Comment on Steam Users Rally Behind Anti-Censorship Petition
Kolanaki@pawb.social 1 day agoMainly that the companies controlling nearly all digital financial transactions should not be the arbiters of what is morally acceptable. If they must exist at all, they should just be handling the transfer of funds regardless of what is being bought and sold*.
*illegal shit would not be protected.
*illegal shit would not be protected.
They can push for some law that makes certain groups or their depictions illegal. Then it’s their morals becoming a law.
If there’s corruption lobbying, there’s a way for them to twist “illegal” into “immoral”, which is fucked.
Yeah but that is a whole other can of worms. I am against legal bribery, as well as certain things being illegal. Like drugs. Or most porn. But I would still think slavery, CP, bestiality, nuclear weapons, etc should be illegal to buy and sell.
If they are dealing in US currency then the wording on the bill says it all. Legal tender for a debts public and private. When they print currency they don’t say, “and this one can’t be used for porn.”
Don’t give em any ideas
some_kind_of_guy@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I would go further and say they shouldn’t have the ability to block any transaction consumers are making, regardless of legality.
I basically want them classified like utilities (or the Internet), and the money they’re processing should operate like digital networked cash. If I hand you a dollar bill, it doesn’t arbitrarily decide to stop being money if it thinks the transaction might possibly be even tangentially related to crime. That’s how you end up with these corporations becoming so invasive in the first place, with their overbroad policies blocking entire groups/categories from being in the economy.
Don’t think that I’m pro-crime – but only actual crime is crime. A transfer of funds itself is only sometimes a crime. You don’t see the federal reserve trying to foil small-time drug deals in cash, and for good reason – legitimate crimes should be investigated by law enforcement, not “prevented” at the whims of overeager corpos. It’s not the payment processor’s right or responsibility to prevent or they to predict crime, especially once they’ve built such a system as to become indispensable for most of us. If they are allowed to do that they will always do it the easy way – blanket bans with massive collateral damage to non-criminals.
These companies should be disbanded and their systems should be handed over to the public. Hot take, I know, but I’m of the mind that transaction processing (much like air and water) should not be privatized. I’m not a crypto-head either (I’ll use it if it fits the purpose). Crypto brought us part of the way there, but such a system can’t really flourish in furtherance of the public good in the current environment.
0x0@lemmy.zip 8 hours ago
Of course not, only PreCogs can predict crime.
SabinStargem@lemmy.today 1 day ago
Honestly, I am kinda expecting that with the way that America is becoming, something like Monero could become legitimized. There wasn’t much reason for crypto to be a currency, so long as the world order remained orderly and useful to the everyday person.
Should the American Dollar collapse, there would be a howling void that must be filled - it could be Euros, the Yen, Monero, or something else entirely, but the opportunity would be there for currencies to change.
0x0@lemmy.zip 8 hours ago
And yet banks are moving in the opposite direction and forcing it being banned precisely because it’s a threat to their control, unlike Bitcoin.
MysteriousSophon21@lemmy.world 1 day ago
100% agree - payment processors have basicaly become critical infrastructure and should be regulated as such, not allowed to impose their moral judgements on what adults can purchase.