[nobody9999]

>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.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group

[jo032]

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

I only think it's morally wrong.

[nobody9999]

But it's not a parallel at all.

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?

[jo032]

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

[nobody9999]

>there is obviously a difference between a t shirt vendor and 1/2 of a duopoly on online payments.

Except there isn't a duopoly in online payments. In fact, Stripe is just one of many (and not anywhere near the largest) payment processors[0].

[0] https://www.business.org/finance/payment-processing/largest-...

[nobody9999]

>measures to restrict people from using their services at the exact same time with no realistic alternative

Why must it be through an online payment processor?

My bank will send payments for me. And I can write a check and mail it to whoever I want.

[jo032]

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

[nobody9999]

But we're not talking about an e-commerce business are we?

We're talking about a candidate's campaign fundraising operation. Which is odd in and of itself, because as far as I know that candidate isn't actually running for any office.

You've moved the goalposts far enough, haven't you?