patrick.net

Good News: Mastercard backs down from Frontpagemag/David Horowtiz ban.

Their excuse? Their organization was listed on "Bloodmoney", a far Left SJW website.

Note their site exclaims they want to stop "Whtie Supremacists" but you'll notice the huge list of Anti-Islamofascist and General Conservatives. Here's a screenshot of Horowitz Freedom center.



Also listed is Faith Freedom International which is an organization of Ex-Muslims

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

Free Speech is an American Principle and certain businesses are prohibited from refusing service based on Speech.

This would just expand it to internet and financial Combines that control 90% of the market, like Visa/Mastercard, or Patreon, or Facebook/Youtube. Youtube controls almost all non-porn streaming video.

Not clear on the idea of principle vs legal I see. Only businesses that have a government granted monopoly are prohibited from refusing service. Not companies that dominate the market because they are good at what they do. Youtube doesn't control 90% of the steaming market, 90% of the streaming market CHOOSES to use youtube. You have options outside of visa/mastercard people CHOOSE to use then. There isn't any constitutional protection no matter how much you try to find one.

bob2356 says

You have options outside of visa/mastercard people CHOOSE to use then.

How many non-MC, non-Visa bank cards do you own?

bob2356 says

There isn't any constitutional protection no matter how much you try to find one.

We'll see. Eventually some of these will wind up in court.

Free Speech is an American principle and courts HAVE identified political contributions as a form of free speech.

Powerful Financial Institutions shouldn't be prohibiting their users from exercising their free speech, it's Un-American.

Do you think Banks should be legally able to refuse to pay checks written to political organizations that pressure groups don't like?

bob2356 says

Youtube doesn't control 90% of the steaming market, 90% of the streaming market CHOOSES to use youtube.

Right, Standard Oil didn't control 90% of the oil market, oil consumers "chose" Standard Oil. ;)

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

Powerful Financial Institutions shouldn't be prohibiting their users from exercising their free speech, it's Un-American.

This is too funny. So, remind me which side of the gay bakery you were on again?

LeonDurham says

This is too funny. So, remind me which side of the gay bakery you were on again?

I've said it over and over again in this forum - long before Trump, too.

There's a difference between a small business - to which there are scores of nearby alternatives - run by one or two people, and a massive international conglomerate.

The real hypocrisy is on the side of the Modern Hard Left: Mr. Small Fry, you must Bake the Cake though there are scores of equivalently sized businesses like yours nearby, but I the Massive Conglomerate to whom there is no equivalent alternative, can refuse to process your donation (even though I'm the middle man and neither the source nor destination, the provider or payer, in the transaction).

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

There's a difference between a small business - to which there are scores of nearby alternatives - run by one or two people, and a massive international conglomerate.

So if it was Little Debbies, you'd say they should be required to bake the cake then? What's the cutoff to where Big Brother gets to decide how you must run your business?

LeonDurham says

So if it was Little Debbies, you'd say they should be required to bake the cake then? What's the cutoff to where Big Brother gets to decide how you must run your business?

Depends. If Little Debbie controlled a third of the wedding cake market nationally, or even statewide, sure.

But I doubt Little Debbie takes orders for a single wedding cake.

More about the size and status of the company than even market share. If it's a public stock company, then they don't have the power, because their role is to make money for the investors, and it's highly unlikely that a majority of investors would agree to lose money by not engaging in a transaction. However, if sole proprietor Abdul the Jihadi Baker doesn't want to make a "Happy 70 Israel!" birthday cake,that's his privilege.

For Social Media, the solution is that open and neutral forums are not liable for the content. However, Social Media that employs "Quality Filters" or actively removes non-illegal political content would be. If you're going to police content, you're saying you're responsible for the content!

That's fair dinkum, I think.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

More about the size and status of the company than even market share. If it's a public stock company, then they don't have the power, because their role is to make money for the investors, and it's highly unlikely that a majority of investors would agree to lose money by not engaging in a transaction. However, if sole proprietor Abdul the Jihadi Baker doesn't want to make a "Happy 70 Israel!" birthday cake,that's his privilege.

