Like everyone else, I am very skeptical that it is somehow related, for several reasons.
- He is just a small time streamer, I didn't watch his videos but it looks like typical clickbait content playing on people's paranoia. Why would Palantir care about it?
- I didn't watch the videos in question, but I suppose that he says that Palentir is evil because it is used by police forces to attack poor migrants, that kind of thing. Not only he is saying what everyone is saying, but it may be good advertising for Palantir, as it shows that they are good at their (evil) job.
- Streisand effect, I am sure that even the idiots at Palantir know that it may not be a good idea to give attention to a streamer who annoys them.
- Speaking of attention, it is highly likely that the streamer in question was unbanked for a completely unrelated reason but saw the opportunity to make buzz, and it seems to be working!
- There seem to be no further evidence connecting the two.
> I am sure that even the idiots at Palantir know that it may not be a good idea to give attention to a streamer who annoys them.
Thiel has proved that he can hold a grudge. After Gawker outed him, he spent years shopping for anyone who could sue them, and found his guy in Hulk Hogan. He financed the lawsuit that led to Gawker Media's bankruptcy and closure.
>Thiel has proved that he can hold a grudge. After Gawker outed him, [...]
That might be true, but it's a stretch to go from this to "Thiel had a grudge for this specific streamer and was responsible for him getting banned". For one, Gawker has orders of magnitude more visibility than this guy.
Oh he does. But he uses the Streisand effect to his benefit to sell his product. Maybe you could argue it is not the Streisand effect if you want exposure by quenching stuff, though?
This can be very frustrating when it's a false positive, but these 'neobanks' have a tendency to be very "trigger happy" and quickly close accounts whenever they have a reason to think there is fraud involved. And there's a lot of automation involved of course.
When that happens, they won't tell you the reason of course, because that would help fraudsters improve their fraud skills.
There is no reason to believe this bank actually have humans who are aware of this customer's Twitter handle, and who read it, and didn't like what they saw.
Zero indication that these things are related in any way.
The streamer is a self-admitted basket case who does not “believe in coincidences”. As far as weird internet belief systems go, this one seems even a bit weirder than people who refuse to believe in a somewhat spherical earth.
>What indication would there be that the two are related? Do you expect them to write an email specifically stating that was the reason?
I'd want to see a pattern of multiple critics being banned. In the same video he admits that neobanks have a history of banning clients arbitrarily for seemingly no reason. Just a few months ago there was a story of someone being banned from wise for seemingly dumb reasons made it to the front page[1], so it's certainly possible for people to get banned because of pure incompetence. Therefore you'd expect a base rate of Palantir/Thiel critics banned from pure coincidence alone.
>For what it's worth, that neobank received funding from his company, which definitely raises the odds of the two being related.
Right, just like you can come up with some spurious relationships from people being banned from wise, like the CEO hating pineapple on pizza (example, no idea whether he actually does) and the person being banned liking pineapple on pizza.
> So it's cool if one person gets deplatformed, as long as it's not a pattern? Odd choice if you ask me.
No, it's not cool even if it's just one person. The point is that you should absolutely be upset at the bank for arbitrarily banning someone for no reason, but not at Peter Thiel or Palantir, since it being just one non-high-profile critic means there's no good reason to think they had anything to do with it.
Let me re-iterate this one more time: he invested in Qonto, he invested in Wise. Therefore, whether the actual reason is incompetence or a personal vendetta or both, he deserves some of the blame. He is the one that funded them. He is the reason they exist, as (in)competent as they are.
Shifting the blame to "incompetence" does not absolve him of any guilt, he is equally to blame for that as well.
It's extremely improbable that a random critique of Thiel led to one of the many many many companies he invests in banning this guy. It's not impossible, but - Occam's razor, it's not the simplest assumption.
Your initial post suggested that we should assume that there is a link; now you're backing up to "Thiel takes some blame from bad actions by companies he invests in," which is a much weaker but more defensible claim.
Was I the one to shift the conversation into "incompetence" or did someone else do that thinking it absolves Thiel of any blame? Which I've proven it doesn't and you just agreed with me that it doesn't?
We can go back to my original claim if you want to, but my stance would remain the same as it did it in my first comment: if on one side of the argument we have a company directly funded by Thiel and on the other side we have literally anyone else, I personally don't need any strong evidence to believe that other side, as I am well-familiar with Thiel.
