[spottybanana]

> I've seen sites start heavily censoring themselves because someone complained to Google and they pulled the ads. Stuff like this ruins the web.

You mean my web is ruined because I don't see more those ads selling the newest crypto ponzi scheme which promises 10000% yearly returns?

Let's deal with it, if advertising was totally uncensored that would be a nightmare for average user.

[jstanley]

More like your web is ruined because the site that tries to write about some controversial topic has to stay less controversial else they can't make money by showing ads.

[SiempreViernes]

People can blog just fine without having to make money off them you know, and of those making doing it for the money the vast majority have to censor themselves to be able to grow and maintain their audience in the first place.

Somewhat obviously, you don't actually get a lot of people willing to pay for your content if you hold truly unpopular opinions.

[gamacodre]

This bugs the crap out of me, it sounds like "waaaahhh I can't rake in ad money being a provocateur". So deal with it. Get a day job. Accept that large chunks of society will hate you (that's the goal anyway, right?) and that your business won't be welcome.

[Dylan16807]

They should still have access to basic banking services, as a utility.

Would you think it's okay if their water company tried to cut them off?

[gamacodre]

I was responding to a comment about making money from ads, but a similar line of thought works for banking services, I think.

Suppose that your use of the water service was creating public lashback against the water utility for "supporting" your business. A loud minority is pestering the water board members and complaining that what you're doing ought to be illegal even if it isn't strictly yet. Some are pressuring other big water users to reexamine their contracts with the utility, and someone even managed to talk a pump supplier into severing their relationship with the utility. A different minority is yelling stuff about "rights" and making trouble at board meetings.

The easiest possible thing to do in this situation is to find some vaguely plausible reason to cut your access to the public utility, and tell you that you have to truck your water in yourself from now on. Note that this kind of stuff actually happens to farmers, refineries, and other businesses.

As far as what's "right"... Damn if I know. None of this is happening in a vacuum, and these decisions end up being made by people who are accountable to and influenced by their family, friends, and community for the choices that they make. Clear laws can dilute that responsibility, but only to a point.

[Dylan16807]

> I was responding to a comment about making money from ads, but a similar line of thought works for banking services, I think.

It depends on what level the ads are being cut. But sure, that can be different.

> As far as what's "right"... Damn if I know.

I stand pretty firmly on "everyone deserves access to utilities".

Maybe with a throttle at a certain level if they're abusing the utility itself.

So charging more to big water users is usually fine, refusing to deal at all is rarely fine.

The point at which someone is acting so badly they need to be removed from utilities, where fines aren't even enough, is the point where they should be going to prison. And then they should have access restored upon release.

And sending money in a simple electronic way should be a utility in the US.