So, are you saying public companies shouldn't be controlled by Big Brother then? It's not clear what you are saying here.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

For Social Media, the solution is that open and neutral forums are not liable for the content. However, Social Media that employs "Quality Filters" or actively removes non-illegal political content would be. If you're going to police content, you're saying you're responsible for the content!

That's fair dinkum, I think.

So, Pat.net should be required to allow me to post what I want without Goran filtering my posts then?

Patrick.net is not able to seriously impact your freedom of speech.

Visa is.
Facebook is.
Twitter is.
Google is.

Similarly, a small baker is not seriously violating anyone's right to decorated cakes.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

How many non-MC, non-Visa bank cards do you own?

I do have AE. I can use cash, checks, paypal, diners club, ae, wire transfers, or even barter. If some online company only takes V/MC I can easily found another that doesn't. Being lazy isn't free speech.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

Free Speech is an American principle and courts HAVE identified political contributions as a form of free speech.

Powerful Financial Institutions shouldn't be prohibiting their users from exercising their free speech, it's Un-American.

Do you think Banks should be legally able to refuse to pay checks written to political organizations that pressure groups don't like?

Banks are required by law to honor checks. They are not required by law to open accounts for everyone. Actually they are required by law to not open accounts for everyone who asks. Political organizations are free to use whatever bank is willing to do business with them. Banks are free to do business with the customers they choose to do business with. Didn't the supreme court just affirm that with the gay cake thing?

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

Right, Standard Oil didn't control 90% of the oil market, oil consumers "chose" Standard Oil. ;)

Damn right they did. Compared to whale oil and bees wax standard oils kerosene was a godsend.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

The real hypocrisy is on the side of the Modern Hard Left: Mr. Small Fry, you must Bake the Cake though there are scores of equivalently sized businesses like yours nearby, but I the Massive Conglomerate to whom there is no equivalent alternative, can refuse to process your donation (even though I'm the middle man and neither the source nor destination, the provider or payer, in the transaction).

The real hypocrisy is pretending there are no way to "process your donation". Donations got sent long before any of these institutions existed. You can still write a check and put in an envelope with a stamp the old fashioned way.

LeonDurham says

So if it was Little Debbies, you'd say they should be required to bake the cake then? What's the cutoff to where Big Brother gets to decide how you must run your business?

There is no cut off. The same principal applies for every business. Funny how conservatives are such big believers in free markets, except when the free market does something they don't like.

If these tech companies want to pick and choose the content - they might as well be honest and classify themselves as Publishers.

They can't have it both ways and pretend to be neutral and not be held to libel laws, but somehow all their algorithms and SJW monkey monitors seem to only block Conservative content.

LeonDurham says

Do you need a nanny state to tell companies how to run their businesses??

For monopolies yes, they should be broken apart and/or forced to serve everyone.

bob2356 says

I do have AE.

Is AE a bank card?

I have never seen an AE bank card.

bob2356 says

Banks are required by law to honor checks. They are not required by law to open accounts for everyone. Actually they are required by law to not open accounts for everyone who asks. Political organizations are free to use whatever bank is willing to do business with them. Banks are free to do business with the customers they choose to do business with. Didn't the supreme court just affirm that with the gay cake thing?

This is interesting. So a paper check is one thing, but using a check card to do the same thing is something else?

Now by regulation it could be, which is pretty stupid, and the cards and checks should be the same, esp. since banks push the cards over the checks for most purchases.



bob2356 says

Damn right they did. Compared to whale oil and bees wax standard oils kerosene was a godsend.

There weren't tons of independent petroleum refiners before the Standard Oil Trust?

bob2356 says

The real hypocrisy is pretending there are no way to "process your donation". Donations got sent long before any of these institutions existed. You can still write a check and put in an envelope with a stamp the old fashioned way.

Yep, which is easier? Which is more likely to get done?

And yes, the banks and the social pressure groups know this.

Like I said, bank cards and checks should be under the same rules and regulations, since most people pay most of their bills and purchases with cards. Indeed banks push the use of cards.

socal2 says

If these tech companies want to pick and choose the content - they might as well be honest and classify themselves as Publishers.

They can't have it both ways and pretend to be neutral and not be held to libel laws, but somehow all their algorithms and SJW monkey monitors seem to only block Conservative content.

