Mastercard ban people they don't like from using their payment system without due process!
Are you fine with a couple of companies ruling the World with no regard for law? How do you plan to deal with censorship in a cashless society? Should companies running the world be nationalized? How else do you stop them from killing free speech?
i contact my consumer ombudsman and have the full force of my government assrape them
>11 minute video with guy ranting about the Left
And back to Jow Forums you go
And he tells you that they are a private company and that "hate speech" is banned in their TOS.
It doesn't matter. I would be outraged the same if he was the other way around. The guy banned collected videos of Muslim terrorists murdering civilians and was banned for spreading facts.
Ombudsman works for me, I have him help me get the exact copy-paste from the TOS they are using and compare it with hate-speech laws to see if it's valid.
What country? This shit happened in USA.
"It's okay for corporation to trample on the rights of people." -Patriot American
sweden
and in this case if is correct, it would be a pretty clear-cut case of incorrect ban if it's just jihadist video collection for historical safekeeping
they'd be pretty fucked
VISA banned money transfers to WikiLeaks and your Government did jack shit because "rape".
Based Bisa.
thats not the same as mastercard having another company ban a private person from their service
>(((Mastercard)))
>(((Visa)))
Fuck these Jewish CIA niggers. Is it possible to switch to UnionPay? I'll gladly transfer all my money to a chink bank.
>You will never donate to wikileaks
How are you going to pay for groceries with that?
what a coincidence, saw a unionpay sticker at my fave burger place today
If a cake shop can refuse to sell a wedding cake to gays, why not?
Your case needs work, Sambo.
>due process
you do know that the legal system does not apply like that for corporations, no?
How many people will be shut down with 0 media coverage?
Any logical reason? Shouldn't your Constitution stand above corporate interest?
Americans love freedom from government tyranny above all else. Unfortunately, that freedom extends to all groups facilitating corporate tyranny, and trying to amend the situations would be government tyranny. This is why Jefferson said what he did about the tree of liberty.
>a couple of companies ruling the World with no regard for law
basically the american dream. All those twats would give their life to make the world more and more like this.
>due process
>private
The due process is they no longer consent to interact with you. How would you feel if you had to use Mastercard unless you could prove they wronged you?
Corporations are people though. Everyone is a business, even if most are ignorant of that fact and terribly unsuccesful.
It's not for them to decide who can transfer money and who can't when they have effective duopoly on the planet.
and fought against the bankers
Yes it is. You cannot force them to provide their service to you and they cannot force you to do whatever it is you do (presumably sucking dicks seeing as you are a commie) for them. Consent is the key to freedom.
what a whiny asswipe. if that happened to me, i'd cancel everything mastercard related and never look back. simple as that. there's fucking choice in credit cards, so exercise it.
For all the shit the uk gets, losing their banking licence is actually something banks and other financial services really care about since providing financial services without one is a crime. To that end the regulators can fuck over a giant like mastercard
Tldr it, I'm not giving Jow Forumsshit clciks
no, well regulated laws that protect your freedom is. that's why EU has actual competition and america doesnt.
>without due process!
Ya, I bet you've read their full TOS
Private corporations should have clearly defined terms of service, vague terms should result in fines, no rubbish terms such as "we can remove your account for whatever".
If a person is removed they should be forced to clearly disclose why and refer to the terms of service in a relevant way.
Corporations such as Alfabet (Google), Visa/Mastercard, Amazon. All have userbases larger than several countries, yet they are held to no real standards in terms of what they can do to their users.
This is absurd, and the thought that people would defend it is absurd as well.
Imagine if your nation could simply exile you, without giving any actual reason for it, it would be unacceptable.
"Freedom" is merely the state of oppessing those who would oppress you. It isn't a goal, only a means to a personal and greedy end.
>no but it's totally justified to oppress them because they would oppress me
If you don't see the problem you are the problem.
A nation is not a private corporation. Fuck off, retard.
>restrictions are oppression
fuck off shlomo, you cant make a monopoly here.
Just boycott businesses that are abusive. If not enough people boycott to hurt them as a fine would then they clearly weren't enough of a problem.
>Just boycott businesses that are abusive
>2 companies ban you
>you are fucked for life
How about we "restrict" you from criticizing Jewish people? It doesn't matter how you phrase it, someone's boot is on someone's throat. Freedom is a delusion born from wanting to be on top.
>>A nation is not a private corporation.
>He thinks this is an actual genuine argument when corporations affect more people than countries
>Calls other people retarded.
Sure, hun.
