Threat to free speech - from the credit card companies?

[TimeLady]

Interesting theory in this Spectator article

blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/01/patreon-carl-benjamin-and-the-new-puritanism/

It starts off by questioning the role of social media sites in censorship

Since when did tech sites acquire the function of moral guardians? And when they do, aren’t they creating an even greater injustice than they are purporting to address? Isn’t this war they are conducting on free speech precisely the kind of oppressive authoritarianism that liberal Silicon Valley types ought to deplore?

but then questions who really may be pulling the strings:

...are trying to launch an alternative crowd-funding platform to Patreon, one untainted by political bias. But this may not be easy because the rot goes much deeper than Patreon. The real pressure, it seems, comes from the payment providers — Visa, Discover, PayPal, especially Mastercard — which have taken to using financial blacklisting as a way of enforcing progressive ideology.

Also this in the Times today:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/morality-clauses-inserted-in-authors-contracts-t9x266jn8?shareToken=7f2ea9eb4ec9119b010fe7b29f4f80c5

It’s already happened. Has been happening for a while. Patreon banned Islam critic and best selling author Robert Spencer (not to be confused with alt right Richard Spencer) and said they had to do this because a credit card company required them to do it.

Tommy Robinson was also banned by PayPal and subscribestar a Patreon alternative was crippled by payment processors withdrawing their services within a few days of people cancelling their Patreon accounts and moving to subscribestar due to their treatment of Mr Benjamin.

The guardian seem to be advocating more banning of people for their political views. They should be careful what they wish for. In 15 years time their views might also be considered wrong think and they might find themselves being unable to open a bank account if they are on the known wrong thinkers list www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/10/paypal-dropped-tommy-robinson-public-pressure-far-right

I think banks and the like shouldn’t be able to ban anyone because of their views. Social media companies like twitter should in my opinion be given a choice. Either register as a publisher and ban anyone you like but accept legal responsibility for everything on the site or be a public platform and allow all speech and opinions that are lawful to be expressed. These companies seem to want it both ways. When they want to ban someone they’re a private company and can do whatever they like, but when someone posts copywrited or liableous material it’s not their fault as they are just a platform and it’s the posters responsibility.

MarshmallowSnowDon

Gosh, that's pretty scary.....reminds me of how things started in The Handmaid's Tale

And this:

www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5852547/amp/Co-operative-bank-bans-feminist-group-using-services.html

The question is - who decides what is 'right think'.

My view is that it is for governments to ban unacceptable or terrorist groups, not financial services companies. Note banks etc regularly use Stonewall to deliver diversity training as they want to be approved by them. But we dont know who is on the Stonewall trans advisory committee as some members are anonymous. (And Aimee Challenor is their secretary.)

Same old, same old..... follow the fucking money.

Needmoresleep

Agreed - I don't want the likes of Owen Jones deciding who gets to speak and who doesn't.

What I find depressing is that, for those behind the crackdown, it's not about winning the argument, it's about shutting down the opposition.

And it goes beyond Patreon and MasterCard- just ask Justine Roberts.

“Needmoresleep

And this:

www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5852547/amp/Co-operative-bank-bans-feminist-group-using-services.html

The question is - who decides what is 'right think'.

My view is that it is for governments to ban unacceptable or terrorist groups, not financial services companies.“

I agree with you. Who decides is also the problem with laws against hate speech.

I think Large companies should only get business licenses to serve the public not police the public. We have an elected government, a police force and a court and legal system for that. It shouldn’t be decided by a few billionaire CEOs listening to whichever hysterical mob is screaming the loudest.

I guess the only reason I’m not a TERF is because I’m not a feminist at all, I am deeply sympathetic to towards the terfs resisting men self identitying their way into women’s only spaces though and I think the way these women have been treated is appalling. But my politics would be largely the same as Carl Benjamin’s (who the article was written about).

The terfs would do well to campaign to have what the coop bank did made illegal or take them to court if there is a chance it could be illegal and get a line drawn under it. Because who knows were this goes next. Will these same groups be able to get people’s electricity and internet shut off next because they are using that to voice opinions that they consider wrong/immoral/hateful next? Incidentally it wasn’t the same sort of groups that target terfs that got Patreon to ban Mr Benjamin. I believe it was alt-right groups that targeted Carl. The alt-right despise classical liberals almost as much as some TRA groups seem to despise TERFs.

Well the truth of the matter is that the banks are the ones who rule the world. Governments, courts and the police are way down the pecking order.

So then we get back to the question of why are the powers-that-be want to send women back to traditional roles that went out with Victorian times and mutilate our children.

Benjamin has been assailed by both the right and the left.

Coyoacan

I read it more as being that those who want to shut down Sargon of Akkad / Carl Benjamin et al have gone after them by putting pressure on Mastercard rather than on Patreon.

I read a comment somewhere describing such pressure as being under the laser - very intense but not very wide. I look forward to companies realising this and telling the pressurisers to take a hike.

I agree @MarshmallowSnowDon, they can't have it both ways.

Social media companies like twitter should in my opinion be given a choice. Either register as a publisher and ban anyone you like but accept legal responsibility for everything on the site or be a public platform and allow all speech and opinions that are lawful to be expressed.
Except I would go further. Register as a publisher and accept responsibility for everything on there, or be a public platform and allow all speech and opinions to be expressed. Then the law can take care of any that aren't lawful.
If someone commits libel, or makes hate speech at an event I'm hosting, presumably it's them who committed the crime, not me. Why should an online platform be different.