Exactly.

bob2356 says

There is no cut off. The same principal applies for every business. Funny how conservatives are such big believers in free markets, except when the free market does something they don't like.

I'm not a conservative. I'm a moderate Liberal Civic Nationalist.

And yes, like Teddy Roosevelt I believe in regulating Trusts and Monopolies, along with enforcing US Values. I've also long supported any institution receiving non-trivial sums of money from the USG (say over $10,000) be required to recite the Pledge of Allegiance at Official Meetings (and upload to a public streaming video service) and submit a Thank You, Taxpayer letter.

So Both Tesla and the University of Michigan Feminist Studies department would probably both have to write Thank You, Taxpayer letters and recite the Pledge.

Say it, Professor Lunarwoman! Or we'll lose our $30k in grant money for your "Famous Lesbian Womyn of the Wild West" Research.

"*SIGH* Goddamn Patriarchs... this is my entitlement for centuries of oppression. I pledge allegiance ... to... ugh... the Flag...."

I, Charles Koch, do thank the US Taxpayer for the $83M in subsidies and tax breaks I received last year...

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

bob2356 says

I do have AE.

Is AE a bank card?

I have never seen an AE bank card.

If it walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck. So tell me how do you pay for dinner differently with AE card than with Visa card?

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

This is interesting. So a paper check is one thing, but using a check card to do the same thing is something else?

My "check card" aka debit card isn't Visa/MC logoed. Every bank has a plain old debit card. Not a requirement to take the visa/mc debit card, it's a choice. So if you CHOOSE to use the Visa/MC network which is a totally different private company from the bank then yes they can have their own rules. It's not the same thing to use a check as to use a visa/mc debit card. Checks don't go through the Visa/MC network. Want to keep on thrashing around trying to make 2+2 equal 5?

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

And yes, like Teddy Roosevelt I believe in regulating Trusts and Monopolies, along with enforcing US Values

lol at "US Values". How ridiculous is it to assume that your values are US values? I can assure you that reciting an idiotic pledge in an act of fake patriotism is most assuredly NOT a US Value. The US was not founded on fake patriotism.


But, perhaps Two Scoops and/or Patrick can share what constitutes a monopoly in their view. What's the quantitative criteria?

bob2356 says

If it walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck. So tell me how do you pay for dinner differently with AE card than with Visa card?

Okay, so the idea here is that Mastercard can prevent you from using your bank card to donate to an political organization they disagree with.

Given the massive difference in market penetration, why can MC tell my bank I can't use my bank card to pay for something that is totally legal?


bob2356 says

My "check card" aka debit card isn't Visa/MC logoed. Every bank has a plain old debit card. Not a requirement to take the visa/mc debit card, it's a choice. So if you CHOOSE to use the Visa/MC network which is a totally different private company from the bank then yes they can have their own rules. It's not the same thing to use a check as to use a visa/mc debit card. Checks don't go through the Visa/MC network. Want to keep on thrashing around trying to make 2+2 equal 5?

There may be laws, but 95% of the public says "I'll take a bank card" and doesn't get into the details. I've never been asked if I wanted Visa/MC or a plain bank card, and I suspect most people haven't. I just got the bank card in the mail and it had mastercard on it.

We're talking about normal processes, not finding ways "around" something.

I want to hear why MC/VISA should be allowed to decide which legal US political organizations should or shouldn't be allowed to receive donations. Why that's an American thing to do, and why that isn't chilling for free speech, which is a national civic value.

If we need a regulation to protect consumer freedom, so be it. That's the best kind of regulation, and what regulations should be about, to protect freedom and consumer rights to utilize a tool they pay for.

LeonDurham says

lol at "US Values". How ridiculous is it to assume that your values are US values? I can assure you that reciting an idiotic pledge in an act of fake patriotism is most assuredly NOT a US Value. The US was not founded on fake patriotism.

The US is certainly not centered around banks determining which payees they're going to prevent their customers from paying.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

The US is certainly not centered around banks determining which payees they're going to prevent their customers from paying.

Nobody is preventing anyone from paying whoever they want to pay. Nobody has a God given right to MC or Visa.

