> telling a bank they need to keep dealing with customers that cost them tons of money and are actively trying to defraud them (and other customers) seems awfully harsh.

So, the legal system? The only reason regulated banks should be able to deplatform someone is if they also have a legally actionable case, and they do legally action it, and the person is found guilty.

In the USA, all of the large banks are part of the Federal Reserve System and the FFIC insures all accounts up to a certain amount. I would say this nullifies their claim to refuse the public as a largely publicly funded institution… the government, however, doesn’t care about the hoi polloi so this situation isn’t likely to ever change.

Postal banking could be an option, but otherwise, the federal government seems to not want to deal with the customer service involved in running a banking operation.

It would probably be more reasonable to make some sort of tightly regulated basic bank account that banks would be required to offer in some situations.

Nobody would be happy, but hold all deposits for a long period, so that they fully clear. Possibly restrict the sources of funds; maybe a basic bank account can only accept payroll and government deposits, maybe a limit of N unique payers per unit time. Etc. Social security and state benefit programs have specialized accounts for people without other bank accounts, because it works better than sending checks in the mail, maybe one of those programs could be slightly more generalized.

Allow a bank to refuse to service an otherwise qualifying basic banking customer only if the bank goes through a court process and/or is accompanied by actual criminal charges filed.

>> I think the government should provide a basic bank account to anyone who wants one though.

Absolutely agree. Holding and transferring money should be a basic human right.