Cutting off white supremacists: Apple Pay, Cloudflare and PayPal join the trend(latimes.com)
latimes.com
Cutting off white supremacists: Apple Pay, Cloudflare and PayPal join the trend
http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-apple-cloudflare-nazis-20170817-story.html
38 comments
Dont misinterpret this as any kind of defense of white nationalism, because I dislike them as much as anyone else: Suppose that every tech company followed suit making these people basically cut off, and someone was incorrectly identified as a white nationalist. To what extent is this trial without jury or mob mentality?
As an aside, unless the outcome of mob mentality is a decision that you'd not otherwise agree with.... the only consequence of it is faster decision making for you (member of the mob).
But the core of the issue is that we are shunning them, as we have shunned many other groups too closely connected to violent motivations.
The only difference between now and then is that this brand of terrorism is homegrown, so the 'suffering' of the white supremacists is more visible to us.
One thing to note is that unlike say no-fly lists, no one is targeting individuals, just the organization. These people could dissolve their group, wait one month, and start a new company that no one would ever think to ban. These people could also similarly act as individuals within the system, without any blowback. It's only when they congregate under a clear, acknowledged banner of hate that any penalties come into place.
But the core of the issue is that we are shunning them, as we have shunned many other groups too closely connected to violent motivations.
The only difference between now and then is that this brand of terrorism is homegrown, so the 'suffering' of the white supremacists is more visible to us.
One thing to note is that unlike say no-fly lists, no one is targeting individuals, just the organization. These people could dissolve their group, wait one month, and start a new company that no one would ever think to ban. These people could also similarly act as individuals within the system, without any blowback. It's only when they congregate under a clear, acknowledged banner of hate that any penalties come into place.
"unless the outcome of mob mentality is a decision that you'd not otherwise agree with.... the only consequence of it is faster decision making for you"
No this is wrong, this means that you've established a system that when it is in agreement with what you personally believe to be justice it delivers quickly upon them, but when it does not it works against you and/or justice with the same efficiency.
You are basically advocating for a Judge Dredd philosophy.
No this is wrong, this means that you've established a system that when it is in agreement with what you personally believe to be justice it delivers quickly upon them, but when it does not it works against you and/or justice with the same efficiency.
You are basically advocating for a Judge Dredd philosophy.
There were a number of unfortunate cases already, example: http://us.pressfrom.com/news/us/-76402-internet-shaming-when...
We need to follow our judicial system otherwise we are no better than them.
We need to follow our judicial system otherwise we are no better than them.
[deleted]
They can still get a merchant account. I mean given these groups might be selling merchandise on their own sites I imagine they ALREADY have a merchant account.
Now if no bank is willing to let them have an account… That would be interesting. But I imagine there has to be at least one. Heck, they can start their own.
I wonder if the big credit card and it works (visa, MC) might start doing this kind of thing too. That would be a real blow, and might start to be illegal (collusion? IANAL, obv).
Now if no bank is willing to let them have an account… That would be interesting. But I imagine there has to be at least one. Heck, they can start their own.
I wonder if the big credit card and it works (visa, MC) might start doing this kind of thing too. That would be a real blow, and might start to be illegal (collusion? IANAL, obv).
I think it is high time to start listing other extremist groups which make use of all those services which have decided to become their own judge, jury and executioner. I'm thinking about groups like AFA/Antifa, BLM/Black Power/Black Pride/other racially-oriented supremacy organisations, salafist/wahabist organisations, groups which sympathise with terrorist organisations, 'revolutionary' communist groups (yes, those still exist) and any other radical/extremist groups and find out where they host their stuff, which payment processors they use, whether they have apps on Google Play and the Apple app store, etc. Once a group has been identified the related services should be given a chance to react, and their reaction should be published just like they are when they close down nazi/white power/white pride/white supremacy groups.
I'm thinking about groups like AFA/Antifa, BLM/Black Power/Black Pride/other racially-oriented supremacy organisations
Where on the BLM website do they promote "racially-oriented supremacy?
Where on the BLM website do they promote "racially-oriented supremacy?
