6 ms·

This is vastly disturbing. Surely there is a gap in the market here for a payment processor that doesn't do shit like this? Are there any startups in this area?

This is vastly disturbing. Surely there is a gap in the market here for a payment processor that doesn't do shit like this? Are there any startups in this area? Or is this just an inevitable result of working with money (having to be very careful to avoid scammers/criminals)? I really can't believe that's the case though. As @dexen said, perhaps there should be some provisions put in place to disincentivise current processors at least. Perhaps bitcoin has a role to play to avoid such situations, Or would we just have the same problems over again? Perhaps somebody more knowledgeable than I could comment.

pilif 15y ago
> This is vastly disturbing. Surely there is a gap in the market here for a payment processor that doesn't do shit like this? While I agree that there is probably a market for a payment processor that doesn't punish TOS violations, I really doubt that's a market anybody would want to play in. Google's TOS disallow the use of the word "donation" unless you are a non-profit organization. And "donation" is precisely the term used. For every "benign" TOS violation, I'm sure there must be hundreds of malicious ones trying to scam google or consumers out of their money. Not making exceptions at least is fair and users know exactly where they stand. Still. I think Google should maybe a) warn users before just banning them (though even this might lead to people trying to game the system) b) hand out the money either back to the buyers or to the just banned seller (after manual investigation which might be what Google doesn't want to do) c) maybe provide an appeal process, though, again, this might lead to people gaming that.
- singular 15y ago
  It's the 'frozen without explanation' aspect I don't like. I didn't realise that this was a legitimate ToS violation, but agreed, they should have at least warned them first. I suspect that evil people ruin it for everyone, money is just too tempting for people with 'flexible morality'. EDIT: But still, these providers should do better, regardless.
  - jws 15y ago
    When google puts robots in charge of enforcing policy without a mechansims for the affected humans to request human oversight, that is the very definition of dehumanizing. I wonder if you could sell hand crafted, polished oak, donation boxes with google checkout and not be attacked by their robots.
- fragmede 15y ago
  d) Make the restriction on the word 'donation' more explicit and obvious.
eitland 15y ago
Bitcoin _can_ solve this problem because it is totally distributed and doesn't depend on traditional banks which means transferring value directly between individuals and organization becomes much simpler.
- dexen 15y ago
  Currency (at least metal coins) was, at first, distributed and did not depend on banks for transfer. Banks came about later on, as an additional help in some business and private money handling. Currently banks are pretty much necessary for two reasons: network effect -- everybody has bank account and expects you to interface with it, and better loan rates -- banks can give loans at lower percent than small time lenders, thanks to pooling of risk and economies of scale of processing. It is expected some Bitcoin users (be it private or institutional) will become quite bank-alike in some future (as per various posts on blogs and HN in discussions of Bitcoin). In short, Bitcoin doesn't remove banks -- neither need for them, nor ability to operate them. They just haven't moved into this space yet. EDIT: first episode of ``The Ascent of Money'' [1], `Dreams of avarice', explains how banking, as we know it, came to be. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_ascent_of_money http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_ascent_of_money
  - HelloBeautiful 15y ago
    >> Bitcoin doesn't remove banks Yes, it does in this case. One can receive money electronically through Bitcoin, without account with a bank, PayPal or Google.
    - cube13 15y ago
      Which is the same as mailing cash. It's possible to do that without a bank as well. Since the Bitcoin protocol allows third-parties to hold user's wallets, it's entirely possible to create a bank. In fact, the protocol seems to encourage the aggregation of wallets.
      - HelloBeautiful 15y ago
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
citricsquid 15y ago
the reason it hasn't happened is because money is hard to deal with.
- joelhaus 15y ago
  Yup, Econtalk did a recent podcast on bitcoin which is a great intro for anyone interested. The discussion on HN: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2011/04/andresen_on_bit.html http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2011/04/andresen_on_bit.htm...
cyberguppy 15y ago
I wonder what would have happened if Indie Stone was using Amazon Payments here? They seem to have better customer service and it seems more clear to me how to differentiate commercial from non-profit transactions https://payments.amazon.com/sdui/sdui/helpTab/Amazon-Simple-Pay/Integrating-with-Amazon-Simple-Pay/Requirements-for-Raising-Donations https://payments.amazon.com/sdui/sdui/helpTab/Amazon-Simple-...

