Wait is it in congress? I trhought it was jsut for one state. Im looking this up right now and hope to god it's 100% legit, because I would see this pass in a HEARTBEAT. Please read the bill yourselves and contact your representitives offering to help voluntarily petition for bills like this even if not this one specifically people.

I'm just spreading the word. Look it up on the net, it's legit.

Yeah this is good for everyone.

you us citizen only have one Problem...... it is called republicans.
Or have you not noticed that they try to remove every law which would benefit the common folk?

Originally posted by Wolfpig:

you us citizen only have one Problem...... it is called republicans.
Or have you not noticed that they try to remove every law which would benefit the common folk?

Can we not try to randomly attack political groups for no reason? you had no basis do go after an entire section of the american population. Please discuss the actual law now spout your personal disdain.

Originally posted by Wolfpig:

you us citizen only have one Problem...... it is called republicans.
Or have you not noticed that they try to remove every law which would benefit the common folk?

FYI this bill is 100% Republican-sponsored.

Originally posted by Shotgun:

Originally posted by Wolfpig:

you us citizen only have one Problem...... it is called republicans.
Or have you not noticed that they try to remove every law which would benefit the common folk?

FYI this bill is 100% Republican-sponsored.

I know, and it makes it even funnier. I mean, im not shocked, guess which political party has suffered threats of debanking

Originally posted by Wolfpig:

you us citizen only have one Problem...... it is called republicans.
Or have you not noticed that they try to remove every law which would benefit the common folk?

Everything is cyclical and it’s not the 90’s anymore so republicans haven’t been the problem for a long time and are actually the ones who are pushing back against censorship now. The whole reason that this has become an issue on steam is because an Australian far-left feminists group pushed payment providers to censor what can be sold on here, so once again not even right wing let alone Republican.

Originally posted by Shreddy:

Originally posted by Wolfpig:

you us citizen only have one Problem...... it is called republicans.
Or have you not noticed that they try to remove every law which would benefit the common folk?

Everything is cyclical and it’s not the 90’s anymore so republicans haven’t been the problem for a long time and are actually the ones who are pushing back against censorship now. The whole reason that this has become an issue on steam is because an Australian far-left feminists group pushed payment providers to censor what can be sold on here, so once again not even right wing let alone Republican.

So you're saying Repubican's are pro-porn then? The reality is they're not anti-censorship, they'll happily censor things they don't like and they don't (publicly) like porn. It's just in this case pushing this through will hack of a group they hate which is worth more to them than the affect it has on games here.

Seriously people, can we please talk about the actual law, not try to start a petty game about flaming a political party that is in fact sponsoring the bill

The bill itself for context:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/119/hr987/text

Progress in Senate
https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/401/all-info

Progress in House:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/987/all-info

The Fair Access to Banking Act, with the House bill number H.R.987 and Senate bill number S.401, aims to ensure fair access to financial services for all lawful businesses. Specifically, it addresses concerns that some financial institutions are denying services to certain industries based on factors other than objective risk assessments. The legislation seeks to prevent discrimination by financial institutions against lawful businesses, including those in politically unpopular but legally permissible industries, by requiring decisions to be based on verifiable financial data rather than subjective, broad-based criteria.

Here's a more detailed breakdown:

Purpose:

The act aims to prevent discrimination by financial institutions against lawful businesses.

Key Provisions:

It would prohibit financial service providers from denying access to financial services based on factors other than objective risk assessments of individual customers.

Targeted Industries:

The legislation is particularly relevant to industries facing discrimination, such as those involved in firearms and ammunition, which have been affected by practices like Operation Choke Point.

Congressional Action:

The bill has been introduced in both the House (H.R.987) and the Senate (S.401) and is supported by organizations like the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF).

Impact:

The legislation aims to ensure fair access to financial services for all businesses, preventing institutions from using their power to influence social policy or advance political agendas.

Originally posted by Anonymous Helper:

The bill itself for context:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/119/hr987/text

Progress in Senate
https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/401/all-info

Progress in House:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/987/all-info

AI Summary for anyone interested:

The Fair Access to Banking Act, with the House bill number H.R.987 and Senate bill number S.401, aims to ensure fair access to financial services for all lawful businesses. Specifically, it addresses concerns that some financial institutions are denying services to certain industries based on factors other than objective risk assessments. The legislation seeks to prevent discrimination by financial institutions against lawful businesses, including those in politically unpopular but legally permissible industries, by requiring decisions to be based on verifiable financial data rather than subjective, broad-based criteria.

Here's a more detailed breakdown:

Purpose:

The act aims to prevent discrimination by financial institutions against lawful businesses.

Key Provisions:

It would prohibit financial service providers from denying access to financial services based on factors other than objective risk assessments of individual customers.

Targeted Industries:

The legislation is particularly relevant to industries facing discrimination, such as those involved in firearms and ammunition, which have been affected by practices like Operation Choke Point.

Congressional Action:

The bill has been introduced in both the House (H.R.987) and the Senate (S.401) and is supported by organizations like the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF).

Impact:

The legislation aims to ensure fair access to financial services for all businesses, preventing institutions from using their power to influence social policy or advance political agendas.

further thank you for keeping everyone updated

The flip side of the bill is it opens up the doors for far more fraud and insurance risk which will cost people more. Certain sectors are far more at risk then others, and engaged with far more crime then other sectors. So some banks and lendors apply much stricter rules regarding them, or often charge higher rates or deny them service.

Under this bill they can't do that, which means they expect the rate of defaults to increase, the rate of fraud to increase, they expect an increase in people using the banks to engage in illegal activity, and expect to pass the costs and losses onto the consumers raising the rates people pay to get money.

This is mostly in retaliation by the Republicans because some extreme far right groups like the Proud boys, and other violent members were blacklisted for engaging in violent behavior, organized crime, etc. Trump himself was black listed by numerous banks due to repeated fraud, and this would make it illegal for a bank to deny service to someone for those reasons, which isn't always in the best interest of people.

So there are Pro's and Con's to it. One of the biggest con's to the bill is they have poorly defined the terminology of what is "fair" so its open for interpretation and there is no guidance or measurable way for anyone to determine when its fair or not. Its all subjective.

Originally posted by Truth:

The flip side of the bill is it opens up the doors for far more fraud and insurance risk which will cost people more. Certain sectors are far more at risk then others, and engaged with far more crime then other sectors. So some banks and lendors apply much stricter rules regarding them, or often charge higher rates or deny them service.

Under this bill they can't do that, which means they expect the rate of defaults to increase, the rate of fraud to increase, they expect an increase in people using the banks to engage in illegal activity, and expect to pass the costs and losses onto the consumers raising the rates people pay to get money.

This is mostly in retaliation by the Republicans because some extreme far right groups like the Proud boys, and other violent members were blacklisted for engaging in violent behavior, organized crime, etc. Trump himself was black listed by numerous banks due to repeated fraud, and this would make it illegal for a bank to deny service to someone for those reasons, which isn't always in the best interest of people.

So there are Pro's and Con's to it. One of the biggest con's to the bill is they have poorly defined the terminology of what is "fair" so its open for interpretation and there is no guidance or measurable way for anyone to determine when its fair or not. Its all subjective.

An interesting consideration, I think it would be quite simple to ammend it to allow some changes in rulings such as stricter credit watches, higher interest rates, or lower credit maximums. Thus we can simply ban the termination of services without effecting things too much. If i might ask, can you cite the part of the that bans even differences in interest rate or maximum credit?

I'm also not going to take your words for garbage with the first line of paragraph two. Please look around you, we literally have people who cant sign a home loan or get a credit card because they direct or work in porn. you are in a storefront that just gave these companies carte blanch to delete anything on command of so much as a complaint. Suggesting this is only some rather extreme groups while you dont even mention Antifa, while somehow mentioned Donald Trump as anything but a completely innocent victim of persecution in the same breath, is a baffling malicious thing to do.

So no, I think I'm going to deny you and demand you show much greater evidence or I'm not going to believe you any further.

Originally posted by videomike_Ultimate_Plushie:

An interesting consideration, I think it would be quite simple to ammend it to allow some changes in rulings such as stricter credit watches, higher interest rates, or lower credit maximums. Thus we can simply ban the termination of services without effecting things too much. If i might ask, can you cite the part of the that bans even differences in interest rate or maximum credit?

Nope, because they use the wording "fair" which as I mentioned is ambiguous and is causing issues, its why the bill is in the absolute earliest stages of it and was just re-introduced. It will need a lot of hashing out and details because right now charging Business 1 a higher interest rate then business 2 can be considered not fair.

Right now its more of an ideathen something that could actually be a law with no real thought on how it would be implemented.

Originally posted by videomike_Ultimate_Plushie:

I'm also not going to take your words for garbage with the first line of paragraph two. Please look around you, we literally have people who cant sign a home loan or get a credit card because they direct or work in porn. you are in a storefront that just gave these companies carte blanch to delete anything on command of so much as a complaint. Suggesting this is only some rather extreme groups while you dont even mention Antifa, while somehow mentioned Donald Trump as anything but a completely innocent victim of persecution in the same breath, is a baffling malicious thing to do.

So no, I think I'm going to deny you and demand you show much greater evidence or I'm not going to believe you any further.

I never listed every group, I listed some of the ones that drove the republicans to push the bill and never claimed its a full list. Again as mentioned the bill is more then just for loans, or credit cards.

As i mentioned if you read some banks right now are denying services (ALL SERVICES) to those groups. That would force those banks to allow them service, bank accounts, credit cards, etc. They would be required to be "fair" which means to many they cannot charge them more then others even though they feel they are riskier based on their history.

The bill is in its infancy, if it goes forward its going to need a TON of fleshing out as its just a concept at the moment and isn't remotely close to anything that can be voted on.

The bill is in response to actions like this - https://nypost.com/2019/05/25/jpmorgan-chase-accused-of-purging-accounts-of-conservative-activists/

Where members of the Proud Boys, a group that was found guilty in court of multiple crimes and has been declared a terrorist organization by multiple countries had their accounts closed. So it makes it hard for banks to avoid doing business with bad actors if they wish.

Or other actors such as Alex Jones who profited off calling people whose children were killed in school violence actors and demanding they dig up their children's dead bodies and prove they were actually killed.