Financial access isn’t guaranteed. Banks have the ability to block transactions, reverse payments and put a hold on your account without your permission at any time.
With Neuronus, you get a censorship-free platform with NeuroCoins and your own decentralized identity system.
#PrivacyMatters #DigitalFreedom #FinancialCensorship #Decentralization #Neuronus #NeuroCoin
@mia Ah, finally an official thing.
Thank you for the notification.
#BoostPlz #CanPol #FinancialCensorship #Censorship #Anticompetitive #AnticompetitivePractices #Canada #Petition
Wenn Finanzdienstleister uns sagen wollen was wir spielen dürfen🙄🤦🏻♂️ Okay hier könnt ihr euch informieren was es damit auf sich hat. Ab Min. 26.30
🫵🏻Finanz-Zensur nein danke, dann bitte hier entlang
What's more, a cashless world paves the way for #FinancialCensorship, where whistleblowers, sex-workers, refugees and political activists can be neutralized and starved out of existence through payment blockades.
27/
When financial institutions and payment intermediaries shut down accounts or inhibit transactions, it can have serious ramifications for free expression online. Websites, whether they accept online donations, sell goods online, or simply have a bank account, rely on their financial institutions to ensure they can continue to operate. We’ve seen examples of pressure being exerted on a website’s wallet to try to shut down lawful speech. In 2010, the whistleblower website WikiLeaks suffered an extra-legal financial blockade spurred on by unofficial government pressure, though they had not been charged with any crime in the United States. While they are among the most famous examples, there are numerous other websites that have seen their ability to receive payments and have basic banking services shut down as a way to silence them, including online booksellers, story archives, alternative social networks and others. The actions of a small number of payment intermediaries— like payment processors, banks, and credit card companies like Visa and Mastercard—can heavily influence what kind of speech can exist online. Yet these institutions are ill-suited to consider and balance the consequences their decisions may have. Business incentives that may drive these institutions to shutter or limit accounts don’t align with the concerns of a society trying to promote diverse perspectives in an online world. EFF is tracking these and related issues, and is particularly interested in establishing best practices for payment intermediaries around speech, exploring technologies to route around financial censorship, and tracking how and when pressure, especially government pressure, contributes to the decision of a financial intermediary to censor expression.
@PJ_Evans @atomicpoet @cstross And that's without getting into the intentional #FinancialCensorship (https://www.eff.org/issues/financial-censorship) political pressure & religious fundamentalism force on even the dox-full transaction systems for idiotic reasons.
Paypal is very fond of banning arbitrary users for absolutely no reason and with no recourse. Including users receiving money, where they will then proceed to just steal the received funds, again with little recourse.
When financial institutions and payment intermediaries shut down accounts or inhibit transactions, it can have serious ramifications for free expression online. Websites, whether they accept online donations, sell goods online, or simply have a bank account, rely on their financial institutions to ensure they can continue to operate. We’ve seen examples of pressure being exerted on a website’s wallet to try to shut down lawful speech. In 2010, the whistleblower website WikiLeaks suffered an extra-legal financial blockade spurred on by unofficial government pressure, though they had not been charged with any crime in the United States. While they are among the most famous examples, there are numerous other websites that have seen their ability to receive payments and have basic banking services shut down as a way to silence them, including online booksellers, story archives, alternative social networks and others. The actions of a small number of payment intermediaries— like payment processors, banks, and credit card companies like Visa and Mastercard—can heavily influence what kind of speech can exist online. Yet these institutions are ill-suited to consider and balance the consequences their decisions may have. Business incentives that may drive these institutions to shutter or limit accounts don’t align with the concerns of a society trying to promote diverse perspectives in an online world. EFF is tracking these and related issues, and is particularly interested in establishing best practices for payment intermediaries around speech, exploring technologies to route around financial censorship, and tracking how and when pressure, especially government pressure, contributes to the decision of a financial intermediary to censor expression.
Payment processors with their effective #oligopoly and financial #censorship are a problem.
https://pluralistic.net/2022/09/29/go-nuts-show-nuts/
https://pluralistic.net/2020/12/15/iowa-vs-16-tons-of-bricks/
Who elected them as arbiters of morality? No one. They should sell their businesses if they're not willing to act as impartial infrastructure providers.
Why haven't they been broken up yet?
Neuronus Computing
LisPi
Kate 
John Macintosh
Cory Doctorow
LisPi