3 ms·

The processors that allow "high risk" payments do charge a higher fee. I wouldn't call it "slightly higher" though, it was prohibitively expensive for the servi

by corobo 9y ago

The processors that allow "high risk" payments do charge a higher fee. I wouldn't call it "slightly higher" though, it was prohibitively expensive for the service I was trying to set up. In a sister thread on this subject on Reddit someone suggested using Bitcoin as an alternative, which I somewhat regret not considering at the time. To clarify also it's not my reasoning. Adult content is referenced in the Terms of Service for all payment processors, whether they allow it or not. See Stripe for an example[1] [1] https://stripe.com/gb/prohibited-businesses#ip-infringement-regulated-or-illegal-products-and-services https://stripe.com/gb/prohibited-businesses#ip-infringement-...

Certhas 9y ago
I understand, I simply don't believe that this is a rational decision due to risk assessment. I believe that that is just an excuse. Or rather, that a high amount of the risk involved is not due to customer behaviour, but due to potential pressure from self appointed guardians of morality. As part of this discussion elsewhere people were linking again to an old engadget article about these practices, which in turn linked to this court opinion, which is well worth reading: http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2015/D11-30/C:15-3047:J:Posner:aut:T:fnOp:N:1663542:S:0 http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Disp... Here is the engadget article: https://www.engadget.com/2015/12/02/paypal-square-and-big-bankings-war-on-the-sex-industry/ https://www.engadget.com/2015/12/02/paypal-square-and-big-ba... I think strong regulations, something like: Visa/Stripe/PayPal/Amazon have to service every business that is not illegal, would also help these companies against such "moral guardianship". They don't have to look like they are defending the rights of perverts to their other customers.

by corobo 9y ago

Certhas 9y ago

I understand, I simply don't believe that this is a rational decision due to risk assessment. I believe that that is just an excuse. Or rather, that a high amount of the risk involved is not due to customer behaviour, but due to potential pressure from self appointed guardians of morality. As part of this discussion elsewhere people were linking again to an old engadget article about these practices, which in turn linked to this court opinion, which is well worth reading: http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2015/D11-30/C:15-3047:J:Posner:aut:T:fnOp:N:1663542:S:0 http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Disp... Here is the engadget article: https://www.engadget.com/2015/12/02/paypal-square-and-big-bankings-war-on-the-sex-industry/ https://www.engadget.com/2015/12/02/paypal-square-and-big-ba... I think strong regulations, something like: Visa/Stripe/PayPal/Amazon have to service every business that is not illegal, would also help these companies against such "moral guardianship". They don't have to look like they are defending the rights of perverts to their other customers.