PayPal Has Begun Quietly Shuttering Left-Wing Media Accounts
jacobinmag.com
jacobinmag.com
All of these financial companies that don't have legal requirements otherwise use the same playbook: Be very trigger-happy, and have a boilerplate "go away" message that gives them maximum maneuverability and reveals no further information that would invite argument (the more their representatives talk, the greater the risk of legal liability).
When I got booted from N26, I kept calling customer service to inquire about it until finally one of the operators broke protocol and told me that the rules require her to hang up on me the moment I mention the closure of my account (and then hung up, of course).
It's nothing personal; they're just protecting their bottom line (which is why most financial institutions are bound by consumer protection laws).
Without an ounce of predictability of legal decisions any provider will block generously, any half-arsed lawyer should know this. If our legal scholars are that dense or self-interested, I don't see how any provider could ever make sensible decisions.
What does that mean in this context? Are you saying that the sites promote health quackery and bizarre theories about fake mass shootings, or is saying they're like NaturalNews and InfoWars just a way to say that you would like them banned because you disagree with their opinions (like you presumably disagree with health quackery and theories about Democrats being possessed by demons?)
Your comment makes it seem more likely you disagree with left wing stuff.
...and I agree that the site may have (apparent or otherwise) biases. But the content reads true to me. I've seen and heard of previous examples of attempts to suppress and shut down publications or talking points that do indeed later turn out to have been accurate.
MKUKTRA was real and its methods and results continue to play a key part in our intelligence services' activities. Some people just don't want to hear how rotten and untrustworthy their society's key institutions have become I suppose.
Here's one paragraph that I found particularly unpleasant from the article:
"After he was stripped naked, interrogators 'lined up' one-by-one to slam Baluchi's head into plywood - and, on occasion, concrete - walls over and over again, until they became 'fatigued,' whereupon another would take their place, in sessions lasting up to two hours. A CIA operative interviewed by the Inspector General claimed this method was 'meant more for 'sensation' than to hurt the detainee,' and 'simply made a big noise.'"
It troubles me for a few reasons:
- It seems unlikely that decision-makers approving 'enhanced' interrogation would be aware of the methods used -- because as illustrated here, they're a disgrace -- and so it implies that the site operated without accountability
- It's documented[1] that no useful intelligence was gathered as a result of these actions
- It's (presumably?) taxpayer funds that pay for this, so there should be transparency so that citizens can debate and decide whether they support it
- It seems to imply an organizational structure that allows -- or provides for -- some people without any moral or sympathetic core to be employed in the (largely senseless) hurt of other human beings
To me, those aren't behaviours that should be acceptable in a 21st century organization, regardless of location. So that's what I don't like about the article -- but I do appreciate the ability to read it.
(from reading more about the publisher, it may indeed have some problems - whether financial censorship makes sense probably depends on the weight of evidence and reasoning behind that)
[1] - https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022/mar/14/cia-black-site-d...
I happened to comment on a photo of an 'iron lung' on the front page saying that I hadn't seen one of those in over 50 years. The next day I saw that I had been banned from some obscure subreddit that I had never even heard of. Seems the subreddit with the photo on the front page was one of the pro-Trump subreddits.
When I complained about that, my complaint post was 'disappeared'.
If Reddit are going to be so up themselves, I can do without them. So I do.
The land of 'free speech' isn't, as far as social media is concerned.
Some of those corporations are comparable to small nations in size and wealth.
On the subject of Russian propaganda; https://old.reddit.com/r/EuropeanSocialists
There are lots of jacobinmag.com submissions with lively discussions in comments as well, and not that many complaints about the reporting (comparable to the usual media sources).