You and your little "drama" buddies are too busy staring at men's bussies to know an attractive woman if she swam up to you in anthropomorphic-shark form and let you fuck her on a cold, windy cape cod beach.
Man, I hate that I'm constantly defending Alex Jones in situation like these, but I really don't like this kind of development. A lot of customers only have paypal as their only payment processor, so getting banned from it can often enough mean losing your entire income and it's not just loonies like Jones that get targeted or will be targeted.
Maybe I'm a bit biased because in the past the shadow of paypal gutting my income was looming over me, but to me this really just seems like a step into the direction of corporations getting to decide what is 'acceptable'.
I'm more concerned for the wider implications than Alex Jones specifically.
Also, all other payment systems that I know of also prohibit 'material that incites hate' and 'adult material' as well as having a way smaller userbase. Even if you ignore that your content is prohibited, you're going to lose out on a lot of customers if you don't offer paypal, simply because the vast majority of people isn't willing to take the time to register to another service especially when they can just use paypal everywhere else.
Sure, but should corporations that provide such essential services be allowed to do whatever as long as they define it in their TOS? I know that some banks banned restricted buying crypto, which is completely legal. It being legal doesn't mean that it automatically becomes good. I mean, are you fine with banks deciding what you should be allowed to purchase?
Well, I'd argue that often enough those corporations still offer other services and I don't think that concentrating all that power in the hands of the government is necessarily the best call.
I don't know. Is it a part of the TOS I agreed to when I signed up for the service?
Well, a company can arbitrarily decide to change the TOS (though they of course have to allow you to terminate your account), so I'd say it's more about whether you are in general fine with the TOS limiting what you can buy.
I don't think I'd open up an account with that bank. And that's the thing. This stuff didn't get sprung on Alex Jones out of the blue. He agreed to these rules when he signed up.
I mean, Alex Jones probably thought that the content he publishes isn't hateful but just the Truth, but I'm not really interested in talking about him specifically.
So you'd go to a different bank? Huh, maybe you're just way more conscientious person than I am, because if it's not something that directly affects me, I don't think I could be bothered to make the effort especially because you also potentially may personally suffer from it through worse rates.
A few banks decided to restrict crypto currency purchases some time ago and while I fundamentally disagree with that, I definitely didn't do anything. If you're the type of person who would take action against that, I can see why you'd have a different stance though.
So you'd go to a different bank? Huh, maybe you're just way more conscientious person than I am, because if it's not something that directly affects me, I don't think I could be bothered to make the effort especially because you also potentially may personally suffer from it through worse rates.
A few banks decided to restrict crypto currency purchases some time ago and while I fundamentally disagree with that, I definitely didn't do anything. If you're the type of person who would take action against that, I can see why you'd have a different stance though. There oughta be a law because I'm too lazy to stand by my convictions
It's not like I'd never switch, but unless it's something actually egregious, it just feels like I'd be wasting my time, especially because 99.9% of people are either also too lazy or don't care whatsoever. If me canceling my bank account actually had any impact, sure, I'd do it, but for something large scale like that I just don't see any other way to have an impact besides legislation.
If me canceling my bank account actually had any impact, sure, I'd do it, but for something large scale like that I just don't see any other way to have an impact besides legislation.
Well, if you and thousands of others do this, it's called a boycott and they've worked countless times.
Alright, let's take it a step further. Would you be fine with banks restricting bank-to-bank transfers if the other bank doesn't restrict purchases that they do? If so, is there any cut off point or do you believe that a private corporation should be completely free of restrictions in that regard?
Selling adult content (i.e. porn), drugs (even if it's something that is legal in your state), guns, e-cigs, etc. can get you suspended. Google for a bit and you should probably find concrete instances. I know that the sex positive community occasionally gets in an uproar on occasion when some young enterprising lady gets banned for selling videos of herself and shit like that.
It definitely doesn't affect everyone. I personally did prohibited business for ~3 years and my account is still in good standing today.
I harassed the victims of a school shooting once and got banned for being an insufferable douche. It was a clear violation of my second amendment civil rights.
The day that I can't inspire Internet retards to harass innocent victims of a tragedy AND profit from it is the day America officially no longer exists!
I totally think paypal and all the other services cutting out Alex Jones are within their right as a private organization and I think they should have done it a long time ago.
However this is going to backfire spectacularly if Jones is smart and drops the whole "Bitcoin is from the new world order act" which I suspect he will.
