[naasking]

Why should a payment processor be able to make such legal decisions? That's what the courts are for. The current trend of cutting services for political reasons is problematic at best, particularly when there's arguably a monopoly.

There needs to be more transparency, and a clear and fair system for arbitration and dispute resolution. Better still, one that's consistent across all digital services so people know what to expect when signing up without wading through a novel's worth of user agreements.

[danso]

You’re arguing that companies should only be able to decline service after a court allows them to?

[naasking]

We have discrimination laws don't we? Are banks allowed to refuse service for any reason whatsoever?

We're talking about people's livelihood here. If transactions don't violate any laws, payment processors should not be permitted to refuse service. When they do refuse service, there should be transparency in reporting.

[danso]

Yes, there are laws that protect against discrimination based on certain categories (religion, gender, race, veteran status, etc). Business owners still have the right to refuse service for other reasons of their choosing, like the customer being a loudmouth ass, or not following the dress code, without having to refer to a legal statute.

[naasking]

You're changing the goalposts. This thread is about:

1. (arguably monopolistic) payment processors upon which people's livelihood depends, not restaurants or other noncritical services of which there are many to choose, and

2. It's about discrimination for political motivations, not being abusive to your employees.

There's a hardly a line between religious and political convictions, and if you don't find discrimination along these lines troubling, then I think your bias is showing.

[danso]

You are the one who is moving the goalposts. From your original comment:

> The current trend of cutting services for political reasons is problematic at best, particularly when there's arguably a monopoly.

Your statement asserts this is a problem ("at best") when a business cuts off service for political reasons, especially if "there's arguably a monopoly". Presumably, from your wording, you are also unhappy when a non-monopoly business cuts off service (which, technically, PayPal is, unless it faces antitrust action that I'm not aware of).

> There's a hardly a line between religious and political convictions, and if you don't find discrimination along these lines troubling, then I think your bias is showing.

And yet, in the U.S., there is a line, because there is an actual federal law that protects religious belief, and there isn't one for political beliefs. I'm not interested in arguing with you the validity of the precedent set by the 1st Amendment's protection for religion, or the validity of religion or its immutability in general, but that's the reality of our current legal framework. So yes, I am biased in favor of reality and not fantasy. Try imagining the tangled framework needed to protect political belief in a way that wouldn't infringe on freedom of expression if you want to understand why political belief has not yet enjoyed such protection.

[naasking]

> Presumably, from your wording, you are also unhappy when a non-monopoly business cuts off service (which, technically, PayPal is, unless it faces antitrust action that I'm not aware of).

That's disingenuous. A finding of monopoly status might be legally definitive, but it's not necessary to reasonably conclude that a corporation is a monopoly.

Online payment alternatives certainly exist, in a similar sense that alternatives to MS Windows existed in the 90s. The recent Patreon/SubscribeStar event suggests strongly that there is collusion at the very least, if the source of the suppression was not PayPal itself. That doesn't change the fundamental point being made.

You are correct that I'm unhappy with discrimination based on political beliefs even when non monopolistic corporations are involved, but pragmatically, that's a much longer discussion. Tackling the immediate concern of people of people having their livelihood destroyed for expressing unpopular views would be sufficient as a stop gap.

> Try imagining the tangled framework needed to protect political belief in a way that wouldn't infringe on freedom of expression if you want to understand why political belief has not yet enjoyed such protection.

More than likely it's not a matter of difficulty, it has simply not been needed. The centralisation of power inherent to technology has been changing the landscape considerably.

Regardless, recent studies have clearly shown that conservative and liberal brains are structurally different, so to some extent, political discrimination is discrimination on physiology. I agree that it's a subtle issue as to what should and should not be considered a deeply held conviction, but it's becoming increasingly clear that it is needed.

[jammygit]

I think he's saying that near-monopolies should have to follow special rules because the market system breaks down

[yellowapple]

As popular as PayPal may be, it's a far cry from being a monopoly.

That said, I do think holding money should be cause for more stringent regulations. Stopping service is one thing; holding funds entirely should absolutely happen only under direct court order (anything else would be theft).

[toufiqbarhamov]

Counterpoint: The “market system” is already a fiction, and contesting the laws to further promulgate that fiction is a non-starter. Calling a business a somethingnotquitea-monopoly isn’t an incantation that makes it true or legally sound.