Hollywood is a private business as well. They were within their rights to make a blacklist. And people cheered on big business for protecting them and snitched on their friends to their employers, just like they're doing now
>Hollywood is a private business as well. They were within their rights to make a blacklist. And people cheered on big business for protecting them and snitched on their friends to their employers, just like they're doing now
I'm not seeing the parallel to Stripe choosing who they want (or don't want) to do business with.
Especially since there is no "blacklist" circulated and used by everyone in that industry.
Stripe doesn't owe anyone the right to use their services. Just as an airline can bar anyone for most any reason (unless that reason is membership in a protected class[0]), Stripe can do the same.
when did I say Stripe didn't have the legal right to do this? I used the Hollywood blacklist as a parallel precisely because it too was a legal enforcement of political speech by a big consolidated industry that had the power to end peoples' careers
All the Hollywood studios (a bunch of different entities) conspired with each other not to hire those people.
Stripe is a single entity and isn't (AFAIK) working with others on the payment processing industry to block a specific set of people/groups.
And it's protected (and IMHO, should be) because it's a political organization -- Stripe has the right (as do you or I) to choose whether or not they wish to support (verbally, financially or through other material methods) any particular political party, policy position or candidate.
Let's say that you own a business that makes t-shirts. And you strongly support candidate X. Should you be required to make t-shirts for candidate Y (candidate X's opponent)?
And if you chose not to make t-shirts for candidate Y, is that morally wrong?
you are being intentionally obtuse. there is obviously a difference between a t shirt vendor and 1/2 of a duopoly on online payments. the other of which also (coincidentally in your view) took the same measures to restrict people from using their services at the exact same time with no realistic alternative
good luck starting an eccommerce business where everyone has to write you a money order. oh and you can't use amazon, ebay, or shopify either
you don't really believe what you're saying do you? that's like telling blacklisted hollywood writers and actors that they can make their own plays in their backyards
> are you under the impression that the hollywood studios published an actual blacklist and openly admitted to collusion?
Neither publication not open admission are necessary for a combination in restraint of trade to be illegal, and you'd usually want to avoid them since they make it much easier to prove.
yes but practically big businesses can get away with these types of things without much fuss. even in the case where Apple and Google were caught wage-fixing, and there were emails from the CEOs blatantly colluding to prove it, all they got was a slap on the wrist. So it's effectively legal in my view
I'm not seeing the parallel to Stripe choosing who they want (or don't want) to do business with.
Especially since there is no "blacklist" circulated and used by everyone in that industry.
Stripe doesn't owe anyone the right to use their services. Just as an airline can bar anyone for most any reason (unless that reason is membership in a protected class[0]), Stripe can do the same.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group