It will backfire because this was clearly a colluded effort by the tech industry to silence him. I'm sure he broke all of their terms of services dozens of times before but they selectively enforce them anyway and all decide to block him at the same time which gives fuel to his base and they will say this is proof of the NWO because they are too stupid to tell the difference between private corporate and global government conspiracy.
Not too mention these tech companies have now set the precedent that they are the moral arbiters for the speech of people that they do business with. If Alex Jones is spreading "hate speech" then that's what the courts decide, which he has faced several lawsuits already. I mean even if Alex Jones was charged with a hate crime are all businesses legally obligated to not do business with him because he's a piece of shit? Should the local supermarket tell Alex Jones to fuck off because they are supporting his continued existence?
Should internet service providers also cut him off because they are helping him spread hate speech? Where does the line get drawn? I mean as much as I hate Alex Jones I just don't feel comfortable with them clearly colluding to black list individuals.
But the big reason why this is going to backfire is because cryptocurrency is now a thing. No one can stop him from receiving donations and payments in Bitcoin ect. Jones could literally spur adoption of cryptocurrency among conspiracy theorists actually helping these ideas become more dangerous because he is no longer has to filter himself because he's worried about getting cut off from a source of funding, all that matters is that it pleases his supporters now and that he doesn't get charged with anything. The threat of being cut off gave "Big Tech" a lot power over him, they could have negotiated with him to tone it down or something but now they just made him 10x more dangerous.
The precedent is definitely what I'm worried about. While I think that ideally companies should be able to decide whom they want to server as a customer, realistically I believe this just doesn't work due to the fact how concentrated market power tends to be.
Are you fine with banks restricting what you can buy through them? i.e. should they be allowed to restrict (legal) drugs, porn, guns and other content that they deem 'bad'? Should banks be allowed to ban someone like Alex Jones for the content he produces and sells?
I also don't think crypto is the solution simply because it's pretty unstable, not that easy to use (for your average guy) and most importantly: banks can just restrict it. They can't completely ban it, but if it's hard enough most people just won't bother.
Yeah? I'm not sure what your point really is in that regard. If they didn't start with someone so insanely unlikable, there probably would have been some push for regulations.
Also, Alex Jones would obviously and rightfully get told to eat shit if he took this to court because this is obviously legal. It's more so about whether this should be legal.
I personally think that alternatives alone don't suffice, but that they must be 'viable' as well. Also, this obviously only applies to 'services'. If nobody wants to buy your shitty product, that's obviously just your own fault.
With pay tv the issue is that it's essentially an oligopoly. Either break that shit up or just accept that these things tend towards centralization because it's the way of least resistance and that it'd probably be for the best for 'delivery services' to either be heavily regulated or nationalized.
I personally think that alternatives alone don't suffice, but that they must be 'viable' as well.
User base size isn't a measure of viability. Are there other payment processors that can process a payment to Alex Jones? Yes. Are there other video hosting websites that can host his content? Yes.
that it'd probably be for the best for 'delivery services' to either be heavily regulated or nationalized.
I've often enough had people tell me they could only pay through paypal because they didn't have a credit card. Now, they could potentially register with other services and wire the money to that account, but most of the time people just aren't going to bother. Yes, they are lazy and if people weren't so lazy this wouldn't be a problem, but that's just the reality we live in. And it's not about Alex Jones, but rather about what overall effect this has. If people completely submit to the top corporations in fear of potentially being banned from their services, that could have a very negative impact on society in my opinion.
Y I K E S
Do you take an issue with nationalization or it being a public service? I mean, just look at the USPS. If the republicans weren't intentionally trying to fuck it over, it'd be a perfect example of a nationalized service.
I've often enough had people tell me they could only pay through paypal because they didn't have a credit card. Now, they could potentially register with other services and wire the money to that account, but most of the time people just aren't going to bother. Yes, they are lazy and if people weren't so lazy this wouldn't be a problem, but that's just the reality we live in.
You're like a parody of the lazy millennial.
Do you take an issue with nationalization or it being a public service? I mean, just look at the USPS. If the republicans weren't intentionally trying to fuck it over, it'd be a perfect example of a nationalized service.
I take issue with nationalizing companies for no good reason. Also, private companies can and do compete with USPS.
i.e. should they be allowed to restrict (legal) drugs, porn, guns and other content that they deem 'bad'?
No banks should not be restricting legal things at all obviously.
