> any form of "political debanking" — where financial services are withdrawn or denied based on political beliefs or expression is completely unacceptable
RTFA. He goes into great detail around how someone naive can conclude they were disconnected based on political beliefs when in reality it's something mundane or stupid. Misdiagnosing the problem as political debanking entrenches the problem.
We have a problem with access to financial services, particularly for small businesses. But it won't be solved (except for crypto) if it's branded as political debanking.
> not a coincidence that the mundane or stupid reasons happen overwhelmingly more often to people with the wrong political beliefs
RTFA. It doesn't. The author opens with examples where it happened to him. He shows that debanking is disturbingly common in America, with the communication and knowledge around it badly distributed.
Mischaracterising it as an attack on political beliefs plays into the ignorance that gave rise to the problem in the first place.
> The author opens with examples where it happened to him. He shows that debanking is disturbingly common in America
As another post said, it's interesting how he's able to have that experience and simultaneously believe that "This will affect the typical user of the financial system precisely zero times during their lives." (But I don't think he does have the "right" political beliefs, not all of them).
