[crx07]

On one hand it feels completely appropriate and even deserved. On the other, yes, this is unfortunately a path to a very serious totalitarian issue. Situations like this one underscore the future importance of cryptocurrencies.

Without an uncensorable currency, any political adversary -- especially an incumbent -- can just coerce payment processors into blocking payments to their opponents through threats of imprisonment or violence against a handful of executives.

[hilbertseries]

> Without an uncensorable currency, any political adversary -- especially an incumbent -- can just coerce payment processors into blocking payments to their opponents through threats of imprisonment or violence against a handful of executives.

How is this a good faith argument. You’ve jumped a situation where somewhere is being deplatformed and banned from various services for encouraging violence. To someone will use violence to kick someone off platforms. Coercing payment processors in that manor would be illegal. So, how exactly are we on the path to fascism? This is absolutely wild to me, that a textbook fascist being banned from things is being spun as... fascism.

[spijdar]

I'd define fascism as a method of government which enforces some specific morality/actions/market through force. By this definition it's entirely possible for two different brands of fascism to have two opposing goals, and for one to use fascist methods on another fascist.

If your definition of fascism is specifically centered around nationalism or racism then this doesn't really work, but I don't think the word fascism implies this, only that fascism is usually associated with regimes using fascist authoritarianism to enforce racist and nationalist ideologies.

[Andrew_nenakhov]

Russian opposition is tamest of the tame, yet, it is routinely deplatformed and prosecuted, guess for what, calls for extremism and violence! And a large portion of population believes that to be true, because government controls most sources of information.

I think US might look exactly same in a few years. The mighty benevolent Party will care for thankful citizens, with the exception of a few outcasts who can't even create a simple website and are laughed at all over the media and social networks. And of course the Party will win all the subsequent elections for the next 70 years.

[rorykoehler]

It pretty easy to see how a law or norm implemented for just reasons can be co-opted for nefarious ones. The US has been doing this for as long as I've been alive. Patriot Act?

[insert_coin]

> Without an uncensorable currency, any political adversary -- especially an incumbent -- can just coerce payment processors into blocking payments to their opponents through threats of imprisonment or violence against a handful of executives.

That has always happened, Visa/Mastercard have been used that way since forever. The Swift system is designed to exercise financial control. Paypal bans anyone for merely looking suspicious to them.

[hn_throwaway_99]

The very idea that cryptocurrency is an "uncensorable currency" is just fundamentally false, yet is a common refrain of crypto supporters who somehow think crypto can exist outside the realm of government control.

Governments can choose to make anything they want illegal, and they have the guns to back up that decision. Sure, it may be easy to make crypto transactions more surreptitiously, but at the end of the day someone is going to want to spend that crypto on something that has real value, and governments can, and do, control what method of payments are acceptable.

[ineedasername]

Going from bans due to ToS violations all of the way to government coercion of executives through imprisonment is an enormous leap in logic. There's quite a few steps along that path in between.

And if course given that bitcoin has to be sent and received, if we ever arrived at your dystopia, bitcoin would not help: the political rival would simply jail the executive for receiving bitcoin payments instead of USD currency. Bitcoin isn't preventing your dystopia.

[dnissley]

government coercion of executives through imprisonment

I think you read this slightly wrong -- drop the government (political adversary != government adversary) and relax imprisonment for threats of violence:

"coercion of executives through threats of violence"

...and we've got something a lot closer to what we already see today.

[ketamine__]

Likely the cryptocurrency would still go through an intermediary like Coinbase. And of course Coinbase could terminate their account.

[Acrobatic_Road]

It's easy to donate cryptocurrency to other people. From there getting it into cash can be a problem, but I can think of a million ways of doing it. Privacy technology helps a lot.

[snarf21]

I don't think it is a totalitarian issue. One problem is that the SEC and FTC have sat on their hands in the 21st century. There is no competition anymore. At worst this leads to party supporting companies in each market who will still allow it.