I also don't think crypto is the solution simply because it's pretty unstable
That's not really true. Volatility is basically just a market maturity issue anyways because the crypto market is so tiny right now, that will change with time. But there is something called "stable coins" that have stable prices and are backed 1:1 by USD. Same idea as bitcoin, nobody can stop you from buying and selling them and there's already a few dozen available on the market right now.
not that easy to use (for your average guy)
Disagree, the learning curve isn't any more than the learning curve for learning email IMO, and if you have no other options you'll learn how to use it. Things like Coinbase make it really easy for average joes to buy and sell.
banks can just restrict it
So? The whole point is you don't need a bank. There are literally millions of people on a site called local bitcoins that will buy and sell bitcoins for cash from you. Kind of like craiglist for bitcoin, not to mention more and more companies are accepting cryptocurrency as payment everyday and that almost every major bank on the planet is in the testing phases of integrating cryptocurrencies in one way or another.
They can't completely ban it, but if it's hard enough most people just won't bother.
I can almost guarantee that will not happen in the majority of the world. There is a whole industry and technology behind blockchain and lots of utility in using blockchain that can save both individual and banks shit tons of money. So this kind of forces banks to accept it since most people have several options of banks to choose from, if a bank decides to "ban" it and not integrate they will likely have to charge higher prices than banks that accept the technology. Economics says that customers will gravitate to cheaper services if all other things are equal.
Yeah, I'm with you. Private companies have enough of an almost unregulated monopoly on the ways people communicate these days that they can actually effectively silence political viewpoints they don't like. I don't know what the actual solution is, but I don't like the direction it's heading.
73 comments
1 BussyShillBot 2018-09-22
You and your little "drama" buddies are too busy staring at men's bussies to know an attractive woman if she swam up to you in anthropomorphic-shark form and let you fuck her on a cold, windy cape cod beach.
Outlines:
I am a bot for posting Outline.com links. github / Contact for info or issues
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2018-09-22
Damn son...
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2018-09-22
It's a shame that only you're the one who shares Pacific timezone with me 😔. Most of these autists are probably sleeping smh 😒
1 [deleted] 2018-09-22
[removed]
1 le_epic_xd 2018-09-22
Talk for yourself
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2018-09-22
If you're an Oregon nigger than pls stop talking to me 😖✋️😒
1 le_epic_xd 2018-09-22
Oregon? I'm not an Amerifat
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2018-09-22
"Creatures" from Oregon are not human. FACT!
1 le_epic_xd 2018-09-22
Yes, I agree. Ma non sono Americano, Ed
1 jaredschaffer27 2018-09-22
Then why are you even speaking to us?
1 le_epic_xd 2018-09-22
I wasn't speaking to you
1 jaredschaffer27 2018-09-22
You are now, and whatever Brazilian corruption and crime you are involved in has rubbed off on me. Want this credit card scanner I bought?
1 le_epic_xd 2018-09-22
Sorry mate, but I specialize in printing 3 dollars notes. Got some
1 high_side 2018-09-22
Vancouver is oregon.
1 better_bot 2018-09-22
This is racist against the nocturnal.
1 AlveolarPressure 2018-09-22
Don't worry Ed some of us eastern timezone people don't sleep
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2018-09-22
Sleep is for the weak. I see you're the enlightened type.
1 ATissu 2018-09-22
Imagine doxxing yourself this hard smh there can't be more than one person as autistic as you in the west coast
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2018-09-22
lol @ uuuuu
1 uniqueguy263 2018-09-22
That's 4 am Pacific time lol
1 FedoraWearingNegus 2018-09-22
The obvious next step is an InfoWars cryptocurrency
1 Pickled_Kagura 2018-09-22
VitalityCoin
1 ATissu 2018-09-22
He could use Verge so that he can keep paying for his trannie porn on pornhub
1 cryptonewsguy 2018-09-22
Verge is like the perfect currency for alex jones. Also a shitcoin.
1 Burnnoticelover 2018-09-22
This is good for frogcoin.
1 high_side 2018-09-22
This is good for DramaCoin.
1 le_epic_xd 2018-09-22
Womp womp
1 99jolto99 2018-09-22
Fap Fap fape .....
1 okedtsuj 2018-09-22
Both are misogynistic racist assholes
1 ravenchamps 2018-09-22
Fuck Alex Jones
1 le_epic_xd 2018-09-22
I wouldn't have the stomach
1 MildlyCat 2018-09-22
Hey, it's the shooter dude!
1 shallowm 2018-09-22
you're just mad at him because he exposed you as the shooter
1 ravenchamps 2018-09-22
I take pity on the mentally disabled.
1 POST_BUSSY 2018-09-22
Watch Alex Jones flip out over this
1 HodorTheDoorHolder 2018-09-22
Lol
1 LordAndSaviorHaskell 2018-09-22
Man, I hate that I'm constantly defending Alex Jones in situation like these, but I really don't like this kind of development. A lot of customers only have paypal as their only payment processor, so getting banned from it can often enough mean losing your entire income and it's not just loonies like Jones that get targeted or will be targeted.
Maybe I'm a bit biased because in the past the shadow of paypal gutting my income was looming over me, but to me this really just seems like a step into the direction of corporations getting to decide what is 'acceptable'.
1 Phantom_Engineer 2018-09-22
Eh, I bet he just switches to Skrill or something.
1 LordAndSaviorHaskell 2018-09-22
I'm more concerned for the wider implications than Alex Jones specifically.
Also, all other payment systems that I know of also prohibit 'material that incites hate' and 'adult material' as well as having a way smaller userbase. Even if you ignore that your content is prohibited, you're going to lose out on a lot of customers if you don't offer paypal, simply because the vast majority of people isn't willing to take the time to register to another service especially when they can just use paypal everywhere else.
1 Fletch71011 2018-09-22
That's exactly what's happening. Yes, Alex Jones is a retard, but companies shouldn't all have this amount of power to silence him.
1 Fiat-Libertas 2018-09-22
Nor should they have the incentive to.
Like do these companies not understand how many people they are gaslighting by completely banning the number 1 conspiracy theorist from the internet?
1 Heavy_handed 2018-09-22
I don't think that's what gaslighting means. How have they caused people to question their own sanity?
1 shallowm 2018-09-22
excuse me sweaty, it's a huge red flag that they were gaslighting and sealioning him
1 MayorEmanuel 2018-09-22
Isn’t it the opposite of gaslighting? They’re providing real life examples of corporations forcing people off the grid.
1 Super_Throwaway_Boy 2018-09-22
So what is your answer? Just let people break the TOS when they gain enough influence?
1 moush 2018-09-22
They need to at least act evenly across the board.
1 ucstruct 2018-09-22
Companies shouldnt be forced to support every single person regardless of anything either.
1 old_grumpy_grandpa 2018-09-22
Especially if those people are black or from Italy
1 moush 2018-09-22
Gay cakes though.
1 PM_ME_UR_SUSPICIONS 2018-09-22
How did you get to be so fucking dumb? Was it a head injury or are you just naturally stupid?
1 high_side 2018-09-22
Let's let the invisible hand of the free market decide.
Remember, if a company does something morally repugnant, it will immediately be boycotted to death!
1 Super_Throwaway_Boy 2018-09-22
Terms of service aren't exactly a new thing.
1 LordAndSaviorHaskell 2018-09-22
Sure, but should corporations that provide such essential services be allowed to do whatever as long as they define it in their TOS? I know that some banks banned restricted buying crypto, which is completely legal. It being legal doesn't mean that it automatically becomes good. I mean, are you fine with banks deciding what you should be allowed to purchase?
1 Super_Throwaway_Boy 2018-09-22
I think the better question is: should they not be allowed to do that? At that point why not just make them a government service?
I don't know. Is it a part of the TOS I agreed to when I signed up for the service?
1 old_grumpy_grandpa 2018-09-22
Because regulations + private companies allows you to sidestep the ugly parts of lolbertarianism and the uglier parts of socialism.
1 LordAndSaviorHaskell 2018-09-22
Well, I'd argue that often enough those corporations still offer other services and I don't think that concentrating all that power in the hands of the government is necessarily the best call.
Well, a company can arbitrarily decide to change the TOS (though they of course have to allow you to terminate your account), so I'd say it's more about whether you are in general fine with the TOS limiting what you can buy.
1 Super_Throwaway_Boy 2018-09-22
I don't think I'd open up an account with that bank. And that's the thing. This stuff didn't get sprung on Alex Jones out of the blue. He agreed to these rules when he signed up.
1 LordAndSaviorHaskell 2018-09-22
I mean, Alex Jones probably thought that the content he publishes isn't hateful but just the Truth, but I'm not really interested in talking about him specifically.
So you'd go to a different bank? Huh, maybe you're just way more conscientious person than I am, because if it's not something that directly affects me, I don't think I could be bothered to make the effort especially because you also potentially may personally suffer from it through worse rates.
A few banks decided to restrict crypto currency purchases some time ago and while I fundamentally disagree with that, I definitely didn't do anything. If you're the type of person who would take action against that, I can see why you'd have a different stance though.
