Hacker News Reader

Comment by raverbashing | Hacker News Reader

Financial censorship is still censorship

This sounds like an argument that can only be made if one believes that they're incapable of competing without PayPal's involvement. It sounds like a meek whine that they deserve special protections that force other companies to work with them.

If PayPal is such an overwhelming giant of a service that you genuinely believe it needs to be forced to do business with certain corporations, then maybe it should be made into some sort of regulated service.

Thanks for responding with arguments instead of downvoting

While there are other services, the popularity of PayPal makes it an important player

Maybe because of that it should be more careful in who they reject

It's very troubling. In certain respects it's more troubling than speech censorship.

Censorship by being killed is also censorship.

Is it censorship when it's between two private entities?

It is. Censorship is not solely a government action. We have concepts everyone should be familiar with like self-censorship that don’t involve the government.

Paypal is not the government. Stop this absurd misrepresentation of censorship.

Stop the absurd misrepresentation that only the government censor.

When will society stop censoring my racist and xenophobic views! Free speech means everyone has to tolerate and accept what I'm saying!!1

The idea that “you seem unpleasant, I don’t want to do business with you” is censorship is absurd.

That is literally true. Paypal is choosing not to do business with someone. Is your preference that companies must be forced to conduct business with all comers?

FFS the government has already forced people to do business with those they don't like. You do remember the raison etre of the Civil Rights Act don't you?

I'm pretty sure companies in the 1960s South didn't want to serve black Americans.

In fact, many want the Government to go further and force bakers to make cakes for gay weddings when the owners don't support gay marriage [1]

[1] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-05/court-sides-with-colo...

You have completely failed to understand the jurisprudence surrounding the idea of a protected class.

The fact that the Government created protected classes is the entire point. Government's already have forced businesses to do business with people. That is a fact. This argument has nothing to do with what is and isn't a protected class.

What is a protected class could be expanded and the Government can force everyone to do business with unsavoury types.

Payment processors are government licensed oligopolies and if private processors can deny service for no reason, then the goverment should set up its own with a universal service obligation.

If making and receiving payments is considered a necessary utility posting and handling large amounts of cash is restricted, then providers should not have a right to deny service to customers who are not taking payments in violation of the law, regardless of distasteful their activities may be.

Would you agree if the state sided with electrical or water utilities to be able to refuse service to a customer such as brothel, on the grounds that their activitites where distasteful and immoral, not matter how legal?

That would be fine if the person denied service had the right to connect to a river or a well, lay down their own pipes and power and draw their water and electricity directly, but those rights are curtailed by the state, and it requires certain permissions and rights to do those.

The same can be said of online payments and credit card payments. They have become a necessary utility so much so that brothels and panhandlers have credit card machines. If private providers can deny such service arbitrarily then the state must become the providers of last resort.

This is exactly the fight you should be having -- the government should be a universal payment processor. I agree wholeheartedly. I am arguing again the people who state that a corporation should be obligated to serve a non-protected class.

if private processors can deny service for no reason

Ah yes, the "no reason" of being violence-inciting Nazis. What a reasonless judgement.

Yes Paypal denied service for no reason, or more explicitly, no stated reason.

Do you see a reason stated in the termination notice?

If you agree that the government should be a universal payment processor, then you must agree that the government should set itself as a universal payment processor "first", before granting the oligopolies they have licensed the right to deny service for no legal reason.

It’s hard to see how the payment processors (operating under government license) are not violating the first amendment when they ban users. Perhaps someone will try that case one day.

Deciding not to provide a platform for any particular view is not censorship. Also, hate speech specifically calling for violence is not protected speech.

> hate speech specifically calling for violence is not protected speech.

Yes, it is, for the most part. Per Brandenburg v. Ohio,

"The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

Actually yes, that is censorship, by definition. It may not be illegal censorship, but it’s still censorship.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com