It doesn't help WikiLeaks and it's not supposed to. What you're seeing is a group of people who looked at MasterCard's decisions, and reacted to prove them wrong.

MC thought that preventing money from going to some people who move information around was a smart business decision. Anonymous replied with, <<No, trying to prevent the free flow of information is a bad business decision.>>

They do this, presumably, with the idea that next time MC will think twice before doing their part in silencing the flow of information.

This is all irrelevant to WikiLeaks. They have nothing to do with this at all, except that their particular case provides Anon with a clear example to set for MC.

You really think cyber terrorism is going to make Mastercard more likely to want to work with similar groups in the future?

Woah, don't put words in my mouth like that! I never said I thought that. That said, I'm not sure I understand your question. Wikileaks and Anon aren't related. MC can't choose to deal or not deal with Anon. Their choice is about Wikileaks, who have nothing to do with any of this.

If they continue to choose to ban payments through their system to Wikileaks, I assume they'll continue losing money from DDoSs. shrug I don't have any idea what'll happen, but I think you have to accept that Anon has a point, even if you don't agree with them.

MC slows the flow of information. Anon slows the flow of cash to MC. If MC doesn't respond, it seems like they'll keep losing money.

Seems like the lesson to me would be, never offer service to any controversial organizations in the first place lest the Internet mob punish you for withdrawing that service later.

If I worked for any sort of internet payment gateway, I'd certainly make sure to never take on Wikileaks as a client.

While I understand the logic of your point, I think the assumption you make is that MasterCard will add in the costs of a possible DDos attack when considering whether they made the right business decision.

And I think the answer is no, although it's arguable. There is surely a point at which MC will try to do the "right" thing instead of the profitable thing, and it's easy to see how that point is between cutting off Wikileaks (which arguably is harming US national interests) and changing business strategy to appease hackers.

I think you missed his point again. He's not speculating as to what MC will optimize. He's just stating point of fact, as we understand it today. If you do A then B will happen.

Given that its unclear to me that what Wikileaks even did is illegal (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/02/world/02legal.html?_r=1) I have little sympathy for MC. It just feels like they're a bully in this situation. It does suck for their customers though. Maybe more customers will drop MC due to their inefficiency? Who knows.

How is it being a bully to deny service to a customer who may or may not be committing a crime? There is no inalienable right to have a credit card merchant account.

That's why we call it 'being a bully' and not 'committing a crime.'

I am not a fan of mob justice either — but neither am I a fan of "tour de force" justice as practiced by Amazon, Mastercard and Paypal, under pressure from US Government. I think this is a relatively good way for everyone involved to learn that every action has consequences.

Notice that if there is no response at all from, let's call it "the internet crowd", then there will be no free speech on the internet. Any attempt to say anything which corporations aren't comfortable with (this includes anything that the governments aren't comfortable with) will be quickly silenced.

So, while I am not a fan of 4chan's DDOS attacks, I see them as a reaction — similar to crowds in the streets.

Exactly. Not only that, but it will make them seem even less sympathetic in the eyes of the general public.