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2018-09-22
1 LordAndSaviorHaskell 2018-09-22
There are tons of laws that only exist because people tend to be lazy. Are you against environmental laws as well?
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2018-09-22
No, but I've switched banks when I didn't agree with their policies before.
1 LordAndSaviorHaskell 2018-09-22
It's not like I'd never switch, but unless it's something actually egregious, it just feels like I'd be wasting my time, especially because 99.9% of people are either also too lazy or don't care whatsoever. If me canceling my bank account actually had any impact, sure, I'd do it, but for something large scale like that I just don't see any other way to have an impact besides legislation.
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2018-09-22
Well, if you and thousands of others do this, it's called a boycott and they've worked countless times.
1 LordAndSaviorHaskell 2018-09-22
I'm pretty sure I can count the number of successful boycotts against large corporations that happened in my lifetime on two hands.
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2018-09-22
Yes, it's their prerogative and if you don't like it, they'll lose your business.
1 LordAndSaviorHaskell 2018-09-22
Alright, let's take it a step further. Would you be fine with banks restricting bank-to-bank transfers if the other bank doesn't restrict purchases that they do? If so, is there any cut off point or do you believe that a private corporation should be completely free of restrictions in that regard?
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2018-09-22
That would depend on the laws that govern banks.
I think that they should be able to do whatever is legal for them to do.
1 bigberthaboy 2018-09-22
This is almost not even a stance lol
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2018-09-22
Thanks 😍
1 Sober_Sloth 2018-09-22
Show me other instances of this
1 LordAndSaviorHaskell 2018-09-22
Selling adult content (i.e. porn), drugs (even if it's something that is legal in your state), guns, e-cigs, etc. can get you suspended. Google for a bit and you should probably find concrete instances. I know that the sex positive community occasionally gets in an uproar on occasion when some young enterprising lady gets banned for selling videos of herself and shit like that.
It definitely doesn't affect everyone. I personally did prohibited business for ~3 years and my account is still in good standing today.
1 TrailerParkBride 2018-09-22
Reddit pantie thots and fat bitches in bondage gear btfo
1 high_side 2018-09-22
I harassed the victims of a school shooting once and got banned for being an insufferable douche. It was a clear violation of my second amendment civil rights.
1 Sober_Sloth 2018-09-22
When will the over reach of private companies on their own platforms ever end?!?!
1 PM_ME_UR_SUSPICIONS 2018-09-22
The day that I can't inspire Internet retards to harass innocent victims of a tragedy AND profit from it is the day America officially no longer exists!
1 cryptonewsguy 2018-09-22
I totally think paypal and all the other services cutting out Alex Jones are within their right as a private organization and I think they should have done it a long time ago.
However this is going to backfire spectacularly if Jones is smart and drops the whole "Bitcoin is from the new world order act" which I suspect he will.
It will backfire because this was clearly a colluded effort by the tech industry to silence him. I'm sure he broke all of their terms of services dozens of times before but they selectively enforce them anyway and all decide to block him at the same time which gives fuel to his base and they will say this is proof of the NWO because they are too stupid to tell the difference between private corporate and global government conspiracy.
Not too mention these tech companies have now set the precedent that they are the moral arbiters for the speech of people that they do business with. If Alex Jones is spreading "hate speech" then that's what the courts decide, which he has faced several lawsuits already. I mean even if Alex Jones was charged with a hate crime are all businesses legally obligated to not do business with him because he's a piece of shit? Should the local supermarket tell Alex Jones to fuck off because they are supporting his continued existence?
Should internet service providers also cut him off because they are helping him spread hate speech? Where does the line get drawn? I mean as much as I hate Alex Jones I just don't feel comfortable with them clearly colluding to black list individuals.
But the big reason why this is going to backfire is because cryptocurrency is now a thing. No one can stop him from receiving donations and payments in Bitcoin ect. Jones could literally spur adoption of cryptocurrency among conspiracy theorists actually helping these ideas become more dangerous because he is no longer has to filter himself because he's worried about getting cut off from a source of funding, all that matters is that it pleases his supporters now and that he doesn't get charged with anything. The threat of being cut off gave "Big Tech" a lot power over him, they could have negotiated with him to tone it down or something but now they just made him 10x more dangerous.
1 LongPostBot 2018-09-22
This is one of the worst post I have EVER seen. Delete it.
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 LordAndSaviorHaskell 2018-09-22
The precedent is definitely what I'm worried about. While I think that ideally companies should be able to decide whom they want to server as a customer, realistically I believe this just doesn't work due to the fact how concentrated market power tends to be.
