- coldpie 1y ago
  > THIS. Why is this PoV even controversial? Because it is stating that the government should control private behavior, which bumps into free speech and freedom of association issues. That gets pretty controversial. There are other solutions to the stated problem: > Given their market dominance, they should absolutely not have any right to refuse service. The fix is to address the precondition in that statement: their market dominance. If a single entity is so powerful that it can control entire markets, then the problem is not what it does with that power, but that it has that power in the first place. The solution to this problem is enforcing our existing anti-trust laws, not passing new laws to compel private behavior. We should not have only one or two entities that control this entire market. That's a sign of a broken market, and that's what must be addressed.
  - 1y ago