Here is a bit more info on the debanking itself (the article on the submitted URL doesn't give much info on that).
This is quite concerning - US companies shutting down foreign enemies of the state is one thing (and a great argument for EU tech sovereignty), but EU organizations willingly doing this, and without a fair trial at that, is quite another.
Note that I work for an european payment network that is presenting itself as a partial solution to some of these problems, but I had this opinion before and I did not join them for ideological reasons. They just paid
Here is the thing. Any transaction in USD has to go through the US banking system. A lot of international transactions (commercial and financial, lot of borrowing and all is in USD for corporations) is in USD.
It means a bank, whichever bank, needs to be able to transact with US banks to be able to act as a bank. Which means that any bank is forced to follow the US decisions on those, because otherwise they are now the one in breach and as such, will be cut off by their US counterparts.
And that is a death sentence for most banks, because you do need the card networks, you need the payments networks, you need access to Treasuries, to US stock market, to international transactions, etc
To be able to stop this and be in the "willingly" situation you mention, you would need most of the international financial and trade markets to decouple from the USD. This is... an aspiration, but not really close to a reality right now. Same for the payment networks.
This. If you can read Italian or have your browser translate this post, it explains exactly that (the comments there are perhaps even more interesting than the post itself).
Oh no, the alternative would be to build payments system that do not depend on visa or mastercard, something Brasil and the African and Asian countries have done (not on purpose, but this is a different conversation).
And for international payments, you basically are going to need to develop international financial place that trade in like, euro, do loans in euro, etc. Same thing for insurance.
And probably the most important, start buying oil in non-usd denomination.
That has actually started with the situation in Iran. The few tankers that went through did it under China flag, with china insurer, with payments in Renminbi instead of USD. To go around the more Western insurer refusing to insure ships going through the Strait.
There have been some move behind the scenes in Brussels following the situation with the International Court of Justice, which I recommend searching a bit on the internet. But it will take time.
Note that using cryptocurrency usually will not save you, because at some point, you need to pay taxes.
Sure, that would be the long-term systemic solution. But I was talking more about what individual organizations could do today.
Taxes are an interesting point. Perhaps it would be possible to start a law suit against the state and/or banks because "the system", as such is severely broken. If you are willing to pay taxes, but it is made effectively impossible for you because nobody is willing to give you a bank account, there must be some recourse. Of course, this would be very expensive so probably not very achievable either for small organizations...
how to secure platforms not only technically, but also socially
A good start would be not hosting violent terrorist groups. And if you do, proactively de-host them once you learn of their activities. And if you vet your customers, try to exclude those organising public support for people like this charming fellow: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfredo_Cospito
To be clear about my position: I think debanking in general is horrendous, this specific case is an example of it being used it bypass legal and Constitutional protections, and it's a violation of human rights. I also fear that this may be a case of the current US Govt. testing the waters for more such actions, against political opponents.
I oppose this action because I support the rule of law, not because I have any shred of sympathy for groups who knowingly provide infrastructure for violent terrorists and their apologists.
It takes a special kind of marketing to end up with the list of users mentioned in the State Dept release. Agree wholeheartedly on the difficulties created by the absence of judicial oversight, but in this case it's almost impossible to have any sympathy for the closure of this platform.
And yet we must oppose it, even in the absence of sympathy. "... every infringement of human rights has begun with a given right's least attractive practitioners."
But it does raise a real aspect of socially securing a platform: act on illegal content when you find it, and when it's reported to you.
And it also raises what I have come to realise is an important design principle: if you want to support that which is illegal but moral, your tool shouldn't be a platform at all in the conventional sense. Think torrents, IPFS, etc. rather than a Website.
Oppose what exactly? Whose human rights are infringed, what about the rights of the victims of the users? If some "morality" requires sabotage and bombings of public services coordinated over some naively idealistic encrypted email service refusing to cooperate with serious crime investigations, shut the damned thing down with zest and celebrate the event wholeheartedly.
It is a failing on part of the European legal systems and law enforcement that entities like this may operate for so long as this one did, especially since it seems to have operated completely in public.
Unrelated, as a gay man I really don't like when "feminist and queer" are used as a blanket for justification of something, good or bad. It's just fodder for the far right to demonize everyone under that umbrella. This is one of those cases - now A/I has given a direct link for more association between what the state called "domestic terrorism" (regardless of if it really is that) and "queer people"/"feminists".
Are you suggesting that initiatives should disavow/hide their connection to projects they actively try to support? That is, letting the (more or less, depending on where you live) far right dictate what you openly express support for? Or are you suggesting that an initiative that supports e.g. queer rights must not support other causes that can't be considered solely pro-queer-rights?
I'm genuinely confused, because that is so obviously a bad strategy on so many levels. Allowing the sowing of division, letting the right define the Overton window, and having nothing to oppose the very fluid definitions of what is considered "domestic terrorism", to name a few.
gerikson | 4 hours ago
Here's the State Department's press release: https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/2026/08/designation-of-autistici-inventati-as-a-specially-designated-global-terrorist
The framework for debanking has been in place since just after 9/11. Plenty of innocent hawala operators got caught up in it in the mid 2000s.
sjamaan | 2 hours ago
Here is a bit more info on the debanking itself (the article on the submitted URL doesn't give much info on that).
This is quite concerning - US companies shutting down foreign enemies of the state is one thing (and a great argument for EU tech sovereignty), but EU organizations willingly doing this, and without a fair trial at that, is quite another.