Just boycott them
Except it's not a real option. You cannot reasonably boycott every single bank. That would literally not work in modern society.
so your solution is to let corporations put their boot on all the people's throats? yeah no, thats' why you have monopolies, oligarchys and fucking stone-age internet and are getting jewed out the ass for everything over in burgerland.
regulations on corporations are healthy because it protect's more people than just a fucking company that's trying to jew you for all your money
go fuck yourself, retard
If enough people get banned then an alternative will arise. If they don't then maybe you just need to stop demanding society conform to your needs. The world does not owe you anything if you won't contribute to it.
>I want to be the oppressor!
That's fine and normal. Just stop calling it freedom.
>just let corporations oppress even more people instead!
I'm not saying that. Where did I say that? I'm just asking you to be honest and say "I want to abuse my position as a member of the majority to force the more successful and competent people in the world to serve people like me under threat of violence."
Or, the more probable alternative.
They'll just shut up and take it up their ass.
There's a reason that shithole countries in the middle east don't have revolutions that work. You'd need enough people to leave to rival the corporations that literally share the entire population of the planet, less than that and stores won't accept you.
that's not how freedom works
freedomhouse.org
I'm not clicking that shit.
You want them fined if they don't comply with your demands. If they don't pay the fine they get arrested. If they resist arrest they are killed. You decide who gets fined because you represent the majority. You don't like to think of "freedom" in the terms I laid out, but you need to recognize just what you're campaigning for.
But mommy said I could say nigger wherever I wanted with no consequences? Would my aunt lie like that? I guess she really is my dad's daughter after all... le sigh...
lmao, you only want free market and corporate oppression.
all the countries with the most freedom are socialist european countries with a well regulated market that protects the consumer and personal privacy and liberty.
get fucked, you kike brainlet
By the time the eternal moneylenders have outlawed cash as legal tender and moved the sheeple to RFID implants i will have already fucked off innawoods
No I don't. I'm a fucking nazi. I just want you to be realistic about what you want, and to stop calling it freedom.
clearly you have no fucking clue about what i want and you dont know what the fuck freedom is, so stop talking and fuck off
>Making sure that people are FREE to live their lives without having to worry about losing services that are literally essential in modern society is oppression because CORPORATIONS (not people, in fact most employees would benefit) won't be able to throw anyone they disagree with out onto the curb
Yep, clearly have no idea what you're talking about, unless you're one of those retarded anarchists.
Based and redpilled.
that's how it works in america, where you have fake "freedoms" that mean jack shit thanks to corporations and corrupt government and lack of regulations.
back here in EU we have laws that protect our freedoms and due process.
see: EU fining corporations left and right for misconduct and protecting consumers.
No, you don't know what you want. Tell me how you make them comply without force. Go ahead. Asking politely?
I'm not saying it's a bad thing to force them around at gunpoint, but it is a bad thing to be intellectually dishonest and pretend you just want everybody to be free. You don't want freedom, you want to be on top.
>rightcuck gets owned by a private company
>starts complaining about the left
When will they fucking learn lmao
>dont follow the law
>no concequences
fuck off anarchist nigger
>>You don't want freedom, you want to be on top.
>It's not freedom because the few aren't allowed to force the many
That is literally what you're saying, you're literally saying that making sure that people have protections from being literally banned from living (because that is literally the degree to which the banks are essential) is oppression.
You have to be actually retarded to think that it's "Wanting to be on top" to want to have the freedom to exist with opinions. You have to be the absolute dumbest motherfucker on the planet to actually genuinely believe that shit.
i dont think that tard gets it, i've been trying to tell him that for half an hour but he still doesnt see his own hypocracy
Is this an argument for crypto?
I'm not against consequences, in fact I want them to be much harsher than they are now. I'm talking about bringing torture back to the table for writing malware like Windows telemetry.
You seem to be getting honest now, so say it. Tell me what you want.
>I want to abuse my position as a member of the majority to force the more successful and competent people in the world to serve people like me under threat of violence.
So you think forcing them to serve you isn't oppression because you need them and they are few in number?
>No siree, we ain't oppressin' down here, we have less slaves than slave owners and we need them to grow our food to survive.
>preventing the few from oppressing the many is oppression
no, it's regulation. It works perfectly fine in EU which is proven by us having actual fucking competition in markets and way higher freedoms than the rest of the world.
No. It isn't oppression because CORPORATIONS ARE NOT PEOPLE.
All the PEOPLE IN THAT CORPORATION STILL GETS THE SAME PROTECTIONS.
It's just that the single person making choices regarding the corporation won't be able to infringe on YOUR ability to live YOUR life, just like you can't infringe on THEIR ability to live THEIR life.
It's really that fucking simple.
>How do you plan to deal with censorship in a cashless society
as long as there are alternatives you don't do shit, once all alternatives are gone you force them to keep doing business.
having CORPORATIONS (not people) not oppress my rights and freedoms is not "forcing (((them))) to serve me" you stupid fuck
just admit you're a dirty anarchist, cus that's what you want, to let everyone do whatever they want.
>It's not tomato it's tomato.
Whatever you say, just don't call it freedom.
>It's just that the single person making choices regarding the corporation
Ah. I found the problem. You've never had any education in business or even so much as a job before.
So you just want to control the corporation, not any people? See that's pure freedom. Of course the corporation's employees are people, so nobody at the corporation will do a goddamn thing for you, but stomp all over... whatever exactly you think the corporation is. Have fun.
>just don't call it freedom.
>freedom of living my life without being oppressed is not freedom
>So you just want to control the corporation, not any people?
restriction != control
>You've never had any education in business or even so much as a job before.
and you never had any education whatsoever
im done with you, fuck off back to Jow Forums you massive retard
>>It's just that the single person making choices regarding the corporation
>You didn't phrase it in an exactly accurate way haha I win now
>Didn't even follow it up with an argument.
Jesus christ.
Imagine if you live in a very remote area, and the only store available refuses to sell you food.
But I guess that starving really is the purest form of freedom. Good lord this mother fucker. Oh man. I have seen stupid before, but never have I seen this absolute magnitude of pure retardation.
>These people actually exist in our society and make choices which affect other people.
Oh man.
>restriction != control
Is that so? What exactly is the difference then, between me restricting your options to those acceptable to me and actually controlling you?
It wasn't a phrasing issue, it's a core concept issue. You think corporations are just a few people at the top domineering over their lowly serfs, while making demands of "the corporation" actually involves every single employee in one way or another.
>muh food analogy
Why exactly does your need entitle you to their goods? What if they need a kidney and yours is the only match nearby?
they are restricted by law to not oppress me, no one is forcing them to do shit.
they are restricted so they cant create a monopoly or use other means to control everything.
that way i am free to choose any service i want from all the options.
no one is oppressing """them""" and no one is oppressing me.
"""they""" are free to compete with each other and use legitimate ways to promote and sell their product to me without forcing me (opressing me) to use their product.
YOU are the only one here that's advocating oppression with your psuedo "freedoms"
>What if they need a kidney and yours is the only match nearby?
Yes because they totally have to give up their kidney to sell me food at market price.
Forcing someone to get payed to press a button sure is too much of an inconvenience to make it worth saving someones life. The cashiers are really risking their own lives (just like I am when I choose to donate a kidney) when they press that button, really can't risk it.
It's not like specifically banning me and forcing me to starve would be an arguably larger inconvenience since they would lose out on money. But oh well, whatever you say. Just like the bank totally doesn't inconvenience themselves more when they ban someone than when they don't.
They are PRIVATE entities. There is no entitlement to due process because NO PROCESS IS DUE you ignorant turd!
>they are restricted by law to not oppress me,
Citation needed. Which laws? Of course you don't know because they don't exist.
So exactly what part of Mastercard refusing to do business with you and the law forcing them to do business with you isn't force? You talking about how they can sell you their product, but what if they don't want to sell you anything?
>YOU are the only one here that's advocating oppression with your psuedo "freedoms"
I don't advocate freedom and I never have.
So it's a matter of inconvenience? In that case you should be able to fuck anyone you want, right? After at's far more inconvenient for a fat nerd to obsess over Taylor Swift all day every day for years than for her to let him fuck her for 12 seconds, after all. In fact, starving is a lot more inconvenient than not having an employee, so they should actually have to give you a salary you can use to buy their food even if you don't come to work. What a perfect system!
my freedoms, my consumer rights, my human rights, market/corporate/banking regulations.
>So exactly what part of Mastercard refusing to do business with you and the law forcing them to do business with you isn't force?
irrelevant, the issue is they are oppressing the person, THEY are breaking the law, and the concequence (which you said are OK) is them being forced to do business with the person.
also, they are abusing (oppressing) people when they force a second company to terminate their business with the person.
get a brain, retard
>In that case you should be able to fuck anyone you want, right?
that's literally the consequence YOU are advocating
fuck off hypocrite
>irrelevant
It's entirely relevant. The entire point, im fact. You are oppressing them if you force them to do something.