Once the leader of the BLM said that the only way to resolve the racial issues this country faces is for white families to sign their entire estates over to black families, I think the BLM may have crossed that line. Maybe if she asked people to will their estates to Poor people I wouldnt feel that way, but as it stands, this screams racially oriented priority. Can you even imagine if a white person made these demands what would happen? https://www.leoweekly.com/2017/08/white-people/
You are confused as to what is a "racially-oriented supremacy organisation".
If it's illegal prosecute it; if not, let people have their shitty opinions in peace. Why does seemingly everybody have to virtue signal and cut peaceful people out of civil society?
There's that buzzword 'virtue signaling' again. Believe it or not, some companies can choose not to support white supremacists because they actually feel its the moral thing to do.
And somehow this moral awakening happened exactly at the time of the matching press campaign, while they considered it being completely compatible with their morals for years before that? Sounds a bit suspicious to me. I mean, I'm all for people being moral, but when their morals kick in exactly when it is beneficial for PR reasons, I feel a bit suspicious that morals have much to do with it.
Not just morals, just because it is good for business.
They're not cutting out "peaceful" people, they're cutting out “activities that promote hate, violence or racial intolerance” which are inherently neither peaceful nor civil.
There is substantial disagreement about what "activities that promote hate, violence or racial intolerance" are. Some would define any defense of Israel as "promoting hate and violence". Some define critique of certain aspects of religious practices to be "promoting hate". Some consider criticizing diversity programs as implemented in certain companies as "promoting hate". Some consider arguing about changing immigration law as "promoting hate". Some think discussing results certain scientific research that does not sit well with certain political theories as "promoting hate". As long as disagreement is not tolerated, you can always find somebody who disagrees with you as "promoting hate".
SLPC lists[1] as "hate groups" people that think English should be official language of the US (a bad idea, but is it really "promoting violence"?), people that insist on necessity of immigration reform, people that legitimately disagree and criticize other policies, like immigration or taxation or international trade. They even designated presidential candidate Ben Carson as "extremist" (that got them so much bad press they had to backpedal and apologize).
And SPLC designations have been used to boot sites from platforms like Google, Paypal, Facebook, Twitter, etc.
Don't get me wrong, there are true hate-mongers there, and on SPLC lists, but far from all of them. There are a lot of organizations there that just promote unpopular, unorthodox, and sometimes outright kooky, but not hateful or violent, views. Interestingly enough, such outright violent and openly militant groups as BAMN or antifa are not there on the list.
All this looks not like attempt to produce less hate but an attempt to establish political control over the internet. And I remember the times when the internet community was proud to be censorship-free. How the times changed.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organizations_designat...
SLPC lists[1] as "hate groups" people that think English should be official language of the US (a bad idea, but is it really "promoting violence"?), people that insist on necessity of immigration reform, people that legitimately disagree and criticize other policies, like immigration or taxation or international trade. They even designated presidential candidate Ben Carson as "extremist" (that got them so much bad press they had to backpedal and apologize).
And SPLC designations have been used to boot sites from platforms like Google, Paypal, Facebook, Twitter, etc.
Don't get me wrong, there are true hate-mongers there, and on SPLC lists, but far from all of them. There are a lot of organizations there that just promote unpopular, unorthodox, and sometimes outright kooky, but not hateful or violent, views. Interestingly enough, such outright violent and openly militant groups as BAMN or antifa are not there on the list.
All this looks not like attempt to produce less hate but an attempt to establish political control over the internet. And I remember the times when the internet community was proud to be censorship-free. How the times changed.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organizations_designat...
Yes, the racists themselves do not think they are objectionable in anyway, and obviously wouldn't characterize themselves as promoting hate.
We, as a reasonable majority, can disagree with this assessment.
That we do not have perfect information, and absolute agreement, is no reason for private organizations to not exercise their own rights to not associate with those they dislike.
If this were the government at work... I'd agree that extremely high standards ought to be in place, but as is? No, I don't think organizations deserve protection since they are flimsy things, easily discarded when PR turns against them.
None of the white supremacists is being banned as an individual, only specific institutions that they've chosen to raise up.
We, as a reasonable majority, can disagree with this assessment.
That we do not have perfect information, and absolute agreement, is no reason for private organizations to not exercise their own rights to not associate with those they dislike.
If this were the government at work... I'd agree that extremely high standards ought to be in place, but as is? No, I don't think organizations deserve protection since they are flimsy things, easily discarded when PR turns against them.
