4 ms·

First Amendment applies to the _government_, not private entities.

by p_ing 1y ago

CoastalCoder 1y ago
I think the larger point here is that the government is suppressing protected speech by using private sector actors as intermediaries.
- roblabla 1y ago
  Is there proof the government actually uses this apparatus? I don't think there's any government involvement necessary here - Mastercard has some censorship apparatus (which they claim to be necessary for their brand's reputation), and they used it (apparently through pressure from an Australian group) towards video games. This is really bad but I don't think it makes sense to believe a government was ever involved here. Of course, there should be laws put in place to regulate mastercard into a common infrastructure. They should not be able to deny processing a legal payment because of nebulous "brand reputation" reason.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - dlgeek 1y ago
    In this case? Not that I know of, but I'm not following closely. In general? Absolutely - search 'Operation Chokepoint'. There's a great summary in the middle of this (very long) article under that header: https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/debanking-and-debunking/ https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/debanking-and-debunki...
  - switknee 1y ago
    There are laws in place to regulate this behavior, but the government has chosen to protect mastercard from enforcement in this instance. That's the smoking gun. Mastercard could simply refuse service for those games in particular instead of demanding (through proxies) that the games be banned from Steam. There's a clear antitrust violation.
  - hexyl_C_gut 1y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point
- 93po 1y ago
  if we're going to point to this there are much much more problematic instances of this happening, in particular democratic pressure to platforms like twitter and facebook to suppress certain information as "disinformation" even when it later came out to be true (hunter biden laptop)
weberer 1y ago
Now read the grandparent comment you're replying to. You're just talking in circles now.
clarionbell 1y ago
In age of megacorps, this is a great weakness of this right.
- SilverElfin 1y ago
  We need to break them up solely based on size - if they’re too big on revenue or profit or market cap or employees, break them up. Or at least huge taxes on the largest companies and lower taxes on small ones. Market cap about 500B? Here’s an additional 25% tax on profits. Above 1T? Make that 50%.
Manuel_D 1y ago
For certain industries it also applies. Common carriers (e.g. telecoms) and utility companies are also not able to censor or refuse lawful business.
silverliver 1y ago
I would argue that entities such as VISA and Mastercard have so much power that they are government-like entities and should be treated as such (i.e. a common carrier).

First Amendment applies to the _government_, not private entities.

by p_ing 1y ago

First Amendment applies to the _government_, not private entities.

I think the larger point here is that the government is suppressing protected speech by using private sector actors as intermediaries.

roblabla 1y ago
Is there proof the government actually uses this apparatus? I don't think there's any government involvement necessary here - Mastercard has some censorship apparatus (which they claim to be necessary for their brand's reputation), and they used it (apparently through pressure from an Australian group) towards video games. This is really bad but I don't think it makes sense to believe a government was ever involved here. Of course, there should be laws put in place to regulate mastercard into a common infrastructure. They should not be able to deny processing a legal payment because of nebulous "brand reputation" reason.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- dlgeek 1y ago
  In this case? Not that I know of, but I'm not following closely. In general? Absolutely - search 'Operation Chokepoint'. There's a great summary in the middle of this (very long) article under that header: https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/debanking-and-debunking/ https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/debanking-and-debunki...
- switknee 1y ago
  There are laws in place to regulate this behavior, but the government has chosen to protect mastercard from enforcement in this instance. That's the smoking gun. Mastercard could simply refuse service for those games in particular instead of demanding (through proxies) that the games be banned from Steam. There's a clear antitrust violation.
- hexyl_C_gut 1y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point
93po 1y ago
if we're going to point to this there are much much more problematic instances of this happening, in particular democratic pressure to platforms like twitter and facebook to suppress certain information as "disinformation" even when it later came out to be true (hunter biden laptop)

weberer 1y ago

Now read the grandparent comment you're replying to. You're just talking in circles now.

clarionbell 1y ago

In age of megacorps, this is a great weakness of this right.

SilverElfin 1y ago
We need to break them up solely based on size - if they’re too big on revenue or profit or market cap or employees, break them up. Or at least huge taxes on the largest companies and lower taxes on small ones. Market cap about 500B? Here’s an additional 25% tax on profits. Above 1T? Make that 50%.

Manuel_D 1y ago

For certain industries it also applies. Common carriers (e.g. telecoms) and utility companies are also not able to censor or refuse lawful business.

silverliver 1y ago

I would argue that entities such as VISA and Mastercard have so much power that they are government-like entities and should be treated as such (i.e. a common carrier).