It's amazing what the Trump cultists believe-- Healing the sick: that's not the government's problem. Telling private companies who they MUST do business with--that IS the government's role.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

I want to hear why MC/VISA should be allowed to decide which legal US political organizations should or shouldn't be allowed to receive donations.

Because the US is a free market?

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

If we need a regulation to protect consumer freedom, so be it. That's the best kind of regulation, and what regulations should be about, to protect freedom and consumer rights to utilize a tool they pay for.

We had it, but Trump and his cronies have gutted it and torn it to pieces.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

We're talking about normal processes, not finding ways "around" something.

Writing checks is a normal process and has been for 600 years. There are 28 million checks processed every day in the US. That's pretty normal in my world. Being too lazy to write a check and mail it isn't suppression of free speech.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

I want to hear why MC/VISA should be allowed to decide which legal US political organizations should or shouldn't be allowed to receive donations.

Because they own the processing system and can decide who gets to use it It's not different from owning a bakery and deciding who to serve. The principal is exactly the same.. The post trump supreme court has spoken.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

Why that's an American thing to do, and why that isn't chilling for free speech, which is a national civic value.

Private business being able to operate without government control beyond safety and fraud issues is an American thing. People are free to speak through their checkbook as easily as their visa card.

"OMG! If we don't have NET NEUTRALITY! The ISPs! Will charge us more money to access our FAVORITE WEBSITES! They may even promote certain providers over others! For example Bank of America might pay to be free and fast but Citigroup would run slower! "

"So? There are alternatives. Most Populated areas have multiple ISPs and where 90% of the population lives, there's a choice of 3G/4G Networks. You can always link your phone to your desktop with a hotspot."

"Not the same we need NET NEUTRALITY. So they don't slow down certain web content"

_________

"Google, Facebook, Youtube are censoring Conservatives and applying opaque conditions to content providers. They are promoting Snopes and Vox and CNN! And downplaying Washington Times, Breitbart, etc.!"

"HAHA! Private Companies, Suck it up Buttercup! Use the sites that have 1-2% of the user base like Minds.com or DuckDuckGo."

"Not the same! We need regulation so they don't completely ban certain web content!"

"Suck it up Buttercup!"

LeonDurham says

We had it, but Trump and his cronies have gutted it and torn it to pieces.

Net Neutrality was sponsored by Big Tech to insure fast and free access to their big websites. It did nothing to regulate Big Tech censoring or "restricting" content providers.

Not net neutrality. Consumer Protection.

bob2356 says

Writing checks is a normal process and has been for 600 years. There are 28 million checks processed every day in the US. That's pretty normal in my world. Being too lazy to write a check and mail it isn't suppression of free speech.

Okay, Grandpa. My wife makes fun of ME for getting cash at all at the ATM. She pays even for $3 shit with a card, and she's a year older than I am. The kids these days are like her. I think it's weird to pay for anything less than $20 bill with a card.

bob2356 says

Because they own the processing system and can decide who gets to use it It's not different from owning a bakery and deciding who to serve. The principal is exactly the same.. The post trump supreme court has spoken.

Hardly. A bakery has an identifiable owner and is limited by location. MC/Visa is not just statewide or nationwide but international.

bob2356 says

Private business being able to operate without government control beyond safety and fraud issues is an American thing. People are free to speak through their checkbook as easily as their visa card.

And banks have no business banning customers from paying certain payees for non-business reasons (ie connected to fraud or too many chargebacks)

I'll compromise. If 3/4 of the investors - a supermajority - vote to ban a payee via an annual meeting, and decide to put politics above profit, it's okay.

We have to protect investors from the politicized SJWs at the PR department.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

"OMG! If we don't have NET NEUTRALITY! The ISPs! Will charge us more money to access our FAVORITE WEBSITES! They may even promote certain providers over others! For example Bank of America might pay to be free and fast but Citigroup would run slower! "

"So? There are alternatives. Most Populated areas have multiple ISPs and where 90% of the population lives, there's a choice of 3G/4G Networks. You can always link your phone to your desktop with a hotspot."

"Not the same we need NET NEUTRALITY. So they don't slow down certain web content"

_________

"Google, Facebook, Youtube are censoring Conservatives and applying opaque conditions to content providers. They are promoting Snopes and Vox and CNN! And downplaying Washington Times, Breitbart, etc.!"

