PayPal Latest To Cut Off Wikileaks

from the political-pressure dept

Over the weekend, Paypal became the latest company to cut off Wikileaks' account, saying that it was a "terms of service" violation -- the same excuse Amazon gave. Of course, Wikileaks had been using Paypal for quite some time before this, so it seems pretty clear that the reasoning was (yet again) political pressure put on American companies, threatening them for working with Wikileaks. What's funny about all of this, of course, is that it's only going to serve to give Wikileaks more attention, and drive up demand for competing services to these US companies overseas. In an effort to "stop" access to information that is widely accessible, all the US is really doing is (a) promoting that information more while (b) harming the reputation of American companies.

Filed Under: terms of service, wikileaks
Companies: paypal, wikileaks

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. identicon
    Richard Kulawiec, 6 Dec 2010 @ 7:42am

    Re: Valerie Plame anyone?

    1. As I pointed out elsewhere, people die for lies EVERY DAMN DAY. Sometimes they die in large numbers. (How many have died in Iraq over the past 7 years for a lie? Half a million? More?) That's not a hypothetical conjecture about a future event: it's history. It's already happened today. So I think prattling on about how it's possible that someone might die in the future because of the truth is ridiculous given the appallingly large number of those who have already died for lies. Where is your concern for them, and where is your outrage for the liars who got them killed?

    2. But let's run with that hypothetical: suppose somebody, somewhere, dies because the truth came out. Should we then make every effort to conceal every possible fact, ever possible fact, because somewhere somehow somebody might suffer adverse consequences? Should we deliberately blind ourselves to what governments and corporations are doing because someone might get hurt? (Note: they have absolutely no intention of doing so; they're knocking themselves out to do precisely the opposite.)

    3. Again, let's run with that hypothetical: suppose someone dies because the truth is exposed. Whose fault is that? Think carefully before you answer because there's plenty of responsibility to go around in such a case, starting with "the people who chose to kill them".

    4. Governments and corporations have grown content that they can practice institutionalized deception and concealment -- and they're quite willing to risk the lives of their employees on it. That's coming to an end: dangling someone out there by the thread called 'secrecy' is fast becoming an extremely stupid practice.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.