Hacker News Reader

Comment by miroljub | Hacker News Reader

It is happening in the EU right now. Martin Sellner has denied or closed by 109 banks for his opinion that Europe should stay European.

Prophecy: some people here may argue that's a good thing, and we should differentiate between a good and bad debanking.

Edit: as expected, if you want to push for more autocracy and control, you need to find the right bogeyman. And suddenly, people claiming they are liberal and pro freedom will start supporting authoritarian policies, but "just in some cases", whether those people are terrorists, "far rights" or paedophiles.

View on HN

A cursory look up of the dude very quickly turned up links with far-right terrorist and Christchurch shooter Brenton Tarrant, including receiving money from him, so I don't think it's the "opinion" that's the issue.

Replying to your edit: this is not a discussion about whether debanking or state control of the financial system is good or bad in general. I don't have a much opinion on such a complex topic (though I do hope that your principled opposition to state debanking also extends to muslims). What I replied to is your allegation of that he was debanked for his "opinions", which is categorically false. He was put on some sort of list, rightly or wrongly, because he had links with a far-right terrorist* who shot and killed dozens of people at a mosque. You omitting that fact and crying about authoritarianism when confronted leads me to think that you are not arguing in good faith.

*in the strictest definition of the word: openly subscribing (and self-describing) to far-right ideologies, and committing acts of terror

> though I do hope that your principled opposition to state debanking also extends to muslims).

Of course. With the restriction that Muslims in non-Muslim countries are not entitled to Islamic banking if no bank provides it, as well as non-Muslims in Muslim countries are not entitled to non-Islamic banking.

Back to Sellner. If he is a far-right terrorist, arrest him for God's sake. Don't leave it to banks to emulate justice in their own internal processes.

> Martin Sellner has denied or closed by 109 banks

Are you really trying to point at some racist freak that advocates for ethnical cleansing via mass deportations as an example of debanking being bad?

Because you are actually convincing me of the opposite.

That's the whole point, which you obviously didn't understand.

It's unfortunate that many people, including you, would support authoritarian methods and reducing of human rights like free speech, privacy, etc, as long as that is framed against "bad" people, and not "good".

Of course, that same totalitarian regime may tomorrow decide you are "bad", or at least not "good enough".

I'm not arguing about Sellner, I picked him because I knew it would provoke this kind of response.

But if he did something illegal, state should arrest him, bring him to court, and put him in jail. Legally and fine, that's why we pay taxes.

But since he is not convinced, and not jailed, harassing him because some people don't like him is pure tyranny. Approved by the people who think they are better than North Korea.

> It's unfortunate that many people, including you, would support authoritarian methods and reducing of human rights like free speech, privacy, etc, as long as that is framed against "bad" people, and not "good".

This would only be unfortunate if I believed that free speech is an absolute right, which I definitely don't. And reducing it to an authoritarian view is not going to advance this discussion.

I view society as a compromise. By living in a society I actively choose to curtail many freedoms that I would (or should) otherwise have. Some of those are imposed by the state as laws and regulations, some are imposed by societal norms. In other words, if I show up for a job interview wearing only a thong, I will not get that job.

Following your rationale, any law or regulation is tyrannical as it curtails freedom. Whether this is true or not, that is not something I am willing to settle. I would still prefer to live in a tyrannical society (by what you seem to believe is tyranny) than in a chaotic anarchy.

And part of that compromise that society enforces is limitations on speech. If a racist freak is allowed to spread his advocacy for ethinical cleansing, is it a slippery slope to believe he might succeed in his goals? Let us remember that the Final Solution of Nazi Germany was final because it was the not the original solution. Initially the idea was a mass deportation based on ethnicity. Should we allow those seeds to root again based on some misguided idea of "it will be tyrannical to not allow this bullshit to be advocated for freely"?

Perhaps he should be trialed and properly convicted for his advocacy. If the laws are not in place for it, I am fine with debanking this asshole.

> Perhaps he should be trialed and properly convicted for his advocacy. If the laws are not in place for it, I am fine with debanking this asshole.

Wouldn't it be better to update the laws than let the corporation do self-justice by punishing "assholes" who didn't do anything illegal?

If corporations like banks are allowed to do self-justice, why not individuals? And what is an appropriate punishment for someone who is an asshole, but didn't do anything illegal? Debanking? Fine. Removing from social media? Fine. Not allowing to rent a place to live? Fine? Beating? Not fine. A little beating, just an "appropriate" amount of beating? Maybe also fine?

I'd rather have a state properly process and handle these cases than big corps or some "society".

> Wouldn't it be better to update the laws than let the corporation do self-justice by punishing "assholes" who didn't do anything illegal?

Generally, yes.

> If corporations like banks are allowed to do self-justice, why not individuals? And what is an appropriate punishment for someone who is an asshole, but didn't do anything illegal? Debanking? Fine. Removing from social media? Fine. Not allowing to rent a place to live? Fine? Beating? Not fine. A little beating, just an "appropriate" amount of beating? Maybe also fine?

Perhaps this will be news to you, but being socially ostracized is not exactly new.

While I don't exactly think this is the best course of action, I will not pretend this is unprecedented.

And you know, we are taking about some hypothetical here. Banks may have found it complicated to handle donations that he was receiving.

People in general, thankfully, find views such as "let's mass deport certain ethnicities in an ethinical cleansing" a view that is too repulsive and would prefer not to be anywhere close to it.

> I'd rather have a state properly process and handle these cases than big corps or some "society".