None of the white supremacists is being banned as an individual, only specific institutions that they've chosen to raise up.
> We, as a reasonable majority, can disagree with this assessment.
Who is "we"? Do you think the right to speak should be defined by the majority? Too bad the US was explicitly founded on the diametrically opposing principle. To be sure, they even explicitly wrote it in the constitution, that it is not how things are to be decided. But what they knew, anyway...
> is no reason for private organizations to not exercise their own rights to not associate with those they dislike.
They can exercise whatever they like. But then we get partisan war on the internet, instead of cooperation, with everybody hating everybody (there are many hot topic issues in politics, and once using access to infrastructure like DNS is politicized, there's no stopping of it). And where nobody can be sure that they won't be target of the unpersoning campaign next. It's not the internet I would like to see. Legally, of course, they are within their rights. But not everything that is legal is a good thing to do. Turning access to internet into political battleground is not a smart thing to do. It will hurt everybody.
> None of the white supremacists is being banned as an individual, only specific institutions that they've chosen to raise up.
How does it matter? If Google seizes domain from nazis as organization, because they wanted to, what prevents them from seizing domain from an individual person, who, say, has controversial political views? Or espouses controversial ideas that are outside current scientific consensus? Or merely criticizes Google management a bit more harshly than they'd like? It is a logical next step, if no pushback happens on this one, it would expand. People are all scared about content provides limiting access for commercial reasons, what about political reasons?
Who is "we"? Do you think the right to speak should be defined by the majority? Too bad the US was explicitly founded on the diametrically opposing principle. To be sure, they even explicitly wrote it in the constitution, that it is not how things are to be decided. But what they knew, anyway...
> is no reason for private organizations to not exercise their own rights to not associate with those they dislike.
They can exercise whatever they like. But then we get partisan war on the internet, instead of cooperation, with everybody hating everybody (there are many hot topic issues in politics, and once using access to infrastructure like DNS is politicized, there's no stopping of it). And where nobody can be sure that they won't be target of the unpersoning campaign next. It's not the internet I would like to see. Legally, of course, they are within their rights. But not everything that is legal is a good thing to do. Turning access to internet into political battleground is not a smart thing to do. It will hurt everybody.
> None of the white supremacists is being banned as an individual, only specific institutions that they've chosen to raise up.
How does it matter? If Google seizes domain from nazis as organization, because they wanted to, what prevents them from seizing domain from an individual person, who, say, has controversial political views? Or espouses controversial ideas that are outside current scientific consensus? Or merely criticizes Google management a bit more harshly than they'd like? It is a logical next step, if no pushback happens on this one, it would expand. People are all scared about content provides limiting access for commercial reasons, what about political reasons?
Hate and intolerance are not violent and they are not illegal. Don't lump hate, intolerance, and violence together. One of them is not like the others.
[deleted]
A good way to lower trust in digital payments and boost cash. Probably not the intended outcome.
Did Section 230 disappear overnight?
Did Section 230 disappear overnight?
Doesn't law enforcement already prosecute criminals? Why would anyone risk using Apple Pay now that they are thought policing?
Dumb.
Dumb.
[deleted]
dangerous precedence.
Another company is welcome to create a competitor. As a society we decide who we want to shun from the mainstream. Social shunning and shaming are essential tools to a society that wants to function under a certain set of principles. Maybe eventually the shaming stops working, and that's the point where a new cultural zeitgeist or a culture war takes over.
Shaming is probably the main reason we haven't seen a lot of self identified Nazis/white supremacists in protests more often. Now that they seem to think their views are more excepted they're willing to be more public.
I remember hearing the story that one of the reasons the KKK use the hood is so they could be anonymous. The old superman radio show that was on in the 40s are so decided to take on the KKK and make them bad guys which only made people even more embarrassed to be KKK member since all the kids were playing Superman against the KKK.
Shaming is a very powerful weapon.
It can certainly be misused (against homosexuals, for example) too.
I remember hearing the story that one of the reasons the KKK use the hood is so they could be anonymous. The old superman radio show that was on in the 40s are so decided to take on the KKK and make them bad guys which only made people even more embarrassed to be KKK member since all the kids were playing Superman against the KKK.
Shaming is a very powerful weapon.
It can certainly be misused (against homosexuals, for example) too.
