Well everyone was cheering them on when they were canceling the nazis so I think any notion that payment processors should be neutral is dead at this point.
First of all, a slippery slope is slippy - that doesn't mean you have to slide down it. You can ban deepy objectionable content, without banning mildly objectionable stuff. As evidence, see any country in the world with functioning hate speech laws. There are lots of them.
Second, payment processors / platforms restricting or banning adult content predates the recent resurgence of nazism in america by decades.
Third, a bunch of platforms shutting down sex content in recent times has been driven by US laws like FOSTA-SESTA and not "cancel culture" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Enabling_Sex_Traffickers_...
My position is that payment processors should not be the arbiters of what is allowed to be paid for by humans. I think that is your position too, but because you don't like the way I made my argument, you reply with a snarky and dismissive tone and treat me like I'm dumb.
That banks and other payment processors shouldn't be the rulers of the world is what we all must agree on and fight for if anything is ever going to change. As soon as you say "well in this case they should because I like when they do it to people I dislike," you are effectively saying that they should be all powerful, just as long as their moral compass aligns with yours.
But should they have the choice of free association with whom they do business?
But I do lean towards "no" to your question, because if we say it's ok for them to choose who they associate with, we are implicitly saying it's ok for them to restrict any content they want. But ultimately, I don't know, and I just find it confusing that any regular person would argue for the rights of _banks_.
Idk what it says that there’s so many hammers looking for nails.
It was entirely up to people to disagree, not invest, lobby politicians and alter the laws, etc., at which point the companies wouldn’t exist anymore and they could then no longer invest in them.
It just simply wasn’t his/their job to police companies morally. It’s a bittersweet conundrum - I agree with him wholeheartedly, but also people can/should vote with their feet (money) and refuse to give these companies money if legally they are still allowed to exist and you disagree morally with what they do/stand for.
Unfortunately I can’t find the specific conversation I’m looking for, but the article [1] lightly touches on the subject. [2] is worth watching as he actually delves a bit deeper why tobacco is such a good investment for them how and governments have almost made the big tobacco companies bullet proof as an investment.
We see this all the time now across society - people love seeing western companies with rainbow flags, meanwhile ignoring a World Cup being held in Qatar in a few months under shocking morals, sponsored by same said companies, totally ignoring diversity, etc. because it’s a different market. Different markets have different morals and companies know/play to this. We should call these companies out for their absolute disgraceful hypocrisy.
Really you have two choices - vote with your feet and starve these companies of oxygen (money) wholly to force change, or lobby your politicians. Don’t expect morality from businesses. They only exist for one reason and one reason only - to make profits and return value to their investors. Look at how you can alter that equation and you just might change things for the better.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/sep/20/terry-smith-at...
You’ll then say, well, it’s as long as it’s legal. And then you’ve outsourced your morals to the letter of the law, in which you’d be a dutiful Nazi in The Third Reich.
"It just simply wasn’t his/their job to police companies morally. It’s a bittersweet conundrum - I agree with him wholeheartedly"
And pawn off responsibility to consumers under the current system. I don't absolve people that say "it's not my job, I just follow the $." They still have a moral duty to help their fellow humans and not just chase the bottom line.
As for payment company power - I agree they shouldn’t be the arbiters of what is acceptable - but you tried to link people asking them to stop taking payments for nazis to this like one lead to the other which is absolutely not the case.
My point is through well crafted hate speech laws and a functioning legal system we can have both - platforms that ban nazis AND payment processing that isn’t able to influence speech.
Can you give me an example of a country with functioning hate speech laws?