Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Good that you trust Chase and other banks with the lame 'evidence' that they provide such as: "Financial institutions have an obligation to know our customers and monitor transactions that flow through our customers' accounts. After careful consideration, we decided to close your account because of unexpected activity on these or another Chase account."

Based on that standard template, I won't trust big banks, because, hiding behind BSA, banks can use the blanket statement "because of unexpected activity". Now you ask me to trust Banks, because they can't show that evidence to me.



None of this is about whether I trust Chase or not.

It's about the big claim that Chase monitors the political activity of their customers and systematically closes the accounts of people with opinions Chase doesn't like.

There's precisely zero evidence that they do this.

Even if one blindly accepts your citations from "The 700 Club" and some random post from "Nitter" as authoritative, even they provide zero evidence for that claim.

Big claims require compelling evidence, and you haven't provided any.


FWIW, Nitter is just an alternative frontend to Twitter/X.


So if MSM doesn't report, it doesn't exist? State the requirements of 'compelling evidence'.

You debate like that Chase email explains their reasoning.


"Compelling" evidence would be great, but SOME evidence would be nice too.

The media not reporting it is certainly not evidence, down that path lies true crazy.


I don't trust Chase as far as I can throw them. But I still trust them more than Nigel Farage.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: