Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

>Here's a better idea: let's make censorship impossible in all forms.

It seems like you're proposing government ownership or extremely heavy regulation of private businesses.

For your ACLU/NRA case, you have a good case: this appears to be action by a state government to restrict funding to an organization that is not charged with a crime.

However, for PayPal and erotic fiction authors, this isn't government censorship at all. This is a private company declining to do business with someone. One of the hallmarks of the American business and legal system is the right to free association. You can't force people to do business with other people, unless (due to specific legislation, namely the Civil Rights Act) you can show that one side was discriminating against someone in a "protected class" (race, sex, religion, etc.). "People selling erotic fiction" are not a protected class, so companies are free to do business with them, or not. Personally, I think it's pretty ridiculous, and I have no idea why PayPal would single them out when they provide services for so many others, but again, they're not a public utility, they're a private company. The authors are still free to receive money from clients through cash, checks, bank transfers, competing services like Stripe or Venmo, merchant accounts, etc. Yeah, it sucks that a really convenient payment processor for small entities is off-limits, but it's not like they can't get any money at all, even though it probably would affect their business.

Do we really want to have government in the business of forcing companies to do business with other companies or organizations? What if it's the KKK? What if it's a drug cartel's shell company? What if it's a terrorist organization, but one which the government happily looks the other way for because they're antagonizing some political foe?

And it's not just finances, it's other kinds of business. Should an advertising firm be required to do business with anyone? What if the KKK wants them to post ads? Or some religious cult? This would be a pretty horrible precedent.



>It seems like you're proposing government ownership or extremely heavy regulation of private businesses.

Not at all! I respect their right to do business as they see fit. I believe cryptocurrencies should be adopted as an alternative.

I actually feel a bit bad you wrote all that based on a big misunderstanding. I need to be more clear with my writing.

*I accidentally quoted the wrong line when I made this post, causing some confusion.


> Not at all! I respect their right to do business as they see fit. I believe cryptocurrencies should be adopted as an alternative.

B does not follow A. Theres an entire universe of better options.


Such as?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: