[spollo]

I suppose one could argue your scary example has already occurred. I believe stripe cut off Donald Trump [1]. As a non-American, I don't really care about Trump and may be a bit ignorant here, but I find the big tech companies cutting him off under "inciting violence" a bit of a stretch. To me, it's actually extra scary to cut off a politician's fundraising for disagreeing with their "politics".

[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/stripe-stops-processing-payment...

[jacobr1]

This is why I mentioned square, not stripe. Anyone acting more like a utility or common carrier. Stripe is good, but there are many other comparable options out there. But my local coffee shop only uses a single POS systems. The latter seems more sinister to me, especially since they would be taking an action that is potentially independent of the their customer (the business).

For stripe, the example would be refusing to process any CC payments (as a consumer) for registered republicans whatsoever. Beyond it being foolish commercially, it is much more intrusive than a refusing a direct 1:1 contract.

[nobody9999]

>it's actually extra scary to cut off a politician's fundraising for disagreeing with their "politics"

Except that's not what happened. Stripe didn't cut off the Trump campaign's ability to raise funds. They didn't block access to their bank accounts. They didn't freeze their assets.

Rather, one company (and they aren't even close to the largest player in that industry) chose not to process online credit card transactions for them.

The Trump campaign has many other online payment processors that it can do business with. They can still accept donations via many other means (checks, bank transfers, cash, etc., etc.).

A single company (which is just a group of people) decided they didn't want to do business with another group of people.

Stripe, it's shareholders and employees are under no obligation to do business with anyone.

And the fact that the customer is a political entity strengthens that, as their right to support (or not) any particular political entity, candidate or position is integral to a free society.

[hackinthebochs]

>Rather, one company... chose not to process online credit card transactions for them.

I don't see how people can make this argument with a straight face. If you accept that this one company should be allowed to decide to cut off someone for ideological reasons, you tacitly accept that all companies could cut someone off for the same reason. Hiding behind it being "only one" right now is to use a technicality to dodge having to defend the principle you are implicitly advocating. The action isn't more right or wrong because one or more company is doing it--you either defend the principle at full usage or you disavow it.