4 ms·
actually if they were it would be easier to argue it's a violation of free speech, but since they're not they can censor with much less restriction tbh there's
by micromacrofoot 6mo ago
actually if they were it would be easier to argue it's a violation of free speech, but since they're not they can censor with much less restriction
tbh there's a case to be made that the government should run a payment processor as critical infrastructure
- coldacid 6mo agoThe way governments these days use corporations and NGOs to work around constitutional restrictions, I'm sure they're pretty happy leaving the payment processors as-is.
- iamnothere 6mo agoThey actually just got slapped for doing this. This was in the area of speech but hopefully it’s the start of a larger trend. https://foundationforfreedomonline.com/us-government-concedes-first-amendment-violation-in-berenson-settlement/ https://foundationforfreedomonline.com/us-government-concede...
- bcrosby95 6mo agoLol, let me know when a federal administration admits wrongdoing against speech it dislikes. In the meantime this is no different than one side saying "we tax the rich too much" and the other side saying "we don't tax the rich enough."
- marcosdumay 6mo agoIf they can make laws and people are subject to those laws, then they are government. I only disagree with the "the" on the GP, they are para-governamental.
- micromacrofoot 6mo agoit's not a law though, it's a choice of who to do business with
- marcosdumay 6mo agoEh... Go read the article again, or just the title.
- micromacrofoot 6mo agono need, these are two businesses making business decisions... specifically not being government allows them to do this