That is the only business model of neobanks: be more incompetent than traditional banks, skirt the laws as much as you can get away with by being "new", raise prices through the roof once you have enough suckers because you have "better UX", raise the prices even further once traditional banks catch up and convince a certain percentage of your users to switch back, shut down entirely once you've burned through the market and cannot convince anyone new to use you.
Only weakly, and closer to "all boeing shareholders are to blame for the accidents associated with the 737 MAX" than what was originally claimed, which was that he was specifically banned as some sort of retribution for his criticism of Thiel.
I don't think it's fair to blame an investor who's not the founder and has no executive/managerial control of a company for what that company does. Do you have a retirement account that invests in the S&P 500? Should you be responsible for the decisions all of the companies in it make?
It raises the odds I suppose, but through what mechanism would something like this even work? Like, the story would have to be:
* Peter Thiel, a man who does not speak French, discovers that a French streamer is saying mean things about Palantir. Lots of people say mean things about Palantir, since they do so many bad things, but this particular criticism is just so cutting Thiel feels he has to do something about it.
* He searches through every investment he's ever made, singling out all the French ones, and sends their executive teams an email saying that this one specific French guy sucks and they shouldn't do business with him.
* The executive team at Qonto, a profitable company with 600,000 customers and almost €500M in annual revenue, receives the message and decides that they'd like to help one of their dozens of investors with his personal revenge campaign.
It's not 100% impossible, but it's so implausible I don't think it's reasonable to believe based on a coincidence.
It's kind of wild to not consider that Peter Thiel pays a business to monitor mentions of him online. This is a very common thing in industry. Thiel is well known for being extremely thin skinned. He's also funded surveillance tech businesses. It's very unlikely Peter spends his time looking for internet references, but that someone he pays does so. From everything the public knows about him, he's absolutely someone who compiles and reviews lists of "enemies".
As for speaking French, it's trivial to translate languages.
The evidence that a company is profitable or large has zero relation to it's decisions around dropping a customer?
You've created a strawman of suppositions that are not accurate, and then casually blow away the strawman.
It seems even more implausible that a reputation monitoring business would raise a random French streamer's criticism of Palantir to Peter Thiel's attention. How could they possibly think that's worthy of his time? Here, let me try something:
-----------
I don't like Palantir, and I don't like Peter Thiel because of his role in creating it. It's a bad company that does bad things. I won't work for Palantir, it's shameful that anyone does work for Palantir, and the world would be much improved if Palantir went bankrupt tomorrow.
-----------
I'll come back and admit defeat if I get booted off of Thiel-funded technology platforms in a few days, but I know and I strongly suspect you know that's not going to happen.
Right, but if you could do it using a meaningless portion of your wealth, and it didn’t morally bother you, why not silence all criticism of you? Once you hire the people, it should run itself like any traditional PR firm.
Through what mechanism would a PR firm that you hired to monitor online sentiment convince a French bank to close someone's accounts for criticizing your companies? Who at the PR firm has the power to reach decisionmakers at the bank, and what would they say?
>It seems even more implausible that a reputation monitoring business would raise a random French streamer's criticism of Palantir to Peter Thiel's attention.
It's "more implausible" to you that a company who's job it is to monitor online sentiment about a particular company would be able to identify negative sentiment? So your argument is that these online monitoring businesses do not offer a real product?
> I'll come back and admit defeat if I get booted off of Thiel-funded technology platforms in a few days, but I know and I strongly suspect you know that's not going to happen.
Could you look up what a strawman is, and stop using them in your arguments?
Yeah, even with the usual guidance around editorializing headlines and the inherent difficulty in trying to summarize a tweet into a headline-sized snippet, it's worth noting that the title on this comment thread itself doesn't even directly claim any connection. Someone could just as easily state "French streamer Unbanked by Qonoto after eating a salami and cheese sandwich", and if that's what they ate for lunch the day before, it would be equally accurate but unlikely to be considered noteworthy.
"Not believing in coincidences" is a standard canned quip, a meme of sorts, for just about any internet conspiracy nut, used selectively to defend their baseless theories but not actually a principle they apply literally to everything (unless they have profound schizophrenia I guess.)
