> a private company shouldn’t have to decide what counts as “illegal” content under threat of legal action.

Immediately reminded me of patio11's amazing write up[1] of debanking, featuring banks being deputized as law enforcement for financial crimes (which is completely non controversial), and even used as a convenient tool to regulate other industries that the white house didn't like (kinda controversial).

[1]: https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/debanking-and-debunki...

▲

salawat 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I strongly disagree that financial institutions being a de facto extension of law enforcement is "non-controversial".

It may be the way things are; it may be a pre-req of making financial crime tractable; but that does not detract from the fact that every financial institution is in essence, deputized law enforcement, and negate the chilling effect that comes as a consequence thereof on a business environment subject to it.

	▲	ngriffiths 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Fair enough. It was something that impressed me when I first read about it. You hear about disputes between Apple and the FBI over unlocking phones and meanwhile banks are like "and over here are whole floors of analysts tracking suspicious stuff." I definitely agree there are downsides and not everyone is happy about the floors of analysts, but I do think they are very far away from the Overton window.

▲

SoftTalker 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Typically long-winded patio11 article that basically says: Banks are suspicious of crypto.