didn't they debank the ICC ? and Francesca Albenese for her political views ?
this post was submitted on 29 Mar 2026
369 points (98.9% liked)
Technology
83185 readers
3839 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
So I guess blocking payments to porn sites or whatever they were doing before is supposed to stop. Right? Right?
The right is mostly aligning with that, unless you're talking about those young alt-righters, who are following a suggestion found on a pro-lolicon forum religiously.
Process the fucking payments, payment processors.
yeah this isn't suspicious at all.
And certainly wouldn't be selectively enforced anyway. This is 100% "rules for thee not for me" shit.
Like if they get debanked for "religious" or "political" reasons (esp. when they are the ones politicizing literally everything), it's a crime.
Things that they consider political but sensible people consider "human rights", tho? They sleep.
Totally a slow reaction to all the right wing stuff like info wars that was being debanked a number of years ago.
Wikileaks? What was that?
This is interesting.
Trump sued JPMorgan Chase and its CEO, Jamie Dimon, in January for $5 billion over what he alleged was the bank’s improper closure of his accounts in 2021 for political reasons. The bank is fighting the claims. The Trump Organization, led by the president’s sons, also sued Capital One last year over similar debanking allegations, and a federal judge last week dismissed that lawsuit, but gave the plaintiffs time to refile.
Following that link:
Trump sued JPMorgan and Dimon last month, seeking at least $5 billion in damages. He claims the alleged debanking came after Trump supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, shortly before the end of the president’s first term.
So that's what this is about.
Trump has been debanked since the late 90s by almost all US banks, because when you bankrupt two casinos and frequently spend time with mobsters they considered loans to you "high risk" for some reason.
He's been getting loans via Europe (mostly Deutschbank.. which is also Putin's bank of choice), and Russia, for 30 years.
That is, until he won the lottery by convincing the stupidest people alive to vote him into the highest seat of power.
So now it's payback time against all the banks he thinks wronged him.
Not giving loans doesn't mean debanked.
Actually, for the wealthy it does.
Trump has been very wealthy since birth. The wealthy do not have bank accounts like your average wageslave like me, where their salary gets deposited regularly and they earn interest and make withdrawls - and perhaps have an attached home loan account, etc. We earn interest in high income accounts or term deposits and then pay tax on that earning - like suckers.
The wealthy use an entirely different model that focuses on using debt as its main tool.
Their assets including real estate, share portfolios, stock options and even expensive artwork are 'good debt', they perhaps don't own them fully (they may be mortgaged, loan-backed or options, etc) but they're assets that continue to grow in value over the medium term. If they sell them or divest them for real cash it becomes income that they must pay tax on. The wealthy hate paying tax. Solution: use the assets as collateral for loans and credit lines. This is how Trump lives like a king while (previously) not having much liquid cash, and also how Elon and most ultrawealthg do it - their entire personal spending is on credit accounts - debt - and by writing as much of it off as businesses expenses (meals, travel, security, etc) it all becomes tax deductable as well.
This is the same reason a lot of business executives request most of their payment packages as stock or options - it reduces their taxable income and builds their real wealth substantially. If they want a property: mortgage against their stock & option collateral. If they need money: bank credit line with their assets as collateral.
So when banks say to a member of the 1% such as Trump "we cannot give you a loan account, your collateral/outstanding loans at other fiancial institutions/criminal associates/track record is too risky for us", that means he cannot use that bank and must look elsewhere. He is debanked by them for his purposes.
I wonder if Trump knows that?
Doesn't matter, his base will guess what it means and eat it if he complains about it.
That is for conservatives only though. The judges on the ICC who have been debanked for ruling against Netanyahu can pound sand.
🤦...here we go again
Somebody's about to do something fucking horrific again.
This seems like a good thing at first and that makes me extra wary.
Anarchist/Environmentalists get debanked: I sleep.
Epstein-club child-rapist billionaires get the slightest inconvenience: Real Shit.
Has this actually happened, or just playing the victim again?
The linked article has more info: https://www.bankingdive.com/news/occ-debanking-report-jpmorgan-bofa-citi-wells-fargo-pnc-td-bmo-capital-one-trump-gould/807685/
The OCC expressed concern that, between 2020 and 2025, the banks restricted access or required “escalated reviews and approvals before providing … access” to certain customers with connections to oil and gas, coal, firearms, private prisons, tobacco, payday lending, adult entertainment, digital assets or political action committees and political parties.
It’s that last part that, presumably, spurred President Donald Trump in January to accuse Bank of America – while its CEO was on stage at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland – of debanking conservatives.
Ah yes. When i read the fascist FTC head sent the letter — a criminal who threatens antifascist media for political speech — I was certain consequences will only apply to debanking fascists.
"We called ourselves the MOD Squad, short for Merchants of Death."
Looks like Alcohol, tobacco, and firearms have a whole new set of friends.
Thanks, but that article doesn’t mention too many specifics either. I am going to assume that if someone was denied service it’s because they are criminals, not conservatives. The line is blurry though.
There was a big deal last year after Mastercard and Visa threatened the indie game site itch.io for allowing adult games, after a single complaint from an Australian anti-porn group.
Payment processors shouldn't be gatekeepers of what we can buy. They should just process the payments and take their cut for being a middleman.
I thought about that when I heard about this, but it looks like this will not stop Visa and MasterCard from continuing to threaten everyone who is not ‘equal’ enough
Everyone in the West cheered when Visa and MasterCard cut Russia off their processing by their own initiative. Now in the past year Europeans suddenly realized what this might mean, and are clamoring for a pan-European payment processor. While Russia already had one of their own for ages.
Realistically, it's likely that someone with money was denied access, and used their money to hire lobbyists to make this a political problem.
Trump was debanked after Jan 6th, this is just retaliation for banks choosing not to do business with fascists and insurrectionists.
Nazis say that you are required to let Nazis be your customers. Also that you don't have to serve people you don't want to when it fits their narrative.
Well, to a nazi only nazis are people.
How DARE they Discriminate AGAINST the Epstein Class!
-Republicans probably!
FUCK YOU demented rapist toady