Talk:Financial censorship: Difference between revisions
Gingercake (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
→Article's scope: new section |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
This page needs to be expanded to include the ways that financial censorship is anti-ownership/anti-privacy. I think an argument can be made that a duopoly should not be able to prevent people from purchasing legal stuff, like NSFW content that payment processor may find objectionable. This practice is a violation of user privacy and anti-ownership (ownership of money!). I'm working on improved verbiage and will update accordingly. | This page needs to be expanded to include the ways that financial censorship is anti-ownership/anti-privacy. I think an argument can be made that a duopoly should not be able to prevent people from purchasing legal stuff, like NSFW content that payment processor may find objectionable. This practice is a violation of user privacy and anti-ownership (ownership of money!). I'm working on improved verbiage and will update accordingly. | ||
[[User:Gingercake|Gingercake]] ([[User talk:Gingercake|talk]]) 15:10, 25 August 2025 (UTC) | [[User:Gingercake|Gingercake]] ([[User talk:Gingercake|talk]]) 15:10, 25 August 2025 (UTC) | ||
== Article's scope == | |||
It's unclear what the intended scope of the article is. For example, there is a major difference in PayPal censorship vs Well Fargo/BoA censorship vs Visa/Mastercard censorship. I narrowed the focus to Visa/Mastercard due to their global reach and lack of consumer alternatives; whereas banks and fintechs have feasible alternatives. | |||
Additionally, some companies follow a trend to censor, such as the WikiLeaks financial blockade. This sort of group censorship, even when it's done by a group of banks (WF, BoA, etc) rather than the large duopoly of Visa/MC, may still be within scope since it leaves consumers with no valid alternatives. [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 17:05, 26 August 2025 (UTC) | |||