> they'll eventually run into legal troubles from the damage they cause to innocent people
Which is how this sort of thing ought to be handled, in stark contrast to "Chrystia Freeland sends an email to the heads of major banks to get troublemakers debanked with zero transparency or due process."
Like the person I was responding to said, there are thousands of banks. If not a single one wants to do business with this organization, that's not a first amendment issue and you don't need to lose sleep over it. Being so unpopular that nobody with a shred of decency will do business with them is not a rights issue.
maybe. maybe not. it's definitely not this simple. those thousands of banks likely share back office software, many fraud prevention vendors, background check provider.
and yes, sure kiwi farms can simply accept checks or whatever. it doesn't change the simple truth, that there are many things the current economic system doesn't provide despite extant demand and profit opportunity. transactions cost are too damn high.
> maybe. maybe not. it's definitely not this simple. those thousands of banks likely share back office software, many fraud prevention vendors, background check provider.
My attorney also advises a local credit union, and has shared some insight in the past with me on the complexity of agreements they have with vendors. I don't think it's a realistic concern that X vendor denouncing Y hate group would cascade down into a bank being forced to drop them. Agreements are just so complex and the financial incentive wouldn't be there to justify such a high risk demand. It's all too hypothetical to worry about.
> and yes, sure kiwi farms can simply accept checks or whatever. it doesn't change the simple truth, that there are many things the current economic system doesn't provide despite extant demand and profit opportunity. transactions cost are too damn high.
Absolutely. Cash still exists. Marijuana shops near me are able to operate profitably without credit card processing. It's also great that online payments in the US banking system are finally being improved.
Every one of those thousands of banks is dependent on remaining in the government's good graces. Canada doesn't have thousands of banks (a setup we'll almost certainly move closer to as the regional banks face ongoing problems), but in the case where an official at Freeland's level said, "jump," they all said "how high?" It's very similar to how censorship, including of many true propositions, was enforced on social media during the COVID/vaccines hysteria. In that case people are also arguing it's "not a first amendment issue" and not having unqualified success in the courts. But your notion that any of this comes as a result of grassroots popular demands is largely a fantasy.
Which is how this sort of thing ought to be handled, in stark contrast to "Chrystia Freeland sends an email to the heads of major banks to get troublemakers debanked with zero transparency or due process."