- Joined
- Sep 1, 2019
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I'm surprised banks are allowed to unperson people like this.Torba's in Trouble as well:
View attachment 1403826
This is much more serious than the section 230 bs. Unless he's doing something outright criminal I can't see how he could be denied service.I'm surprised banks are allowed to unperson people like this.
Unless he turns himself black or troons out there are no discrimination protections for white men with dissident political opinions.This is much more serious than the section 230 bs. Unless he's doing something outright criminal I can't see how he could be denied service.
Except in California where it was ironically put into place to protect communists in Hollywood.Unless he turns himself black or troons out there are no discrimination protections for white men with dissident political opinions.
They technically aren't.I'm surprised banks are allowed to unperson people like this.
They are de facto allowed to because of the Patriot act. It isn't technically legal de jure, but if "unbanking" practices were prosecuted, the Patriot act would be put in great peril. It should be obvious why that isn't being done.Unless he's doing something outright criminal I can't see how he could be denied service.
Which plank of the Patriot Act allows this?They technically aren't.
They are de facto allowed to because of the Patriot act. It isn't technically legal de jure, but if "unbanking" practices were prosecuted, the Patriot act would be put in great peril. It should be obvious why that isn't being done.
Citation? Pretty sure they're 100% allowed to deny whoever they want. The PA just creates incentive to do so.They technically aren't.
I don't even care if it's true, anything that leads to public uprising against the Patriot act is a net positive in my bookWhich plank of the Patriot Act allows this?
Agreed lol.I don't even care if it's true, anything that leads to public uprising against the Patriot act is a net positive in my book
From what I understand, Title III, but it's a result of the anti-money laundering provisions in general. Banks are responsible for their own activities, forcing them to regulate themselves. If a bank is handling ISIS money or whatever, the onus is on the bank to "debank" them, but this has a side-result of making the banks proactive. Again, technically the banks aren't legally allowed to be "too proactive", but it seems to have been tolerated so far. There are some possibly intentional blind spots in the legislation.Which plank of the Patriot Act allows this?
It's already clear to me that QAnon is a cult that isn't that different from 'Black Lives Matter' and 'Social Justice Warriors' at this point.
It's to be expected from a platform filled with crazy people anyway."QAnon influencers" - what a fucking timeline.