pilif 15y ago

> This is vastly disturbing. Surely there is a gap in the market here for a payment processor that doesn't do shit like this? While I agree that there is probably a market for a payment processor that doesn't punish TOS violations, I really doubt that's a market anybody would want to play in. Google's TOS disallow the use of the word "donation" unless you are a non-profit organization. And "donation" is precisely the term used. For every "benign" TOS violation, I'm sure there must be hundreds of malicious ones trying to scam google or consumers out of their money. Not making exceptions at least is fair and users know exactly where they stand. Still. I think Google should maybe a) warn users before just banning them (though even this might lead to people trying to game the system) b) hand out the money either back to the buyers or to the just banned seller (after manual investigation which might be what Google doesn't want to do) c) maybe provide an appeal process, though, again, this might lead to people gaming that.

singular 15y ago
It's the 'frozen without explanation' aspect I don't like. I didn't realise that this was a legitimate ToS violation, but agreed, they should have at least warned them first. I suspect that evil people ruin it for everyone, money is just too tempting for people with 'flexible morality'. EDIT: But still, these providers should do better, regardless.
- jws 15y ago
  When google puts robots in charge of enforcing policy without a mechansims for the affected humans to request human oversight, that is the very definition of dehumanizing. I wonder if you could sell hand crafted, polished oak, donation boxes with google checkout and not be attacked by their robots.
fragmede 15y ago
d) Make the restriction on the word 'donation' more explicit and obvious.

eitland 15y ago

Bitcoin _can_ solve this problem because it is totally distributed and doesn't depend on traditional banks which means transferring value directly between individuals and organization becomes much simpler.

dexen 15y ago
Currency (at least metal coins) was, at first, distributed and did not depend on banks for transfer. Banks came about later on, as an additional help in some business and private money handling. Currently banks are pretty much necessary for two reasons: network effect -- everybody has bank account and expects you to interface with it, and better loan rates -- banks can give loans at lower percent than small time lenders, thanks to pooling of risk and economies of scale of processing. It is expected some Bitcoin users (be it private or institutional) will become quite bank-alike in some future (as per various posts on blogs and HN in discussions of Bitcoin). In short, Bitcoin doesn't remove banks -- neither need for them, nor ability to operate them. They just haven't moved into this space yet. EDIT: first episode of ``The Ascent of Money'' [1], `Dreams of avarice', explains how banking, as we know it, came to be. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_ascent_of_money http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_ascent_of_money
- HelloBeautiful 15y ago
  >> Bitcoin doesn't remove banks Yes, it does in this case. One can receive money electronically through Bitcoin, without account with a bank, PayPal or Google.
  - cube13 15y ago
    Which is the same as mailing cash. It's possible to do that without a bank as well. Since the Bitcoin protocol allows third-parties to hold user's wallets, it's entirely possible to create a bank. In fact, the protocol seems to encourage the aggregation of wallets.
    - HelloBeautiful 15y ago

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

citricsquid 15y ago

the reason it hasn't happened is because money is hard to deal with.

joelhaus 15y ago
Yup, Econtalk did a recent podcast on bitcoin which is a great intro for anyone interested. The discussion on HN: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2011/04/andresen_on_bit.html http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2011/04/andresen_on_bit.htm...

cyberguppy 15y ago

I wonder what would have happened if Indie Stone was using Amazon Payments here? They seem to have better customer service and it seems more clear to me how to differentiate commercial from non-profit transactions https://payments.amazon.com/sdui/sdui/helpTab/Amazon-Simple-Pay/Integrating-with-Amazon-Simple-Pay/Requirements-for-Raising-Donations https://payments.amazon.com/sdui/sdui/helpTab/Amazon-Simple-...