Hacker News Reader

Comment by adamnemecek | Hacker News Reader

This is fucked up. I hate that companies are dictating culture. I get that this is really visa and MasterCard but god I can’t wait for online payments to be a solved problem.

View on HN

So let me see if I understand this.

1. Gab.com signs up with Stripe, agreeing to “no-NSFW” rule in the TOS/contract

2. Gab.com allows NSFW content

3. They get mad when caught 2 years later

This seems pretty cut and dry. Are they claiming this is some sort of censorship and the NSFW thing is a straw man reason?

Maybe they shouldn’t have provided Stripe with such an obvious TOS violation. What did they think was going to happen?

It's the fact that there even is a such a provision.

Adult services are NOTORIOUS for a HUGE number of chargebacks. Almost every payment processing company doesn’t want to touch that with a 100 foot pole because of that.

There’s nothing special going on here.

There is a huge difference between something like a porn site, and a service which just happens to have adult content on it due to users sharing such content. The first, which involves paying for adult content explicitly, may have a higher chargeback rate due to things like embarrassment about the charge showing up on a bill. The second has no such issue, the user is paying for a service which is unrelated to the content being shared by the service's users.

Payment processors treating both identically is complete bullshit. Some people just hate porn, and they are trying to force their views on the world. Sadly, because there are no competitive competitors (adult payment processor fees are outrageous) they have no incentive to change their policies.

Surely the free speech heroes at Gab will understand that everyone else has also the freedom to not associate with them.

It's a double edged sword. It will backfire big time.

No it won't. Its literally a non problem. If an action like this will be applied unreasonably we will literally change it with a flip of a finger.

"Freedom to speak"

Does not imply:

"Freedom to use power to silence other people arbitrarily".

In fact it implies the opposite:

"Responsibility to uphold speech even if you disagree with it."

Freedom of speech does by no means entail that anybody has to a) listen to your speech, b) host you on their platform or do business with you.

It doesn't imply A), but it does imply B) to some degree.

To believe a right exists means to believe it should be upheld, which means you should uphold it.

OK. So make a list for me of causes and ideas you hate the most.

I'll arrange for you to tithe in support of organizations promoting those causes. I'll also arrange for someone to show up at your home, every day, and deliver a one-hour lecture on the ideas you dislike.

I'm sure you'll do this because, after all, you believe in free speech and you believe you must "uphold" it by requiring people to support ideas with which they disagree, Yes?

There's an obvious difference between actively supporting ideas with which you disagree (e.g by donating money), and simply not using power to silence those ideas.

You seem to think that your response to any possible political idea MUST be either to donate to it, or use all possible power to attack and silence it. It's obviously a ridiculous false dichotomy. It is possible just to live and let live.

You've declared, quite clearly, that you think the following things are equivalent:

1. Not actively providing resources to a position you dislike

2. "Using your power to silence" positions you dislike

I know you've said these are equivalent, because you're arguing that certain people owe other people a platform and associated services (1), and you've used the language of (2) to shame them for not doing it.

The only thing left to do at this point is ask if you're willing to practice what you preach.

More absurd false equivalence.

Simply treating a customer the same as other customers is not equivalent to actively providing resources to a political cause.

And yes, payment processors do owe it to customers to treat them equally with regards to their politics and beliefs (as well as their race, gender, language, and so on).

You seem to want to live in a world where wrongthinkers are viciously persecuted by every person, every business, everyone in every possible way. Because you think you'll always be in the team with the power to do that. When you have the experience of being the hated minority, you'll understand the value of equal treatment and the norms of individual freedom.

When you have the experience of being the hated minority

Politicians of explicitly right-wing alignment control:

* The US Presidency

* The US Senate

* The US House of Representatives

* 33/50 US governorships

* Legislatures of 26/50 US states

and are about to install a conservative-leaning majority into the US Supreme Court.

Rosa Parks you ain't, bud.

Choosing not to do business with someone is not silencing them.

Of course it is, if you've got a monopoly or duopoly and that someone has no realistic alternatives.

You're right it's not silencing if there are many alternatives, e.g. if someone wanted to buy a wedding cake.

What's fucked up about a private company not doing business with neo-nazis?

It seems like this was over nsfw content tho.

It's fucked up even if it's neonazis (but I disagree with your usage of that term). It sets a precedent that you can willy nilly drop customers that might be relying on you.

Amazon did something similar to me a while back. I was livid.

Why should you get to dictate the actions of another private business?

Because when a business gets to a certain size, they might become an essential part of life. What if say, all the ISPs in your area dropped you as a customer because of that one time you looked up holocaust denial on wikipedia.

What's your stance on the gay wedding cake supreme court case btw?

Because they signed a contract giving you that right?

When gab.com decided to use Stripe, they willingly agreed to abide by those terms.

It’s not like Whole Foods came out of left field, having no relationship to things at all, and all of a sudden said “you have to close your website.”

Provisions of a contract can be one sided. It's the same reason why loan sharks are illegal.

> It sets a precedent that you can willy nilly drop customers that might be relying on you

It doesn't set the precedent (any private company can drop customers) and it wasn't "willy nilly" as you clearly acknowledge ("this was over nsfw content")

Reply on news.ycombinator.com