I think you're making too much out of it. "I don't believe i n coincidences" is just a dismissive way to say "I don't think THIS is a coincidence." It's not meant to be taken literally.
If banks have to insert themselves into every transaction (cash is banned for larger transactions), then it follows that debanking should be viewed as a legal instrument of punishment, and should only be allowed following a violation of the law, and subject to the usual due process like fines or prison sentences. Anything else is a significant infringement on personal freedom.
Also, "freezing" the funds without a court judgement or the opportunity of retrieving them is effectively theft. If you didn't pay the parking fees on my property for a couple days, it's not legal for me to just boot or chain it or hide it somewhere (at least in the US), and I think the same should go here.
There are now quite a few cases in Europe where the EU or local govs been de-banking individuals. No court, no judge needed. Much more efficient way to shut down critics. We ain't need no people who delegitimize those in power.
Can we have a link? In France, at most you can get your account restricted (can't go into deficit and a sum is blocked) until the issue is resolved (99% because of unpaid taxes, sometimes the money is blocked by a judge until a judgement is passed). It's weird if the EU don't have a standard.
Look at what happened to Jacques Baud because he criticized the EU on the Ukranian war and is now considered a "pro-russia" and propagating "disinformation". [1]
I read what he wrote ("L’art de la guerre russe, comment l’Occident a conduit l’Ukraine à l’échec"), you can download it temporarily here : [2].
His book is absolutely not pro-russia nor pro-EU.
Yes, exactly. French citizens have an inalienable right to a checking account, enforced by French government. I don't remember the exact law, but I know someone who was 'interdit bancaire' (took too much revolving credits in the 90s) and the local bank _had_ to let him open a new account (a very limited one).
The only debanking cases I've been aware of were the US putting pressure on judges from the International Court and a special appointee of the UN for Palestine.
>It seems pretty in character and it's not like there is another more plausible reason being offered.
In character of what, that Thiel is a mustache twirling villain? Did other companies backed by him have a history of banning his critics?
>It seems pretty in character and it's not like there is another more plausible reason being offered.
By his own admission, neobanks have a history of banning clients arbitrarily without recourse. My guess it's run of the mill incompetence, not oppressing Thiel's critics.
Gawker was a well known website with 23 million visit per month, and a Wikipedia page. This guy has 44k subscribers and no Wikipedia page. It's a stretch to go from "Thiel had a vendetta against Gawker" to "Thiel had a vendetta against this guy".
I mean it's pretty common these days to see that billionaires can be thin skinned little twerps that hold a vendetta. Elon Musk is the biggest example of one that shows up and talks shit when someone tries to hurt his feefees.
Now, if you're powerful but not quite as dumb as Elon can be socially, you're not going to do the work yourself. You'll have a social media management team that takes care of the work for you.
I'd like to point out that Qonto is a business bank. Not open to consumers. They also have a list of prohibited activities: (https://legal.qonto.com/en#template-uoa8xux5p) which, funnily enough, include "Hunting, trapping and related service activities", "mining nonrenewable natural re-sources" and "accessibility diagnosis" (??).
Consumer protection laws obviously don't apply to businesses, and banks close business accounts all the time for not following the terms of services. That sounds like a MUCH more probably cause than "I said mean things about Palantir".
> They are lying to you. They keep repeating that "it's your money". It's false. It’s only a temporary access right that the system can take away from you with one click.
> I dared to criticize Palantir. A few days later, @getqonto
deactivated my card, closed my account and blocked my funds. Without a word. I was erased, and I don’t believe in coincidences.
> When a "French unicorn" is funded by Peter Thiel’s millions, freedom of speech becomes a risk. Who really holds the switch to your life?
In my country (Italy) Visione TV had bank account frozen for putting on a webtv a Journalist that lived in DonBass during 2014-2018 period speking about local people killed by Ucranians.The decision came from Massimiliano Coccia, husband of Pina Picierno ( member of the European Parliament), this append also to Frédéric Baldan and a lot of other people every day, so I'dont wonder it its true.
Visione TV is a mouthpiece of the Russian propaganda machine. The account being frozen was most likely the bank doing its due diligence due to the sanctions on Russia.
Like everyone else, I am very skeptical that it is somehow related, for several reasons.
