tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6704573462403312459.post1677279148883150712..comments2024-03-29T02:53:03.321-04:00Comments on Moneyness: Stripe and the Ottawa trucker convoyJP Koninghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02559687323828006535noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6704573462403312459.post-52446965140310427522023-06-21T08:39:48.532-04:002023-06-21T08:39:48.532-04:00The issue at question is how Stripe justified its ...The issue at question is how Stripe justified its actions. You haven't even mentioned Stripe, its TOS, or its customers (like GoFundMe) in your response, which suggests to me that you didn't actually read the article.<br /><br />Try again, I'm waiting.JP Koninghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02559687323828006535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6704573462403312459.post-77848221141520339122023-06-18T18:04:15.053-04:002023-06-18T18:04:15.053-04:00Yeah I'm a liberal, pro-vax, anti-trucker-prot...Yeah I'm a liberal, pro-vax, anti-trucker-protest person who enjoys your post on the history of money; but I agree that you don't explain your position very well. Any society or government can make a law defining something as violence (like blocking a street). And I guess that's what you mean by violence ????? In any case, you don't come off as dispassionate or interested in explaining your position. Sounds like you've got a dog in the race or you did a poor job writing this post. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6704573462403312459.post-65352986766265715852022-03-27T07:44:08.071-04:002022-03-27T07:44:08.071-04:00"Did the government go to court and get a cou..."Did the government go to court and get a court order to forbid a particular individual from accepting donations?"<br /><br />Yes, they did. And that fact that you're asking this question suggests that you didn't read the blog post, since it's front and centre.JP Koninghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02559687323828006535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6704573462403312459.post-71940028982108665502022-03-19T00:15:13.254-04:002022-03-19T00:15:13.254-04:00Same anonymous commentator here. I really like thi...Same anonymous commentator here. I really like this blog. In general, I find it extremely insightful. I also appreciate that over the years you have responded to most of the comments that I've left. I'm going to continue to be a loyal reader and apologize if I'm a little rude commenting in the middle of the night. But yes I do think this post was a huge and uncharacteristic miss because it focuses too much on a particular case rather than a general idea or principle. You seem to care a great deal about this particular case, I don't. Your comment accuses me of simply being uninformed, but you missed in all the references to the case that nothing in my argument hinged on the facts of the case.<br /><br />In the first paragraph, I gave you an economic analysis: Stripe wants to process transactions, they'd rather the government be responsible for explicitly stating what's illegal and what's not. This is generally true, it's not specific to this case.<br /><br />Next in the 2nd paragraph I pointed out that even for the government, there is a difference between the letter of the law and enforcing the law. Yes, I gave you a hard time about the irony in this specific case, but it's a general point: strategic actors make choices about what rules they do or do not enforce. Even the government in the case you've chosen to analyze chose not to immediately make arrests when people illegally blocked the road. The general point is that just because something is illegal does not mean a strategic actor immediately goes about trying to stop it.<br /><br />In the third and final paragraph, I point out that there is a general principle at stake of when the government can cut off funds to an organization because that can stifle free speech. You respond that in this particular case that I am simply uninformed: "Given the quality of your comment, I can see that you really haven't put in the leg work researching the trucker convoy and its aftermath. Various levels of Canadian government plainly described the activity to be illegal, yet Stripe kept processing payments." Which activity are you referring to though by which actors? Did the government go to court and get a court order to forbid a particular individual from accepting donations? Or did government officials simply unofficially accuse some of the people accepting donations as having otherwise engaged in criminal activity? Or was it guilt by association with other people not directly involved in fundraiser? These questions do not require an intimate knowledge of the facts of your particular case, they're again questions that get at general principles and it suffices to observe that your post does not address facts pertinent to these principles. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6704573462403312459.post-33325980996813771082022-03-18T14:02:22.505-04:002022-03-18T14:02:22.505-04:00Given the quality of your comment, I can see that ...Given the quality of your comment, I can see that you really haven't put in the leg work researching the trucker convoy and its aftermath. Various levels of Canadian government plainly described the activity to be illegal, yet Stripe kept processing payments. JP Koninghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02559687323828006535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6704573462403312459.post-26198820240546126092022-03-18T09:05:05.906-04:002022-03-18T09:05:05.906-04:00I agree with Anonymous 3/18/22 02:47 - JP you are ...I agree with Anonymous 3/18/22 02:47 - JP you are applying your talents to an area in which you are out of your depth in this post. The issue is one of fairness & justice. GFM and other payment providers have supported and will continue to support fundraisers for occasionally violent (and non-law abiding) protests from the other side of the political spectrum. However, you claim to be interested in the 'simple truth' of whether Stripe is doing something illegal. Your curiosity, however, is limited to whether Stripe facilitated payments for a group which you seem not to agree with. Your pretense of objectivity is thin and the conversation goes well beyond the point you've raised.<br /><br />I do not object to you having an opinion on this issue, but your opinion seems to be that you didn't like the trucker convoy, rather than whether payment processors are supporting (directly or indirectly) violent or otherwise illegal activity. It would be better if you were honest about your beliefs and either make this an opinion post of 'here's another reason to dislike the trucker convoy' (which seems beneath the level of conversation of this blog) or go deep and look into the bigger issue of payment processors and support of violent or illegal activity - which goes back to 9/11 and covers a lot more ground than Canadian truckers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6704573462403312459.post-61265879813238730242022-03-18T02:47:56.154-04:002022-03-18T02:47:56.154-04:00This is an extremely weird post for someone so int...This is an extremely weird post for someone so interested in cryptocurrency. It's pretty clear that as a payments processor Stripe has an interest in processing all consensual transactions not explicitly forbidden by the state and placing the burden of proof on the state to both (a) show that a transaction is illegal and (b) issue an explicit prohibition against a group rather than try to foist enforcement duties/costs onto the company. We're not surprised people want this and more from the block chain, why are you surprised by a payment processor trying to do the same?<br /><br />In terms of this particular case, given that the state did not immediately arrest the truckers and clear the road, me thinks thou doth protest too much about what is and is not illegal. Didn't the state know after all that it's illegal for private citizens to blockade a public road? What were they thinking? They thought it would be easier to threaten law abiding businesses than to arrest people actually breaking the law.<br /><br />And then the more general principle: the right to free association must extend to economic association or it can be impoverished. Absent a court order, financial institutions should be in the business of processing all consensual transactions. While they have the right to refuse to do business with any group there are so few alternatives I absolutely do not want Stripe to have a point of view on whether a protest is or is not legitimate. Even worse would be a government that can cut off finances for a protest movement, particularly without a court order. You really need the 1st Amendment up there!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com