
Mastercard to Hold Shareholder Vote That Could Cut Off Payments to the Far-Right - deegles
https://www.buzzfeed.com/markdistefano/mastercard-activists-cut-off-donations-far-right
======
csense
If a bakery's not allowed to refuse cake-baking services because the cake is
going to a gay couple getting married, Mastercard shouldn't be allowed to
refuse payment services to a political speaker because the speaker says that
Islam is bad.

Either allow them both, or forbid them both. If you allow one, but forbid the
other, your policies are nothing more than thinly disguised attempts to use
the law to attack people with different political beliefs.

Arguably, a _tougher_ standard should be applied to decide to whom Mastercard
is allowed to refuse service, because there are a lot fewer alternatives to
Mastercard than there are to the corner cake shop.

~~~
Traster
Firstly, on the facts: The bakery that refused the gay couple actually won the
supreme court case.

Secondly, in your example you're comparing a protected class with a non-
protected class.

Thirdly, let's do away with the idea that government is apolitical. There are
things that the government makes value judgements about, that's not a bad
thing. The government can decide that some groups deserve protection more than
others - for example, that being Gay is a part of who you are, whereas voicing
particular political views is a choice.

~~~
iamnothere
> The government can decide that some groups deserve protection more than
> others - for example, that being Gay is a part of who you are, whereas
> voicing particular political views is a choice.

Indeed, a government could in theory do this. A government could refuse to
take action when banks refuse to accept customers with particular political
views. A government could allow "redlining" housing practices against people
with particular political views. A government could cut off police services to
people with particular political views. Barring legal and constitutional
restrictions (which these days are very "fluid") a government can do almost
whatever it wants to do until it meets pushback from its power brokers.

Just because this _could_ happen, doesn't mean it _should_. Modern civil
society is based on the notion that non-criminals are entitled to some degree
of participation in society, even if they are disliked. If you take away that
foundation, society will quickly become paralyzed by violence. I personally
would like to live at least a few more decades, so I'm not too eager to see
where that road takes us.

~~~
perl4ever
"Indeed, a government could in theory do this. A government could refuse to
take action when banks refuse to accept customers with particular political
views. A government could allow "redlining" housing practices against people
with particular political views. A government could cut off police services to
people with particular political views."

Rightly or wrongly, a lot of people perceive the complainants here as being
the sort of people who like to call this the free market when it happens to
others.

------
ibeckermayer
This is an attempt to undermine the constitution and extrajudicially violate
the human right of free association for political ends. Any pseudo arguments
of “the free market” are completely irrelevant in a financial system legally
monopolized by a single institution (the federal reserve) and regulated and
controlled to the degree the US system is.

~~~
skoskie
Are you arguing that this is unconstitutional because MasterCard faces
financial regulations and is therefore equivalent to the government under
constitutional law?

That’s one hell of a stretch.

~~~
ibeckermayer
Yes, Mastercard and nearly the entire financial industry is effectively a
government program. If your industry is based on a legislative cartel
(monopoly federal reserve feed monopoly big-banks feed monopoly payment
networks), you're already unaccountable to market forces. If that same
industry can count on the taxpayer to bail them out when their incompetence
uproots the entire financial system, they are morally equivalent to a
government institution. Mastercard and all other monopolistic financial
institutions should be forced to uphold the Bill of Rights so long as they
benefit from this level of government privilege.

------
hollasch
“This weapon we're developing — it will only be used on bad guys, right?”

------
deogeo
Alternative title: US multinational considers interfering with EU elections by
blocking funds to disfavored groups.

~~~
olliej
So should they also be required to support the IRA?

~~~
toomuchtodo
Payment networks are utilities and should be regulated as such. You should
never be able to block a legitimate payment (as a corporate entity) that isn’t
associated with illegal activity.

~~~
skoskie
Hadn’t considered this before, but it’s a good point.

------
sonnyblarney
In Canada we have a fairly modern constitution (it's only 40-ish years old,
very new, comparably). It starts out with 'freedom conscience, religion and
association' etc..

This is because historically, the #1 thing by far that authoritarians are
concerned with is stomping out the opposition. People 'gathering' to discuss
'political ideas' that challenge the status quo are really why the KGB etc.
existed. Most armies in the world exist to suppress their own people (FYI it's
why the US Army cannot be 'deployed' on US soil).

In that context, it's a very, very dangerous thing to start blocking people
from the financial system for political views.

Yes, we can block Nazis and ISIS. FYI I still don't know why we allow
Communists to exist after the reality of the last century, but hey, they don't
get many votes so there's that.

But this is pragmatically a very, very slippery slope. The slipperiest of all
ropes.

The bar for financial transactions is much higher than for Twitter and FB.

This kind of stuff could blow up into a pop culture war, where every
corporation and every teenager with an Instagram account will be calling for
banning this or that for whatever reason. It's doubly hard when everyone
thinks they are acting for the 'social good'.

Let's actually try to be tolerant here.

~~~
perl4ever
"In that context, it's a very, very dangerous thing to start blocking people
from the financial system for political views."

We aren't "starting". Recall all of the countries that have had sanctions
placed on them, such as Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Russia, etc.

~~~
sonnyblarney
Those are nations, not citizens. Nation states don't get constitutional
protections.

Russia invaded parts of Ukraine, is actively trying to take over the
governments in the Baltic states, and is directly interfering in the elections
of democracies. What kind of punishment do you think we'd give a person who
did that? It would be more than a 'ban' from Mastercard, it would be more like
life in prison or possibly execution.

~~~
perl4ever
"Those are nations, not citizens"

All countries are made up of their citizens. I'm reminded of Mitt Romney's
statement that corporations are people...

------
xfitm3
It should also apply to far-left.

------
pjkundert
Now that everyone and their grandma is labeled “far right” unless they are a
registered Democrat or Antifa member, I guess we’d better start implementing
tactical and strategic defenses.

I’m a libertarian and I’m labeled “far right”. If that’s a harbinger of the
future, get ready for it to be your turn — unless you swear fealty to your
local leftist overlord, you’ll be “re-educated” with a bout of starvation or
freezing on a park bench.

Is that the future we really want?

------
Fjolsvith
Let them do it, I say. I'm pretty sure that conservatives would en-mass
boycott Mastercard, similar to the backlash that Nike experienced.

------
olliej
About time