- He is just a small time streamer, I didn't watch his videos but it looks like typical clickbait content playing on people's paranoia. Why would Palantir care about it?
- I didn't watch the videos in question, but I suppose that he says that Palentir is evil because it is used by police forces to attack poor migrants, that kind of thing. Not only he is saying what everyone is saying, but it may be good advertising for Palantir, as it shows that they are good at their (evil) job.
- Streisand effect, I am sure that even the idiots at Palantir know that it may not be a good idea to give attention to a streamer who annoys them.
- Speaking of attention, it is highly likely that the streamer in question was unbanked for a completely unrelated reason but saw the opportunity to make buzz, and it seems to be working!
- There seem to be no further evidence connecting the two.
> I am sure that even the idiots at Palantir know that it may not be a good idea to give attention to a streamer who annoys them.
Thiel has proved that he can hold a grudge. After Gawker outed him, he spent years shopping for anyone who could sue them, and found his guy in Hulk Hogan. He financed the lawsuit that led to Gawker Media's bankruptcy and closure.
>Thiel has proved that he can hold a grudge. After Gawker outed him, [...]
That might be true, but it's a stretch to go from this to "Thiel had a grudge for this specific streamer and was responsible for him getting banned". For one, Gawker has orders of magnitude more visibility than this guy.
> For one, Gawker has orders of magnitude more visibility than this guy.
Which suggests Thiel doesn't care about the Streisand effect.
Oh he does. But he uses the Streisand effect to his benefit to sell his product. Maybe you could argue it is not the Streisand effect if you want exposure by quenching stuff, though?
Gawker probably deserved it, and at one point during deposition said they'd publish a celebrity sex tape of a four year old if they felt like it.
This can be very frustrating when it's a false positive, but these 'neobanks' have a tendency to be very "trigger happy" and quickly close accounts whenever they have a reason to think there is fraud involved. And there's a lot of automation involved of course.
When that happens, they won't tell you the reason of course, because that would help fraudsters improve their fraud skills.
There is no reason to believe this bank actually have humans who are aware of this customer's Twitter handle, and who read it, and didn't like what they saw.
TLDR; this is obvious BS.
Or it could be because this guy was part of the DGSI before getting caught for selling informations on the darknet recently https://france3-regions.franceinfo.fr/provence-alpes-cote-d-...
Zero indication that these things are related in any way.
The streamer is a self-admitted basket case who does not “believe in coincidences”. As far as weird internet belief systems go, this one seems even a bit weirder than people who refuse to believe in a somewhat spherical earth.
What indication would there be that the two are related? Do you expect them to write an email specifically stating that was the reason?
For what it's worth, that neobank received funding from his company, which definitely raises the odds of the two being related.
>What indication would there be that the two are related? Do you expect them to write an email specifically stating that was the reason?
I'd want to see a pattern of multiple critics being banned. In the same video he admits that neobanks have a history of banning clients arbitrarily for seemingly no reason. Just a few months ago there was a story of someone being banned from wise for seemingly dumb reasons made it to the front page[1], so it's certainly possible for people to get banned because of pure incompetence. Therefore you'd expect a base rate of Palantir/Thiel critics banned from pure coincidence alone.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45766253
>For what it's worth, that neobank received funding from his company, which definitely raises the odds of the two being related.
Right, just like you can come up with some spurious relationships from people being banned from wise, like the CEO hating pineapple on pizza (example, no idea whether he actually does) and the person being banned liking pineapple on pizza.
> I'd want to see a pattern of multiple critics being banned.
So it's cool if one person gets deplatformed, as long as it's not a pattern? Odd choice if you ask me.
Personally if one side is financially backed by someone as insane as Thiel, I tend to need very little evidence from the other side to believe it.
For what it's worth Wise was also funded by Thiel, so he'd be somewhat to blame (not fully, of course) for that incompetence as well.
> So it's cool if one person gets deplatformed, as long as it's not a pattern? Odd choice if you ask me.
No, it's not cool even if it's just one person. The point is that you should absolutely be upset at the bank for arbitrarily banning someone for no reason, but not at Peter Thiel or Palantir, since it being just one non-high-profile critic means there's no good reason to think they had anything to do with it.
>The point is that you should absolutely be upset at the bank for arbitrarily banning someone for no reason
Why? It’s the regulators who are to blame for that, not the bank.
Let me re-iterate this one more time: he invested in Qonto, he invested in Wise. Therefore, whether the actual reason is incompetence or a personal vendetta or both, he deserves some of the blame. He is the one that funded them. He is the reason they exist, as (in)competent as they are.
Shifting the blame to "incompetence" does not absolve him of any guilt, he is equally to blame for that as well.
It's extremely improbable that a random critique of Thiel led to one of the many many many companies he invests in banning this guy. It's not impossible, but - Occam's razor, it's not the simplest assumption.
Your initial post suggested that we should assume that there is a link; now you're backing up to "Thiel takes some blame from bad actions by companies he invests in," which is a much weaker but more defensible claim.
Was I the one to shift the conversation into "incompetence" or did someone else do that thinking it absolves Thiel of any blame? Which I've proven it doesn't and you just agreed with me that it doesn't?
We can go back to my original claim if you want to, but my stance would remain the same as it did it in my first comment: if on one side of the argument we have a company directly funded by Thiel and on the other side we have literally anyone else, I personally don't need any strong evidence to believe that other side, as I am well-familiar with Thiel.
>Was I the one to shift the conversation into "incompetence" or did someone else do that thinking it absolves Thiel of any blame?
If you're talking about my comment, you must be mistaken because "incompetence" almost by definition is blameworthy.
Cool, Thiel is still to blame.
That is the only business model of neobanks: be more incompetent than traditional banks, skirt the laws as much as you can get away with by being "new", raise prices through the roof once you have enough suckers because you have "better UX", raise the prices even further once traditional banks catch up and convince a certain percentage of your users to switch back, shut down entirely once you've burned through the market and cannot convince anyone new to use you.
>Cool, Thiel is still to blame.
Only weakly, and closer to "all boeing shareholders are to blame for the accidents associated with the 737 MAX" than what was originally claimed, which was that he was specifically banned as some sort of retribution for his criticism of Thiel.
I don't think it's fair to blame an investor who's not the founder and has no executive/managerial control of a company for what that company does. Do you have a retirement account that invests in the S&P 500? Should you be responsible for the decisions all of the companies in it make?
First, we would need to understand if he was actually de-banked.
Then, we would need to understand what his actual criticism was. Have other people made similar criticisms and faced de-banking?
Then, we would need to understand his other activities, and whether they could have led to a de-banking (if he was in fact de-banked).
It raises the odds I suppose, but through what mechanism would something like this even work? Like, the story would have to be:
* Peter Thiel, a man who does not speak French, discovers that a French streamer is saying mean things about Palantir. Lots of people say mean things about Palantir, since they do so many bad things, but this particular criticism is just so cutting Thiel feels he has to do something about it.
* He searches through every investment he's ever made, singling out all the French ones, and sends their executive teams an email saying that this one specific French guy sucks and they shouldn't do business with him.
* The executive team at Qonto, a profitable company with 600,000 customers and almost €500M in annual revenue, receives the message and decides that they'd like to help one of their dozens of investors with his personal revenge campaign.
It's not 100% impossible, but it's so implausible I don't think it's reasonable to believe based on a coincidence.
It's kind of wild to not consider that Peter Thiel pays a business to monitor mentions of him online. This is a very common thing in industry. Thiel is well known for being extremely thin skinned. He's also funded surveillance tech businesses. It's very unlikely Peter spends his time looking for internet references, but that someone he pays does so. From everything the public knows about him, he's absolutely someone who compiles and reviews lists of "enemies".
As for speaking French, it's trivial to translate languages.
The evidence that a company is profitable or large has zero relation to it's decisions around dropping a customer?
You've created a strawman of suppositions that are not accurate, and then casually blow away the strawman.
It seems even more implausible that a reputation monitoring business would raise a random French streamer's criticism of Palantir to Peter Thiel's attention. How could they possibly think that's worthy of his time? Here, let me try something:
-----------
I don't like Palantir, and I don't like Peter Thiel because of his role in creating it. It's a bad company that does bad things. I won't work for Palantir, it's shameful that anyone does work for Palantir, and the world would be much improved if Palantir went bankrupt tomorrow.
