Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by jobigoud 2414 days ago
The contrast with the other front page article "Paypal stops payouts to pornhubs models" is interesting. On one hand we don't like it when banks use their power to implement their moral panic regarding otherwise legal activities, on the other it's nice that they use it to avoid financing things we consider bad for the commons.
6 comments
Symbiote 2414 days ago
The EIB is a multi-state investment bank, owned by the European Union and carrying out the investment aims of the EU -- all of which are therefore political acts, based on political decisions.

> The decision to prioritise renewable and efficient energy follows a policy promise by the incoming European commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, to turn the EIB into a “climate bank”, unlocking a potential €1tn in funds to help move Europe’s economy toward cleaner energy.

PayPal is a private company providing (in the EU at least) retail banking services to businesses and individuals.

link
ATsch 2414 days ago
Not sure what's supposed to be interesting about that.

It is good when good things happen and bad when bad things happen, yes.

We don't need to lock ourselves into some kind of universal ethical conclusion here.

link
journalctl 2414 days ago
They’re also entirely different issues. One is about handling to payment for people who are not really harming anyone (or at least not doing massive environmental damage). The other is... doing massive environmental damage.

Cool, so I guess we just downvote stuff we disagree with.

link
bildung 2414 days ago
One categorial difference is that the Paypal case is discrimination against individuals.
link
armSixtyFour 2414 days ago
My guess is there's more to it than that. I think that they have less confidence in the financial prospects of those projects as well.
link
_8j50 2414 days ago
Many consider porn bad to the commons as well.
link
Ogopogostick 2414 days ago
It's worth remembering that the commons isn't well defined either. Lots of people view the current policy proposals of environmentalism as anti-poor and handouts to the third world. Whether you agree with that framing or not, there is plenty of data that shows mitigation and not outright prevention is an equally valid strategy to climate change. What you're really saying is that it's okay this time because it's an issue you agree with, a more neutral framing would be "...it's nice that they use it to avoid financing things we consider bad."
link