No need for scary quotes around society. You likely live in one, its all around you, and it's what the government generally is meant to represent.

yes, even racist or whatever freaks have right to have bank accounts and not being discriminated for their crazy opinions, if they didn't break the law, in developed world we have courts to judge whether someone is guilty or not of breaking some law, not the banks, ISPs or social media companies, this just came to my mind:

First they came for the Communists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Communist

Then they came for the Socialists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Socialist

Then they came for the trade unionists And I did not speak out Because I was not a trade unionist

Then they came for the Jews And I did not speak out Because I was not a Jew

Then they came for me And there was no one left To speak out for me

The nerve to even attempt to equate this with "racists and whatever freaks", and to invoke Niemöller without even giving him credit.

First the people who despise democracy and plurality, the people you belittle as "racists or whatever freaks", came for one group, then the next. And that is why people who come for Nazis also become Nazis in the same way an oncologist who cuts out cancer becomes cancer: not at all.

> Though we are aware that the might of National Socialism must be broken militarily, we seek to achieve a revival of the deeply wounded German spirit from within. However, this rebirth must be preceded by a clear confession of all the guilt the German nation has incurred and by a ruthless battle against Hitler and his too-numerous helpers’ helpers, Party members, Quislings, et al. The chasm between the better part of the nation and everything connected with National Socialism must be brutally forced open. There is no punishment on this earth that is adequate for the deeds of Hitler and his followers. Out of love for the generations to come, we must make an example [of them] after the conclusion of the war so that no one will ever have the slightest desire to attempt something similar.

-- The White Rose

They also called Nazis "subhumans", by the way. And that is perfectly fine by me, I think those leaflets have aged perfectly well.

How about this: drones that fly up to people and tell them "isn't Hitler great" or whatever, and when that person grins and their pupils dilate, and some follow-up tests also succeed, they get zapped on the spot. Just turned to ash. Deal? That would be actually honouring what people in those times were saying.

I didn't expect Godwin so fast.

After quoting Niemöller? What? Even I would say I laid it on a bit thick, teetering on the edge of self-righteousness if not having falled of it, but "oh no, a nazi comparison"? If you can't compare anything to the Nazis, never speak of them again. They're not to be put behind glass, as something magically different from all other things, some unique anomaly in space time.

No single Nazi murdered millions or started a war, they all just did a bunch of things with a few others, and before you know it, a continent is on fire and tens of millions are murdered. None of them wanted that (some actually didn't, I bet you; they may have been fine with murder and conquest but not Auschwitz and Germany in ashes), and that is why when we see this disease (and I really think it's a sort of mental illness produced by mass society), we already know the infected people will not take responsibility for the whole group. They will not actually lift their eyes and view all their peers in the context of all of history. They will, again, just do a few things each, and then, again, be completely fucking useless when it comes to cleaning up their mess, and mourning the dead they owe. They didn't study what they are, so they have no fucking clue. And knowing that, we have no right to let them.

We are discussing some freak that espouses ethinical cleansing through mass deportations.

You don't get to invoke Godwin when the subject matter is already nazi-adjacent.

I tried searching for what exactly he is accused of, and all I can see is he supports the extradition of illegal migrants to their home countries according to the existing law, but the "elites" and "the ones in power" decided to ignore.

I didn't find any direct reference to him supporting anything like athletic cleansing.

Banking is practically a necessity of modern society. If governments demand e- everything, then universal banking should be a right.

He also has the right to rule of law, a fair trial, etc. Banks shouldn't be the ones playing the roles of juries and judges.

If he's not good for society, lock him up / execute / stone / cane / exile / etc him.

We're basically sleepwalking into a social credit system.

Not being deported from the country where you live based on some ethnical cleansing initiative is also a necessity of modern society.

We all have to take stances.

Some choose to think about the rights of the people victimized by racist ethnonationalist freaks.

Some choose to think about the the right of people to be racist ethnonationalist freaks without any inconvenience.

I don't disagree, I just don't like hidden greyzone punishments. The state should come out and show their hand in public based on the rule of law and arrest such people if they don't like it.

Chipping away at people from the shadows (i.e. taking away their banking) isn't how a civilized society should act.

I also think it's a very very dangerous path if we let banks, tech companies, etc decide what rights we're allowed in society.

banks declined to do business with him (and/or with the movement he is associated with) not for "his opinion", but for his actions

IMHO it's obvious that there should be a limited minimum/basic account provided by the state unconditionally, and that the current practice of using AML regulations to effectively ban people from having bank cards and bank accounts goes against the spirit of due process.

it's quite farcical that private banks are used as mandatory designated sin-eaters (scapegoats) for this. they don't want to and mostly can't comment on the specifics (because SAR - suspicious activity reporting - and the various national equivalents, usually immediately triggers the requirement to play dumb, since that's the only way to ensure that the bank cannot be later dragged in front of whatever authority for not cooperating with the investigation) but everyone knows it, since it's in the fucking news.

and the actual legal actions tend to be overturned.

all of which in total end up helping these organizations (and these politicians) to farm reputation.

https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/various/entry-ban-for-austrian-...

Banks are also afraid of repercussions from US if they have customers that are on some US list, refer to case of Karim Khan, the Chief Prosecutor for the International Criminal Court (ICC)

It is rather ironic that you excuse and rationalize the tyrannical state.

You think that “actual legal actions tend to be overturned” is an acceptable state of affairs?? Think about what you said right there? Read it again. And then again!

It’s astonishing you would say such a thing. You think you would somehow be immune from the tyrant you support?

you misinterpret my comment.

i am using that as support for my claim that this extralegal proscription of access to financial services would likely also not survive the courts.

my position on this is simple. if the state claims there's something illegal then they should charge him/them, if not then pressuring private parties to stop exercising their freedom of assembly and association obviously goes against the spirit of civil rights and the rule of law.

(and I know the problem is convoluted, hard and obviously a realpolitik minefield, but ... again, obviously whatever the last 20 years of elected governments were/are doing did not solve the problems.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com