-----------
I'll come back and admit defeat if I get booted off of Thiel-funded technology platforms in a few days, but I know and I strongly suspect you know that's not going to happen.
Right, but if you could do it using a meaningless portion of your wealth, and it didn’t morally bother you, why not silence all criticism of you? Once you hire the people, it should run itself like any traditional PR firm.
Through what mechanism would a PR firm that you hired to monitor online sentiment convince a French bank to close someone's accounts for criticizing your companies? Who at the PR firm has the power to reach decisionmakers at the bank, and what would they say?
>It seems even more implausible that a reputation monitoring business would raise a random French streamer's criticism of Palantir to Peter Thiel's attention.
It's "more implausible" to you that a company who's job it is to monitor online sentiment about a particular company would be able to identify negative sentiment? So your argument is that these online monitoring businesses do not offer a real product?
> I'll come back and admit defeat if I get booted off of Thiel-funded technology platforms in a few days, but I know and I strongly suspect you know that's not going to happen.
Could you look up what a strawman is, and stop using them in your arguments?
Yeah, even with the usual guidance around editorializing headlines and the inherent difficulty in trying to summarize a tweet into a headline-sized snippet, it's worth noting that the title on this comment thread itself doesn't even directly claim any connection. Someone could just as easily state "French streamer Unbanked by Qonoto after eating a salami and cheese sandwich", and if that's what they ate for lunch the day before, it would be equally accurate but unlikely to be considered noteworthy.
"Not believing in coincidences" is a standard canned quip, a meme of sorts, for just about any internet conspiracy nut, used selectively to defend their baseless theories but not actually a principle they apply literally to everything (unless they have profound schizophrenia I guess.)
I know, but it’s useful to point this out. “I’m batshit crazy” is hardly a sound basis for an argument.
I think you're making too much out of it. "I don't believe i n coincidences" is just a dismissive way to say "I don't think THIS is a coincidence." It's not meant to be taken literally.
I wish more countries had an equivalent to https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/08/12/2025-15... that would make what's being described here illegal.
That can not be actually what happened is it? That would be insane.
It should be against the law to privately retaliate like this.
If banks have to insert themselves into every transaction (cash is banned for larger transactions), then it follows that debanking should be viewed as a legal instrument of punishment, and should only be allowed following a violation of the law, and subject to the usual due process like fines or prison sentences. Anything else is a significant infringement on personal freedom.
Also, "freezing" the funds without a court judgement or the opportunity of retrieving them is effectively theft. If you didn't pay the parking fees on my property for a couple days, it's not legal for me to just boot or chain it or hide it somewhere (at least in the US), and I think the same should go here.
There are now quite a few cases in Europe where the EU or local govs been de-banking individuals. No court, no judge needed. Much more efficient way to shut down critics. We ain't need no people who delegitimize those in power.
Can we have a link? In France, at most you can get your account restricted (can't go into deficit and a sum is blocked) until the issue is resolved (99% because of unpaid taxes, sometimes the money is blocked by a judge until a judgement is passed). It's weird if the EU don't have a standard.
Look at what happened to Jacques Baud because he criticized the EU on the Ukranian war and is now considered a "pro-russia" and propagating "disinformation". [1]
I read what he wrote ("L’art de la guerre russe, comment l’Occident a conduit l’Ukraine à l’échec"), you can download it temporarily here : [2]. His book is absolutely not pro-russia nor pro-EU.
[1] https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/various/former-swiss-intelligen...
[2] https://www.swisstransfer.com/d/0117e2b4-8e70-4343-8097-7bfe...
The guy has a "Conspiracy theory and disinformation" section in his wikipedia page, that mentions 9/11.
Come on. That's your "totally not pro-russia" example ?
So being pro Russia justifies de-banking?
Qonto is French and so is the commenter on Twitter.
What you are saying is not correct; perhaps you are confusing it with the right to an account?
https://www.banque-france.fr/fr/a-votre-service/particuliers...
Yes, exactly. French citizens have an inalienable right to a checking account, enforced by French government. I don't remember the exact law, but I know someone who was 'interdit bancaire' (took too much revolving credits in the 90s) and the local bank _had_ to let him open a new account (a very limited one).
This sounds like bullshit.
The only debanking cases I've been aware of were the US putting pressure on judges from the International Court and a special appointee of the UN for Palestine.
Yes, as the comments point out, he has 11 K followers and this is most likely a coincidence
I was about to agree with you until i noticed that the bank was backed by peter thiel.
It seems pretty in character and it's not like there is another more plausible reason being offered.
>It seems pretty in character and it's not like there is another more plausible reason being offered.
In character of what, that Thiel is a mustache twirling villain? Did other companies backed by him have a history of banning his critics?
>It seems pretty in character and it's not like there is another more plausible reason being offered.
By his own admission, neobanks have a history of banning clients arbitrarily without recourse. My guess it's run of the mill incompetence, not oppressing Thiel's critics.
Well, he destroyed Gawker. Not that I think they were good people. But it was definitely a personal vendetta.
Gawker was a well known website with 23 million visit per month, and a Wikipedia page. This guy has 44k subscribers and no Wikipedia page. It's a stretch to go from "Thiel had a vendetta against Gawker" to "Thiel had a vendetta against this guy".
By contrast this involved flipping a switch. It was extremely easy.
If that were true you'd see much more people getting banned than one streamer with 44k subs.
You seem to be assuming that this is a large bank.
> neobanks have a history of banning clients arbitrarily without recourse.
Not just neobanks, sadly. Even old-fashioned banks like Chase do so with alarming regularity.
> In character of what, that Thiel is a mustache twirling villain?
I just did a ctrl-F on this page and nowhere was the word "Paypal" included. So I'm including it.
> In character of what, that Thiel is a mustache twirling villain?
I mean, yes? You don't amass billions of dollars with subtlety?
[1] https://www.inc.com/jeff-bercovici/peter-thiel-young-blood.h...
[2] https://theintercept.com/2017/02/22/how-peter-thiels-palanti...
(not that I think TFA here is very likely to be true)
> In character of what, that Thiel is a mustache twirling villain?
Yes, Peter Theil is a mustache twirling villain, I thought this was common knowledge?
> In character of what, that Thiel is a mustache twirling villain?
Well, yes, exactly. Sorry it's that simple & unsatisfying but it absolutely is.
>hat Thiel is a mustache twirling villain?
I mean it's pretty common these days to see that billionaires can be thin skinned little twerps that hold a vendetta. Elon Musk is the biggest example of one that shows up and talks shit when someone tries to hurt his feefees.
Now, if you're powerful but not quite as dumb as Elon can be socially, you're not going to do the work yourself. You'll have a social media management team that takes care of the work for you.
I'd like to point out that Qonto is a business bank. Not open to consumers. They also have a list of prohibited activities: (https://legal.qonto.com/en#template-uoa8xux5p) which, funnily enough, include "Hunting, trapping and related service activities", "mining nonrenewable natural re-sources" and "accessibility diagnosis" (??).
Consumer protection laws obviously don't apply to businesses, and banks close business accounts all the time for not following the terms of services. That sounds like a MUCH more probably cause than "I said mean things about Palantir".
https://xcancel.com/Ced_haurus/status/2018716889191498172
Since it's in French, here's the translation:
> They are lying to you. They keep repeating that "it's your money". It's false. It’s only a temporary access right that the system can take away from you with one click.
> I dared to criticize Palantir. A few days later, @getqonto deactivated my card, closed my account and blocked my funds. Without a word. I was erased, and I don’t believe in coincidences.
> When a "French unicorn" is funded by Peter Thiel’s millions, freedom of speech becomes a risk. Who really holds the switch to your life?
Thanks to all the "I don't care because I have nothing to hide." guys.
I don't care because this guy's imagining (or lying about) the reason why his account was closed is obviously fake.
This is an exceedingly common way to lie.
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_fallacy
In my country (Italy) Visione TV had bank account frozen for putting on a webtv a Journalist that lived in DonBass during 2014-2018 period speking about local people killed by Ucranians.The decision came from Massimiliano Coccia, husband of Pina Picierno ( member of the European Parliament), this append also to Frédéric Baldan and a lot of other people every day, so I'dont wonder it its true.
Was it for what you say, or was it for transactions with sanctioned individuals in Russia that paid for the propaganda?
Visione TV is a mouthpiece of the Russian propaganda machine. The account being frozen was most likely the bank doing its due diligence due to the sanctions on Russia.