Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I am just explaining the reasoning. Don't hate/downvote me for saying it ...

Silencing people's political opinions (even horrible evil people) is considered bad. This is why donations to these evil organizations is tolerated.

Wikileaks is being blacklisted not because of their political opinions, but because these organizations, rightly or wrongly, believe Wikileaks is threatening security of the nation, causing deaths of informers and collaborators in the Middle East. And last but not least, Wikileaks seems to be actively perusing leaks in banks and financial organizations. If you bite the hand that feeds you ...



Which bank representative told you that this was the reasoning? Or are you just making things up?


I thought banks are only concerned with profit. Since when did they start defending the nation?


You can't very well make a healthy profit if the nation in question is burning down around your ears, now can you?


> You can't very well make a healthy profit if the nation in question is burning down around your ears, now can you?

Except that's exactly what they've been doing for about the entire world history of banking.

They're not protecting the nations, they don't care. They're protecting their own hides. You know Wikileaks got dirt on the banks too, right?

Funny thing is, when they release it (and they already have, parts of it), everybody will be like "everybody already knows this". Tickles me mad, that :-D


Unfortunately, you can. There is money in nearly any societal state. The ruination of a country just presents different opportunities, not necessarily fewer.


> There is money in nearly any societal state.

It'd be better to say that there is potential value (as opposed to 'money', which is a term with overloaded definitions), but yes - as long as there is scarcity, opportunities for trade will exist.


> And last but not least, Wikileaks seems to be actively perusing leaks in banks and financial organizations. If you bite the hand that feeds you ...

The banks are not "feeding" Wikileaks. The people are.


It wouldn't seem so in this case. The people may very well feed wikileaks, but only with the permission of the banks, and if the banks feel that it is not in their best interest to allow it, they won't abide. I would like to say, however, that I don't think this is right, I just believe that it this is how it is. In truth, Wikileaks (whether you agree with them or not) being silenced by world powers makes any sort of change/revolution seem a remote possibility.


The US government doesn't take kindly on organisations threatening its monopoly on causing deaths of informers and collaborators.


> If you bite the hand that feeds you ...

But those organizations don't feed Wikileaks. It's donations that do. In fact, the banks and cc companies are making money off it.

Had they been ordered to shut out Wikileaks through some judicial process I'd have no beef with it.

And I really doubt they did it out of desire to protect informers et al. I wonder if the banks and Visa were pressured into it.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: