Could you explain a bit on the type of attack that BitPatron doesn't resolve?

Appears to be hosted on AWS, based on the certificate (I'm on mobile or else I'd check more in depth.) Based on that, I'd say you put pressure on Amazon to put pressure on Bitpatron.

Now Amazon isn't known to succumb to external pressure as far as I know. But depending on desperation and resources there's really a lot you could do. For example you could even go ahead and manufacture a controversy with some fake accounts and use it as evidence that Bitpatron is not doing due diligence. And of course, you could try to find another point of failure, like trying to convince their domain registar that the site is illegal. A lot of domain registars cave easily to pressure (Not all. Gandi is a good counter example.)

These aren't really theoretical attack vectors, but they are merely hypothetical for Bitpatron. Still, if you want something resistant to speech control you are gonna need more decentralization imo.

„Now Amazon isn't known to succumb to external pressure as far as I know.” Actually it is known to succumb: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/01/wikileaks-webs...

There is a difference between being pressured by social activists versus a state capable of doing a lot more than bad PR. They also mildly fell to Russian pressure from the Telegram stuff.

In neither case can I blame them. Those are fights which hurt them with very little upside.

This is our launching page only, of course we have plans to make it more decentralized and censorship-free resistant. We will release more info soon

Their moral imperatives or society's agreed upon moral imperatives?

If "society" had agreed upon it, there would be no reason for Mastercard to do anything because society wouldn't fund these people.

IF 99.99% of society is against something, there are still hundreds of thousands of people left to fund it.

I guess there’s a gray area where we don’t throw people in jail, but also don’t want to be seen in public them, either.

Mastercard is a part of society, its actions are "society reacting".

If it was agreed upon then it would be illegal.

Entirely false.

One of the primary functions of the government is to provide consensus. There are flaws: dictatorships impose consensus, corruption skews consensus, not everyone participates. Doesn't matter. At the end of the day, almost all people on Earth recognize the rule of at least their own government. Therefore, it is easily the most universally recognized consensus.

And, in democratic nations, the laws often do follow society's agreed upon moral imperatives. This is why child abuse and animal abuse are illegal.

The sticky situations come in where there is not a strong consensus. In the US: Abortion, vaccines, climate change, gun control. There's an ebb and flow to it, but a lot of people will be generally unhappy no matter what does or doesn't happen.

Let's go back to my comment:

>If it was agreed upon then it would be illegal.

I think this is necessarily true. If society has a strong agreement that something is morally wrong, the laws almost certainly would follow, as they tend to.

I am not saying this is a perfectly accurate measure, and I'm also not saying the reverse is true. But I am absolutely saying that I believe one of the main reasons people go about imposing moral beliefs on others by threatening service providers and forming harassment mobs is because some group of people has a strong moral imperative that other people may not have or may actually disagree with.

I don't believe in absolute free speech, but I believe that people should be able to express themselves in ways that are legally protected. I also think it's okay for people to express their dislike of things, but I don't think it's OK to engage in coordinated harassment. Internet mobs are not the force I want policing the internet.

If you have a strong moral imperative against something that's legal, why do you think it's legal if everyone agrees with you?

> One of the primary functions of the government is to provide consensus.

Nope.

Excellent debating skills.

This isn't a debate, you've just ranted.

> or society's agreed

there are only individuals.