>breaking the law
So the law is the final arbiter? What if the law said all Jews must be sent to camps and killed? What about all people banned by Mastercard?
>which you said are OK
Well yes, because I believe in oppressing people. I just don't pretend it's freedom.
I beg your pardon? I don't think gays should be allowed to live, much less fuck. Do you think I'm some kind of ancap or something? Far from it.
You mean greece? 500 yuros is cash maximum there when buying things in stores
They arent by law obliged to let you use their services.
Nah, eu just be creepin up murrican ITs asses, preventing AI from becoming a thing here. They get vacations etc. from Microsoft etc.
Usually this upsets yuropoors (contrary to murricans who support such stuff), but this decade they're too distracted by smartphones to give a shit
Writing stuff in caps makes any argument invalid.
>You are oppressing them if you force them to do something.
no, they are being held accountable by law and facing the concequences of breaking the law
>What if the law said all Jews must be sent to camps and killed?
are you retarded? they are protected by the same laws that you want removed so corporations are not "forced to be controlled" or rather the correct sentence would be "not able to oppress the people"
>Well yes, because I believe in oppressing people.
corporations aren't people.
>I just don't pretend it's freedom
protecting my freedoms is not freedom? damn you are fucking dumb
they are if they are the only option, and they certainly have no business forcing a third party to end their business with their customer
Until your government agrees with them.
People that want or are looking for a cashless society are fucking the dumbest mother fuckers around. The last bit of freedom many people have is cash. People are too willing to trade freedom for convenience.
This is the most Jow Forums post ITT.
>no, they are being held accountable by law and facing the concequences of breaking the law
The laws you and your fellows made to oppress them, yes.
>are you retarded? they are protected by the same laws that you want removed
I think there has been some confusion here, I am still on your side politically, as far as controlling corporations goes anyways. I only take issue with pretending it's a desire for "freedom" and not a violent shift of control from the successful few to the numerous consumers of their goods and services.
>corporations aren't people.
So how exactly does the law control them? Who do the police shoot if "the corporation" does not comply? Some kind of AI? The sign in front of their building?
>protecting my freedoms is not freedom?
That's correct. In the same sense shooting a man who is going to kill you is not creating life.
mastercard.us
It explicitly says MC doesn't give a shit and won't be held responsible for whatever happens on third-party websites. Word "hate" doesn't appears. So yeah, they just infringed their own terms.
Oh, shit. I thought this was Jow Forums. I'm out niggers, enjoy your "freedom" to oppress.
>some stupid faggot got banned for trying to commit fraud so he comes to Jow Forums to complain
LOL
>The laws you and your fellows made to oppress them, yes.
no, they're made to protect the people
>pretending it's a desire for "freedom"
fuck you are dumb
>violent shift of control from the successful few to the numerous consumers of their goods and services
there's no difference here between a burgerland company like say a big ISP which have split up the market between them so they're the only option in each area so they can raise prises and not improve the infrastructure.
Here in EU they cant do that because of our laws which prevents monopolies and oligarchies from controlling the market, which lets more companies compete with each, which gives me more options.
That's freedom for me and for the companies.
Preventing misconduct and abusive business practices is not oppression.
>Who do the police shoot if "the corporation" does not comply?
no one, they go to court and find out who's responsible and punish them, you dumb fuck.
That person has the same rights as everyone else, and when he oppress someone thru the corporation then he breaks the law and will be punished just like everyone else.
>That's correct. In the same sense shooting a man who is going to kill you is not creating life.
and preventing yourself from being oppressed by other people or enteties is not oppression.
Letting people be oppressed is not freedom.
Get it thru your thick fucking skull.
I just want anyone lurking to know that this halfwit phoneposter does not properly represent the side of freedom, the rest of us just got tired of replying to the nazi zealot.
Friendly reminder that a corporation is a form of government.
I only use Visa, Amex, and Discover.
Fuuuuuckkkkk meeeeeeee, I didn’t even think of cash in this way. I like cash so much more now.
But yeah, I was at Walmart for a fucking bag of dog food and a kit for patching the wall, and the damn debit/credit was all down and their only ATM for cash ran out of bills right when it was my turn. I waited for about 20 minutes for the world to come back on, when they bring some cash for the atm.
Without due process
Tim Pool is a lefty, you neolib goof
MasterCard is a private company, they can do what they want.
>Fascism is okay if corporations do it
It's not fascism. He broke the terms of service, he gets banned. Simple.