Diana | 2 hours ago
Well, it is not willingly.
Note that I work for an european payment network that is presenting itself as a partial solution to some of these problems, but I had this opinion before and I did not join them for ideological reasons. They just paid
Here is the thing. Any transaction in USD has to go through the US banking system. A lot of international transactions (commercial and financial, lot of borrowing and all is in USD for corporations) is in USD.
It means a bank, whichever bank, needs to be able to transact with US banks to be able to act as a bank. Which means that any bank is forced to follow the US decisions on those, because otherwise they are now the one in breach and as such, will be cut off by their US counterparts.
And that is a death sentence for most banks, because you do need the card networks, you need the payments networks, you need access to Treasuries, to US stock market, to international transactions, etc
To be able to stop this and be in the "willingly" situation you mention, you would need most of the international financial and trade markets to decouple from the USD. This is... an aspiration, but not really close to a reality right now. Same for the payment networks.
lifepillar | an hour ago
This. If you can read Italian or have your browser translate this post, it explains exactly that (the comments there are perhaps even more interesting than the post itself).
sjamaan | 2 hours ago
Thank you for the insider background info on this, I had no idea!
So I guess the only alternative would be to use crypocurrencies, maybe.
Diana | an hour ago
Oh no, the alternative would be to build payments system that do not depend on visa or mastercard, something Brasil and the African and Asian countries have done (not on purpose, but this is a different conversation).
And for international payments, you basically are going to need to develop international financial place that trade in like, euro, do loans in euro, etc. Same thing for insurance.
And probably the most important, start buying oil in non-usd denomination. That has actually started with the situation in Iran. The few tankers that went through did it under China flag, with china insurer, with payments in Renminbi instead of USD. To go around the more Western insurer refusing to insure ships going through the Strait.
There have been some move behind the scenes in Brussels following the situation with the International Court of Justice, which I recommend searching a bit on the internet. But it will take time.
Note that using cryptocurrency usually will not save you, because at some point, you need to pay taxes.
sjamaan | an hour ago
Sure, that would be the long-term systemic solution. But I was talking more about what individual organizations could do today.
Taxes are an interesting point. Perhaps it would be possible to start a law suit against the state and/or banks because "the system", as such is severely broken. If you are willing to pay taxes, but it is made effectively impossible for you because nobody is willing to give you a bank account, there must be some recourse. Of course, this would be very expensive so probably not very achievable either for small organizations...
nemin | an hour ago
Isn't this the proposed "Digital Euro" and also WERO and co. where they are available?
duncan_bayne | 2 hours ago
A good start would be not hosting violent terrorist groups. And if you do, proactively de-host them once you learn of their activities. And if you vet your customers, try to exclude those organising public support for people like this charming fellow: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfredo_Cospito
To be clear about my position: I think debanking in general is horrendous, this specific case is an example of it being used it bypass legal and Constitutional protections, and it's a violation of human rights. I also fear that this may be a case of the current US Govt. testing the waters for more such actions, against political opponents.
I oppose this action because I support the rule of law, not because I have any shred of sympathy for groups who knowingly provide infrastructure for violent terrorists and their apologists.
dw | 2 hours ago
It takes a special kind of marketing to end up with the list of users mentioned in the State Dept release. Agree wholeheartedly on the difficulties created by the absence of judicial oversight, but in this case it's almost impossible to have any sympathy for the closure of this platform.
duncan_bayne | 2 hours ago
And yet we must oppose it, even in the absence of sympathy. "... every infringement of human rights has begun with a given right's least attractive practitioners."
But it does raise a real aspect of socially securing a platform: act on illegal content when you find it, and when it's reported to you.
And it also raises what I have come to realise is an important design principle: if you want to support that which is illegal but moral, your tool shouldn't be a platform at all in the conventional sense. Think torrents, IPFS, etc. rather than a Website.
dw | 52 minutes ago
Oppose what exactly? Whose human rights are infringed, what about the rights of the victims of the users? If some "morality" requires sabotage and bombings of public services coordinated over some naively idealistic encrypted email service refusing to cooperate with serious crime investigations, shut the damned thing down with zest and celebrate the event wholeheartedly.
pgeorgi | 49 minutes ago
Executive action without judicial oversight.
kwas | 2 hours ago
eh, I had a dormant account there.
zanlib | 2 hours ago
It is a failing on part of the European legal systems and law enforcement that entities like this may operate for so long as this one did, especially since it seems to have operated completely in public.
junon | an hour ago
Unrelated, as a gay man I really don't like when "feminist and queer" are used as a blanket for justification of something, good or bad. It's just fodder for the far right to demonize everyone under that umbrella. This is one of those cases - now A/I has given a direct link for more association between what the state called "domestic terrorism" (regardless of if it really is that) and "queer people"/"feminists".
Just a stray thought.
[OP] kolja | 16 minutes ago
Are you suggesting that initiatives should disavow/hide their connection to projects they actively try to support? That is, letting the (more or less, depending on where you live) far right dictate what you openly express support for? Or are you suggesting that an initiative that supports e.g. queer rights must not support other causes that can't be considered solely pro-queer-rights?
I'm genuinely confused, because that is so obviously a bad strategy on so many levels. Allowing the sowing of division, letting the right define the Overton window, and having nothing to oppose the very fluid definitions of what is considered "domestic terrorism", to name a few.