- Joined
- Nov 14, 2012
Featured on Jul 21, 2025 by Null: S.401 - Fair Access to Banking Act
When GamerGate happened over 10 years ago, most people hyper-focused on trying to shut down the careers of a few retard feminists. It went nowhere. GamerGate lost. Wikipedia is more off the rails than ever and more influential than ever, all those women made appearances at the UN and Google, and things got worse as the world succumbed to a golden era for trannies that almost developed a proof-of-concept system for placing personal feelings over objective truth and limiting speech around that motif.
With that in mind, two things:
1. People are upset over Steam censoring games at the behest of the the payment networks. People are more upset over a feminist group in Australia taking credit.
2. There is a bill titled "Fair Access to Banking Act".
It is much, much easier for soy golems to look at the irrelevant screeching of a few retarded holes in Australia than it is to ask the question, "Why does a small activist group in Australia have the means to boss around the largest video game retailer the world has ever seen?". The answer is the payment networks.
I have written at length about payment networks (Section 230 isn't the Problem, Payment Networks Are. Where the Sidewalk Ends: The Death of the Internet, both in 2021). Many of you are familiar with how the Kiwi Farms is unmonetizable, and my mere association with it has not only led to payment processors demonetizing my other companies, but after forming the United States Internet Preservation Society (a 501c4 nonprofit) for the expressed purpose of petitioning the government to change laws on payment networks, I was indeed denied a payment processor for that because of "the principal's background". I am so thoroughly banned from PayPal that I cannot book an Uber with any credit card number it recognizes as mine.
Here is the text of the bill.
This bill is insufficient to meaningfully help people like me. It is better than nothing, but it has no teeth.
First, the bill extensively writes about banks, but the bank in debanking is often not a literal brick and mortar bank. If it was, there would not be as many issues. Over 9000 financial institutions (banks and credit unions) operate in the USA. If a bank didn't want to do business with you, that's actually not a huge deal. You can find another bank.
Payment processors and payment networks are the bigger issue. When you want to get paid online in the USA, you have to do business with these "financial services". The complexity of this mechanism is deliberately designed to obfuscate who is doing what and making which decisions.
It could have been the payment processor directly, receiving complaints from people who want to deplatform you. It could be the underwriting bank who for whatever reason was unhappy with your transactional volume. If you sell too much, or sell too little and then do an annual sale that suddenly spikes your sales from $0 to a lot, that could be a fraud indicator. It could be a card network that decided you are a "reputational risk" to their brand. You will never know who, what, when, where, or why, and you will not be given a chance to appeal, and you will not be given information so if you try to apply for another card you know what to do right the next time.
The proposed law does not address any of this. Instead, what it does is it gives you the option to complain to the Office of the Comptroller of Currency (OCC). If the OCC feels bad for you, they may fine the institution up to $10,000. Problem: Last year, the SCOTUS ruled that Administrative Law Judges do not meet the Jury requirement of the constitution, thus they cannot impose fines. So empowering the OCC to fine one of the largest and most powerful companies in human history $10,000 is already a joke, but they actually have no means to enforce it.
Even if the fine was enforceable, it is up to the discretion of the OCC to enforce it. If the OCC doesn't find it politically expedient to help you, they will not. Example: When the Kiwi Farms was being deplatformed by ISPs, we moved infrastructure to Washington state, because they had net neutrality as a state law. Problem: It was not a civil cause of action, but rather something the AG of WA had to impose on the company. The AG was Bob Ferguson, who decide he would not help us, despite our condition 100% meeting the criteria for a net neutrality violation.
For the law to have value, it needs to do the following:
First, it must create a federal civil relief with statutory damages for lost opportunity, ideally with riders for punitive damages, and also attorney's costs and fees. As this is a purely financial matter, it must make financial sense to sue one of the largest and most powerful companies in the world.
Second, it must undo existing requirements already imposed by the federal government on financial services. Title III of the PATRIOT Act "deputized" (in the words of Ron Paul) the financial services to act as a form of law enforcement, one which cannot be appealed and provides no due process. By the time the PATRIOT Act was not renewed, the vestigial remains of these Title III requirements had been reshuffled into other parts of the U.S.C.
I'd also like to take a second to reiterate just how abysmal the payment networks are as a fundamental concept. I have lived outside the US for almost a decade. In Europe, they have the IBAN system. Your debit card will not have the mark of the beast on it. It is free to pay people with your debit card. It is free and instant to send money. In the US, these card networks charge around 2.9% + 30¢ for every single card transaction. Stores are forbidden by card Terms of Service for adding these fees to the purchase price, like they do sales taxes in the US. If you buy $100 of groceries at Walmart, Walmart actually loses $3.20 to the card networks. Walmart, despite making $648.1 billion in gross sales in 2024, is powerless against the card networks. On that figure alone, with the most conservative estimate, Walmart had to eat shit on $18.8 billion in fees (not including individual transaction fees, which is billions more) as those fees are taken out of gross sales and not net profit. That's Walmart. Imagine how badly this is impacting small businesses. If you have a shop that sells $100 of goods on a 15% margin, your margin goes down to 11.8% right off the bat just because you have to pay a random company to make money in the US.
We are getting fucked. We are getting RAPED. These companies are RAPING you, they are RAPING the country, they are PILFERING businesses of all sizes for billions of dollars a year, and then they use that power to break the back of alt-tech, blackball individuals from the global economy, and fund DEI initiatives, mass immigration initiatives, and child genital mutilation surgeries. You, when you swipe a Visa/MasterCard, pay for little boys to get castrated in the US.
When I see people bickering about stupid shit that doesn't matter it makes me sick to my stomach. The backs of these companies needs to be broken. They won't go down without a fight and they will pay for shills to defend them, for organizations to take the blame for their actions, bribe politicians out the ass.
The Department of Justice is currently suing Visa for being a monopoly. Specifically, Visa has a near total monopoly on debit cards. They impose anticompetitive practices on banks to somehow force them to issue visa cards and persuade their customers to use their visa cards. To quote the Deparmtnet of Justice ....
The formal opinion of the fucking federal government is that Visa has NO value added service but continues to add fees because you CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. That's why they will do whatever it takes to stay in power. They have the easiest, most comfortable, highest profit ratio business model of almost any company to ever exist, and right now they have a monopoly charter granted to them by the federal government. They will happy spend billions to stay in power because billions is how they measure numbers in their business.
With that in mind, two things:
1. People are upset over Steam censoring games at the behest of the the payment networks. People are more upset over a feminist group in Australia taking credit.
2. There is a bill titled "Fair Access to Banking Act".
It is much, much easier for soy golems to look at the irrelevant screeching of a few retarded holes in Australia than it is to ask the question, "Why does a small activist group in Australia have the means to boss around the largest video game retailer the world has ever seen?". The answer is the payment networks.
I have written at length about payment networks (Section 230 isn't the Problem, Payment Networks Are. Where the Sidewalk Ends: The Death of the Internet, both in 2021). Many of you are familiar with how the Kiwi Farms is unmonetizable, and my mere association with it has not only led to payment processors demonetizing my other companies, but after forming the United States Internet Preservation Society (a 501c4 nonprofit) for the expressed purpose of petitioning the government to change laws on payment networks, I was indeed denied a payment processor for that because of "the principal's background". I am so thoroughly banned from PayPal that I cannot book an Uber with any credit card number it recognizes as mine.
Here is the text of the bill.
This bill is insufficient to meaningfully help people like me. It is better than nothing, but it has no teeth.
First, the bill extensively writes about banks, but the bank in debanking is often not a literal brick and mortar bank. If it was, there would not be as many issues. Over 9000 financial institutions (banks and credit unions) operate in the USA. If a bank didn't want to do business with you, that's actually not a huge deal. You can find another bank.
Payment processors and payment networks are the bigger issue. When you want to get paid online in the USA, you have to do business with these "financial services". The complexity of this mechanism is deliberately designed to obfuscate who is doing what and making which decisions.
- You and your bank receiving money.
- The payment processor that negotiates you as a customer.
- There is sometimes a separate company called a payment gateway that provides an interface between your application and the payment processor, but most modern payment processors roll their own payment gateway.
- The underwriting banks that maintain a relationship between the payment processors and payment networks. These underwriting banks maintain the direct relationship with the card networks and have veto on if you get to be a customer of the payment processor. Some payment processors work with multiple underwriting banks. For instance, Citi is an large underwriting bank that is friendly with guns, so NFA merchants will often be paired with Citi for selling guns.
- The card networks. These are MasterCard, Visa, Discover, and Amex.
It could have been the payment processor directly, receiving complaints from people who want to deplatform you. It could be the underwriting bank who for whatever reason was unhappy with your transactional volume. If you sell too much, or sell too little and then do an annual sale that suddenly spikes your sales from $0 to a lot, that could be a fraud indicator. It could be a card network that decided you are a "reputational risk" to their brand. You will never know who, what, when, where, or why, and you will not be given a chance to appeal, and you will not be given information so if you try to apply for another card you know what to do right the next time.
The proposed law does not address any of this. Instead, what it does is it gives you the option to complain to the Office of the Comptroller of Currency (OCC). If the OCC feels bad for you, they may fine the institution up to $10,000. Problem: Last year, the SCOTUS ruled that Administrative Law Judges do not meet the Jury requirement of the constitution, thus they cannot impose fines. So empowering the OCC to fine one of the largest and most powerful companies in human history $10,000 is already a joke, but they actually have no means to enforce it.
Even if the fine was enforceable, it is up to the discretion of the OCC to enforce it. If the OCC doesn't find it politically expedient to help you, they will not. Example: When the Kiwi Farms was being deplatformed by ISPs, we moved infrastructure to Washington state, because they had net neutrality as a state law. Problem: It was not a civil cause of action, but rather something the AG of WA had to impose on the company. The AG was Bob Ferguson, who decide he would not help us, despite our condition 100% meeting the criteria for a net neutrality violation.
For the law to have value, it needs to do the following:
First, it must create a federal civil relief with statutory damages for lost opportunity, ideally with riders for punitive damages, and also attorney's costs and fees. As this is a purely financial matter, it must make financial sense to sue one of the largest and most powerful companies in the world.
Second, it must undo existing requirements already imposed by the federal government on financial services. Title III of the PATRIOT Act "deputized" (in the words of Ron Paul) the financial services to act as a form of law enforcement, one which cannot be appealed and provides no due process. By the time the PATRIOT Act was not renewed, the vestigial remains of these Title III requirements had been reshuffled into other parts of the U.S.C.
I'd also like to take a second to reiterate just how abysmal the payment networks are as a fundamental concept. I have lived outside the US for almost a decade. In Europe, they have the IBAN system. Your debit card will not have the mark of the beast on it. It is free to pay people with your debit card. It is free and instant to send money. In the US, these card networks charge around 2.9% + 30¢ for every single card transaction. Stores are forbidden by card Terms of Service for adding these fees to the purchase price, like they do sales taxes in the US. If you buy $100 of groceries at Walmart, Walmart actually loses $3.20 to the card networks. Walmart, despite making $648.1 billion in gross sales in 2024, is powerless against the card networks. On that figure alone, with the most conservative estimate, Walmart had to eat shit on $18.8 billion in fees (not including individual transaction fees, which is billions more) as those fees are taken out of gross sales and not net profit. That's Walmart. Imagine how badly this is impacting small businesses. If you have a shop that sells $100 of goods on a 15% margin, your margin goes down to 11.8% right off the bat just because you have to pay a random company to make money in the US.
We are getting fucked. We are getting RAPED. These companies are RAPING you, they are RAPING the country, they are PILFERING businesses of all sizes for billions of dollars a year, and then they use that power to break the back of alt-tech, blackball individuals from the global economy, and fund DEI initiatives, mass immigration initiatives, and child genital mutilation surgeries. You, when you swipe a Visa/MasterCard, pay for little boys to get castrated in the US.
When I see people bickering about stupid shit that doesn't matter it makes me sick to my stomach. The backs of these companies needs to be broken. They won't go down without a fight and they will pay for shills to defend them, for organizations to take the blame for their actions, bribe politicians out the ass.
The Department of Justice is currently suing Visa for being a monopoly. Specifically, Visa has a near total monopoly on debit cards. They impose anticompetitive practices on banks to somehow force them to issue visa cards and persuade their customers to use their visa cards. To quote the Deparmtnet of Justice ....
The formal opinion of the fucking federal government is that Visa has NO value added service but continues to add fees because you CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. That's why they will do whatever it takes to stay in power. They have the easiest, most comfortable, highest profit ratio business model of almost any company to ever exist, and right now they have a monopoly charter granted to them by the federal government. They will happy spend billions to stay in power because billions is how they measure numbers in their business.
Last edited:
