I don't care who backs it as long as the bill will close the abuse we're currently sitting through. And please elaborate on what about the writing you think isn't as hopeful as it seems.

it permits declaring something as "abusive" to retroactively making the bill apply to it. Which is to say, if in the future trans media is declared "abusive", the bill applies anyways

Basically it says that if you don't break the law, you shouldn't be subject to payment interference, which is a dog whistle meaning like, preventing banks from refusing loans to nazis. And notably the GOP is making every attempt to illegalize LGBT stuff, which would mean it would't be protected here

Some screenshots i took before that touched on that point.

Um, correct me if I’m wrong here. But if a transaction is deemed illegal already, your bank already blocks it, see fraud blocks. This seems like a positive bill. And yes if the other things are made illegal that’s a separate law to worry about and protest.

No, this is a horrible libertarian bill that will just make it easier to do evil under the definition of law

Fair access to banking bill will benefit the daily sturmer, not smut creators/consumers

Can you explain to me how? Cuz I hear you that it’s republican so it mustnt be all good, but I see a benefit in it

Let's consult the bill's author for that. This really sucks. www.cramer.senate.gov/news/press-r...

I see that yes it can also be used for coal and certain industries. But I see nothing wrong with the essence of that bill. Sometimes good bills will also do good things to bad industries because we can’t discriminate against them

I promise you these are the same people who are seeking to expand obscenity laws. If this passes it won't have any cultural benefit

Don't forget the increased censorship in the US on LGBTQ+ content in libraries, etc across several states; If they can get away with book bans without consequence, they can get away with this bill followed up down the line with sweeping restrictions on queer content; it's all testing the waters

Agreed, it could be used for negative things. But then you protest the criminalization of LGBTQ and NSFW content. Not the enshrining of consumer protections.

Looks like I'm going to sleep depressed tonight 🙏 I've got to look things over more thoroughly when I'm not dead tired. There's got to be a bright side or silver lining. I refuse to be all doom and gloom over this.

This bill is the very definition of "removing safeguards under the guise of helping the consumer using wording that looks like it's actually adding something", please become more literate or less willing to interject an uninformed opinion