Are you fine with banks restricting what you can buy through them? i.e. should they be allowed to restrict (legal) drugs, porn, guns and other content that they deem 'bad'? Should banks be allowed to ban someone like Alex Jones for the content he produces and sells?
I also don't think crypto is the solution simply because it's pretty unstable, not that easy to use (for your average guy) and most importantly: banks can just restrict it. They can't completely ban it, but if it's hard enough most people just won't bother.
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2018-09-22
In what? The court of public opinion? AJ is more than welcome to take these companies to court
1 LordAndSaviorHaskell 2018-09-22
Yeah? I'm not sure what your point really is in that regard. If they didn't start with someone so insanely unlikable, there probably would have been some push for regulations.
Also, Alex Jones would obviously and rightfully get told to eat shit if he took this to court because this is obviously legal. It's more so about whether this should be legal.
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2018-09-22
As long as alternatives exist, there's absolutely no reason to make it illegal, in my opinion.
If Alex Jones had a TV show, and the network pulled the plug, would you insist that they should be required to pay him back on the air?
1 LordAndSaviorHaskell 2018-09-22
I personally think that alternatives alone don't suffice, but that they must be 'viable' as well. Also, this obviously only applies to 'services'. If nobody wants to buy your shitty product, that's obviously just your own fault.
With pay tv the issue is that it's essentially an oligopoly. Either break that shit up or just accept that these things tend towards centralization because it's the way of least resistance and that it'd probably be for the best for 'delivery services' to either be heavily regulated or nationalized.
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2018-09-22
User base size isn't a measure of viability. Are there other payment processors that can process a payment to Alex Jones? Yes. Are there other video hosting websites that can host his content? Yes.
Y I K E S
1 LordAndSaviorHaskell 2018-09-22
I've often enough had people tell me they could only pay through paypal because they didn't have a credit card. Now, they could potentially register with other services and wire the money to that account, but most of the time people just aren't going to bother. Yes, they are lazy and if people weren't so lazy this wouldn't be a problem, but that's just the reality we live in. And it's not about Alex Jones, but rather about what overall effect this has. If people completely submit to the top corporations in fear of potentially being banned from their services, that could have a very negative impact on society in my opinion.
Do you take an issue with nationalization or it being a public service? I mean, just look at the USPS. If the republicans weren't intentionally trying to fuck it over, it'd be a perfect example of a nationalized service.
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2018-09-22
You're like a parody of the lazy millennial.
I take issue with nationalizing companies for no good reason. Also, private companies can and do compete with USPS.
1 cryptonewsguy 2018-09-22
No banks should not be restricting legal things at all obviously.
That's not really true. Volatility is basically just a market maturity issue anyways because the crypto market is so tiny right now, that will change with time. But there is something called "stable coins" that have stable prices and are backed 1:1 by USD. Same idea as bitcoin, nobody can stop you from buying and selling them and there's already a few dozen available on the market right now.
Disagree, the learning curve isn't any more than the learning curve for learning email IMO, and if you have no other options you'll learn how to use it. Things like Coinbase make it really easy for average joes to buy and sell.
So? The whole point is you don't need a bank. There are literally millions of people on a site called local bitcoins that will buy and sell bitcoins for cash from you. Kind of like craiglist for bitcoin, not to mention more and more companies are accepting cryptocurrency as payment everyday and that almost every major bank on the planet is in the testing phases of integrating cryptocurrencies in one way or another.
I can almost guarantee that will not happen in the majority of the world. There is a whole industry and technology behind blockchain and lots of utility in using blockchain that can save both individual and banks shit tons of money. So this kind of forces banks to accept it since most people have several options of banks to choose from, if a bank decides to "ban" it and not integrate they will likely have to charge higher prices than banks that accept the technology. Economics says that customers will gravitate to cheaper services if all other things are equal.
1 LongPostBot 2018-09-22
Ma'am we've been over this before. You need to stop.
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 high_side 2018-09-22
I'll take the under.
1 dramasexual 2018-09-22
Yeah, I'm with you. Private companies have enough of an almost unregulated monopoly on the ways people communicate these days that they can actually effectively silence political viewpoints they don't like. I don't know what the actual solution is, but I don't like the direction it's heading.
1 PM_ME_UR_SUSPICIONS 2018-09-22
First they came for Alex Jones but I hated that cocksucker so I laughed my ass off. The end.
1 NewW0rldOrder 2018-09-22
Fuck PayPal