Your comment illustrates my point exactly, and I think your attitude is why payment processors will always remain as powerful as they are.
My position is that payment processors should not be the arbiters of what is allowed to be paid for by humans. I think that is your position too, but because you don't like the way I made my argument, you reply with a snarky and dismissive tone and treat me like I'm dumb.
That banks and other payment processors shouldn't be the rulers of the world is what we all must agree on and fight for if anything is ever going to change. As soon as you say "well in this case they should because I like when they do it to people I dislike," you are effectively saying that they should be all powerful, just as long as their moral compass aligns with yours.
I disagreed with your line of thinking and explained my reasons why. I’m not sure where you got “dismissive tone”/treating you like you’re dumb. My intent wasn’t to belittle you personally, but I do have an axe to grind with free speech absolutism.
As for payment company power - I agree they shouldn’t be the arbiters of what is acceptable - but you tried to link people asking them to stop taking payments for nazis to this like one lead to the other which is absolutely not the case.
My point is through well crafted hate speech laws and a functioning legal system we can have both - platforms that ban nazis AND payment processing that isn’t able to influence speech.
The problem is they get influenced by the state. See Operation Choke Point that was an initiative started by Justice Department to help combat "fraud" and "money laundering" and ended up hitting a lot of adult entertainers
I don't know. I am all for businesses having that freedom, but I don't really think banks are normal businesses because there are no other options.
But I do lean towards "no" to your question, because if we say it's ok for them to choose who they associate with, we are implicitly saying it's ok for them to restrict any content they want. But ultimately, I don't know, and I just find it confusing that any regular person would argue for the rights of _banks_.
We are in a weird point in history where for some reason a whole generation of people think “visa not processing porn payments” is some new free speech thing, despite the fact that they have historically never processed them.
Idk what it says that there’s so many hammers looking for nails.
The person who nailed this best for me was Terry Smith, a successful UK fund manager (Fundsmith). He was asked a question at an investor meeting many years ago about why they thought it ethically acceptable to invest in British American Tobacco (unfortunately I can’t find a clip), he simply replied they were an investor and not a moral judge of society or in the market of making ethical judgments. While companies were legal entities that they could legally invest in, and gave good returns to their investors, they would continue to invest in profitable companies to deliver returns for their investors.
It was entirely up to people to disagree, not invest, lobby politicians and alter the laws, etc., at which point the companies wouldn’t exist anymore and they could then no longer invest in them.
It just simply wasn’t his/their job to police companies morally. It’s a bittersweet conundrum - I agree with him wholeheartedly, but also people can/should vote with their feet (money) and refuse to give these companies money if legally they are still allowed to exist and you disagree morally with what they do/stand for.
Unfortunately I can’t find the specific conversation I’m looking for, but the article [1] lightly touches on the subject. [2] is worth watching as he actually delves a bit deeper why tobacco is such a good investment for them how and governments have almost made the big tobacco companies bullet proof as an investment.
We see this all the time now across society - people love seeing western companies with rainbow flags, meanwhile ignoring a World Cup being held in Qatar in a few months under shocking morals, sponsored by same said companies, totally ignoring diversity, etc. because it’s a different market. Different markets have different morals and companies know/play to this. We should call these companies out for their absolute disgraceful hypocrisy.
Really you have two choices - vote with your feet and starve these companies of oxygen (money) wholly to force change, or lobby your politicians. Don’t expect morality from businesses. They only exist for one reason and one reason only - to make profits and return value to their investors. Look at how you can alter that equation and you just might change things for the better.
Ultimately, this is the same line of thinking used by drug dealers and cartels. “It’s where consumer demand is, I’m just going where $ is and supplying a need. They should stop using my addictive product.”
You’ll then say, well, it’s as long as it’s legal. And then you’ve outsourced your morals to the letter of the law, in which you’d be a dutiful Nazi in The Third Reich.
I think that’s what I was ultimately trying to say at the time, but you’ve articulated it far better in one paragraph, than I managed to in five or six.
"It just simply wasn’t his/their job to police companies morally. It’s a bittersweet conundrum - I agree with him wholeheartedly"
And pawn off responsibility to consumers under the current system. I don't absolve people that say "it's not my job, I just follow the $." They still have a moral duty to help their fellow humans and not just chase the bottom line.
My position is that payment processors should not be the arbiters of what is allowed to be paid for by humans. I think that is your position too, but because you don't like the way I made my argument, you reply with a snarky and dismissive tone and treat me like I'm dumb.
That banks and other payment processors shouldn't be the rulers of the world is what we all must agree on and fight for if anything is ever going to change. As soon as you say "well in this case they should because I like when they do it to people I dislike," you are effectively saying that they should be all powerful, just as long as their moral compass aligns with yours.