> Imagine that happening with your bank.

This already happens, a lot.

Do something that generates a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspicious_activity_report (generally, stuff that looks like money laundering) and your bank will cut you loose, and they aren't legally allowed to disclose why. Running a marijuana dispensary? Forget about a bank account.

Sure. But with Google you will lose your bank account by making a comment on youtube livestream.

It was here on HN few days ago. Streamer asked people to spam the chat just like in twitch, youtubes automated systems banned viewers who obliged locking them out of all google products, gmail etc.

Now imagine losing also your banking due to things like that.

Just like one diversifies their investments, clearly it pays to diversify services you use as well. Which is the exact opposite message companies like Google push: "use us for everything, it will be convenient!" Until you lose everything in one fell swoop.

Precisely.

I do not comment on google platforms at all because I’m so stuck with gmail due to making an account when it came out and I was young then. Whenever I have a choice I avoid their products.

I’m even avoiding publishing hobby stuff on Play Store nowadays as a bad submission due to error will, you guessed it, lead to total ban.

Just as you said this works against their interests. As consumers we must diversify.

Not diversify, just stay away from any provider with multiple services, poor customer support, and a penchant for banning accounts for code of conduct violations.

Losing an email address or even access for some time will cost me money. Gmail isn't good enough that I'd risk my business over google code of conduct.

Proton mail it is.

But any of those negative attributes could apply to any provider at any point in the future, even if they don't now. Best to actively avoid all your eggs in one basket to the extent possible.

Well, the bank might cut you off if you do some really weird stuff with money. Google tends to shut down your access to everything in their ecosystem for minor and arbitrary reasons, like commenting with emoji on a lifestream, or logging in to GMail after a few years and setting a mail forward.

SARs do not automatically result in you being booted out. SARs are objective in nature and the criteria is well defined.

I’d you have ever deposited more than 10k in cash or received a 25k+ wire, you probably has a SAR created for that transaction.

Wiki says it's a lot more than that.

> In the United States, FinCEN requires that an SAR be filed by a financial institution when the financial institution suspects insider abuse by an employee; violations of law aggregating over $5,000 where a subject can be identified; violations of law aggregating over $25,000 regardless of a potential subject; transactions aggregating $5,000 or more that involve potential money laundering or violations of the Bank Secrecy Act; computer intrusion; or when a financial institution knows that a customer is operating as an unlicensed money services business.

Just getting a $10k transfer doesn't sound like it'd trigger any of those.

Getting a $10k transfer with other contextual information could easily make it all under one of those scenarios.

Sure, just like shooting a gun: "other contextual information" like "the bullets hit someone" makes a big difference.

In 2019 is loads easier for cannabis business than it was in 2014. There are state charter banks and CU that will take the business but it's a high fee account. (Pun intended)

See also what credit card companies did to Wikileaks; i.e. they simply refused all their cardholders to donate money to Wikileaks.

Did not know that... now i understand bitcoin.

Because of the numerous chargebacks associated with plenty of people using other people's credit cards to make those donations.

They weren't taking a political stance. If Wikileaks supporters had used their own credit cards Wikileaks could still take donations by credit card.