"HAHA! Private Companies, Suck it up Buttercup! Use the sites that have 1-2% of the user base like Minds.com or DuckDuckGo."

"Not the same! We need regulation so they don't compl...

Guess what--net neutrality is dead. So, again, the only hypocrites are Trump cultists.

LeonDurham says

Guess what--net neutrality is dead. So, again, the only hypocrites are Trump cultists.

Nope! The Net Neutrality people didn't want to hear about Reddit, Youtube, and Facebook bans and throttling WHEN Net Neutrality was being debated.

They want to ban /The Donald from Reddit and Infowars from Youtube. They just don't want ISPs to slow down Reddit or Youtube for them

Neoliberals, 1995: We're going to spread American Values with Free Trade! Free Speech, Freedom of Religion, Democracy! Via American Companies Worldwide!

Just watch and see what happens in China! Oh say can you see...

Neoliberals, 2003: Sergey Brin said it! Don't be Evil! If we can't have our Freedom-loving search engine in China, we're out of China!

Neoliberals, 2018: We're not going to spread American Values with Free Trade! Or at home, either! Private American Companies don't need to support Free Speech, Freedom of Religion, Democracy! Who cares if Google is building a bespoke Censored Internet for China! Censor the President's Supporters for criticizing Free Trade and other policies we don't like! Not just in China, but at home, too!

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

Nope! The Net Neutrality people didn't want to hear about Reddit, Youtube, and Facebook bans and throttling WHEN Net Neutrality was being debated.

They want to ban /The Donald from Reddit and Infowars from Youtube. They just don't want ISPs to slow down Reddit or Youtube for them

What are you talking about? The net neutrality people, by definition, cared about net neutrality--which as you say wasn't about restricting results from search engines. Yes, they were concerned about small businesses getting screwed by ISPs in favor of the big guys who could pay for faster speeds.

But you obviously don't care about small businesses...

LeonDurham says

What are you talking about? The net neutrality people cared about net neutrality--which as you say wasn't about restricting results from search engines. Yes, they were concerned about small businesses getting screwed by ISPs in favor of the big guys who could pay for faster speeds.

But they also used the "no censorship" argument.

They meant it to help Big Tech, but not for the Content Providers.

Net Neutrality was an Astroturf Movement for Big Tech to stop ISPs from charging for huge bandwidth use on a handful of powerful websites.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

But they also used the "no censorship" argument.

They meant it to help Big Tech, but not for the Content Providers.

Net Neutrality was an Astroturf Movement for Big Tech to stop ISPs from charging for huge bandwidth use on a handful of powerful websites.

No, they cared about small business websites getting screwed by the big guys.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

Okay, Grandpa. My wife makes fun of ME for getting cash at all at the ATM. She pays even for $3 shit with a card, and she's a year older than I am. The kids these days are like her. I think it's weird to pay for anything less than $20 bill with a card.

Is this actually supposed to mean something? It's an anecdote not an argument.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

Hardly. A bakery has an identifiable owner and is limited by location. MC/Visa is not just statewide or nationwide but international.

Is this actually supposed to mean something? There is no difference in the principal.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

And banks have no business banning customers from paying certain payees for non-business reasons (ie connected to fraud or too many chargebacks)

Is this actually supposed to mean something? Where is this written? The stone tablets with the 10 commandments? The magna carta? The constitution? The toilet stall wall? Especially since we are talking about mc/visa not banks. Try to keep the story straight.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

I think it's weird to pay for anything less than $20 bill with a card.

Why? There are other cards out there, but you're going to pay for it anyway, why not get rewarded? Pay the damn thing off each month though. https://www.southwest.com/rapidrewards/tiers-more-companion-pass

You don't want to see my wallet. It doesn't take much time, but I do have a spreadsheet to track the shit so I don't get charged interest. I'm north of $6k annually in rewards now from using CC's. Tax free my friend. At our families income, that's pretty close to $10k gross if you factor in not paying the taxes federally and state level. We're talking 10 hours a year and zero risk if I get robbed in person. I'll take $1k/hr all day for spending money I would anyway.