The Debanking of America

I assume it’s timed with the Tennessee bill that forces big banks to work with them.

The article does not mention that IAM runs “for-profit debt collection service” under the guise of a religious organization.

>Why is it that all of a sudden - within the past 3-4 days - a bunch of right-wing media is acting like a business can't refuse service at any point and is incredulous about it?

Because the left that used to raise such concerns (from businesses refusing service to people based on their race/ethnicity, all the way to warning about corporate overeach), has resigned to liking it.

That's because it's used against it's ideological enemies. Of course accepting it like that is beyond stupid, based on the idea that the tides would never turn.

Whether right or left, you simply don't and should not give such control to banks, politicians, businesses or bit tech. First as a matter of principle, and second because the tide can very easily turn, and the same things can be used against them.

There are also some types that are used to bend over and forfeit any claim to citizen and consumer rights, as if businesses are above everything and should be able to do whateevr - but those are beyond redemption, and wouldn't understand the problem even if it bit them in the ass.

It's coming out now because Marc Andreessen of A16Z blew the whistle. What is called "Operation Chokepoint 2.0" is very real. The question is who were giving the orders. You're trying to downplay it simply as "humans make mistakes" but debanking has been used, since the Obama administration (where they started debanking companies selling marijuana legally), to attack people whose views were going against the (back then) establishment.

Aid donated to truckers in Canada? Debanking everyone involved. That's not a "human mistake": these are politicians giving secret orders to banks and banks complying.

Some bankers with very long relationship and trust with their clients that were forced to kick them out blew the whistle too: "It's coming from the very very very top, I'm sorry there's really nothing I can do".

I can understand, for example, your love for the government (even if it's only as long as it's a democrat one) and I can understand your hate for crypto companies, for example.

But it's intellectually dishonest to try to pretend there is "nothing to see here, move along, it's just business as usual".

Note that it's not 100% either that banks are allowed to do that: a court ruled that money moving had the status of speech.

Andreessen tweeted that what these banks teamed up to do, following orders from politicians, was unconstitutional.

There may be lawsuits coming and I don't see it's as simple as: "We're a private company, we do what we want".

KYC / AML doesn't justify using debanking as a tool to push one's political views. It's not why KYC / AML rules were created.

I also really don't understand your angle: something deeply disturbing happened, worldwide (debanking has been used to target political opponents in the EU and in Australia too) and you... Shoot the messengers because you're a democrat?

I'll be fighting for your freedom to speak your mind and for your freedom to move your money but will you fight for mine?