First thing that came to mind
[deleted]
You know what worries me about this? Not free speech because that's a dumb line of argument.
What bothers me is that these companies are inadvertently teaching a bunch of nazis how to use the dark web by pushing them out of the public square. I prefer these dangerous assholes corralled into easily observable spaces.
What bothers me is that these companies are inadvertently teaching a bunch of nazis how to use the dark web by pushing them out of the public square. I prefer these dangerous assholes corralled into easily observable spaces.
The flipside of the coin is the harder it is to do all that stuff the fewer people are going to be willing to jump through all the necessary hoops.
Those that do maybe some of the hardest of hard-core. If they are the violent ones (I have to assume that the violent ones are also hard-core) then going through all those steps just associates you with violent people more. Hopefully that would turn off of other people who aren't interested in the violence.
Those that do maybe some of the hardest of hard-core. If they are the violent ones (I have to assume that the violent ones are also hard-core) then going through all those steps just associates you with violent people more. Hopefully that would turn off of other people who aren't interested in the violence.
[deleted]
For some reason this reminds me of banks refusing to do business with marijuana dispensaries. All this will do is push digital currency, and the hate groups will still get their money. Then it won't be traceable, accountable, and completely decentralized.
Does it scare anyone else that groups that aren't illegal are being censored for their (utterly repulsive) principals? Where do we draw the line? Personally, I don't want to enable bad people e.g. _real_ nazis (calling someone a nazi doesn't make them a nazi), racists, homophobes, etc. But that old saying, "live by the sword, die by the sword" begins to echo in my head.
To further that line of thinking, I also know that majority progressives incorrectly ascribe the characteristics of bigotry and homophobia, too broadly to those who differ with progressive ideology. Take for example, the facts of gay marriage. Only a minority of politically conservative folks hold those anti-gay-marriage views. Among young Republicans, 61% are in favor of gay unions / marriage http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/03/10/61-of-young-... That statistic is actually in keeping with the aggregate national average (all people, regardless of political orientation) of 67% https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_mar... However, progressives strongly reject any opinions or facts, no matter how well reasoned and well intentioned, unless those opinions and facts support the progressive ideology and agenda: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/14/fired-google-engineer-james-...
So, where will people like Zuckerberg (a far-left progressive) like to draw the line, when it comes to political speech. My bet is that they would love to slam the door on non-progressive speech... but they know that the current political machine would respond with litigation or anti-trust litigation. But, what about when the pendulum swings the White House back to a Democrat. Will that door slam, at that time, while the government looks the other way?
Remember, this is a two-way street. Perhaps, one day soon, someone won't want to hear your liberal perspectives, because they violate people's right to free practice of religion... then what?!
In summary, be careful what you ask for, what you cheer for, what you won't tolerate, because the guillotine doesn't distinguish between good people or bad people. It simply does it's job.... and one day, they may come calling for YOUR mechanisms of "free speech."
To further that line of thinking, I also know that majority progressives incorrectly ascribe the characteristics of bigotry and homophobia, too broadly to those who differ with progressive ideology. Take for example, the facts of gay marriage. Only a minority of politically conservative folks hold those anti-gay-marriage views. Among young Republicans, 61% are in favor of gay unions / marriage http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/03/10/61-of-young-... That statistic is actually in keeping with the aggregate national average (all people, regardless of political orientation) of 67% https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_mar... However, progressives strongly reject any opinions or facts, no matter how well reasoned and well intentioned, unless those opinions and facts support the progressive ideology and agenda: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/14/fired-google-engineer-james-...
So, where will people like Zuckerberg (a far-left progressive) like to draw the line, when it comes to political speech. My bet is that they would love to slam the door on non-progressive speech... but they know that the current political machine would respond with litigation or anti-trust litigation. But, what about when the pendulum swings the White House back to a Democrat. Will that door slam, at that time, while the government looks the other way?
Remember, this is a two-way street. Perhaps, one day soon, someone won't want to hear your liberal perspectives, because they violate people's right to free practice of religion... then what?!
In summary, be careful what you ask for, what you cheer for, what you won't tolerate, because the guillotine doesn't distinguish between good people or bad people. It simply does it's job.... and one day, they may come calling for YOUR mechanisms of "free speech."
First, they came[0] for the nazis - but they didn't use bitcoin...
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...
[deleted]