4 ms·

That is called democracy and yes there are a lot of things that are not sold. General public agrees that explicit material is bad. Right now we have in Poland

by ozim 5y ago

That is called democracy and yes there are a lot of things that are not sold. General public agrees that explicit material is bad. Right now we have in Poland shops closed each Sunday - it is annoying for me. Selling alcohol in Norway is heavily restricted and I see more and more restrictions on alcohol sales in Poland. Explicit material is tied a lot to money laundering, there is also a lot of scams tied to it and lots of stolen cards are used to pay for explicit material. It is huge cost for payment providers, all the laws for anti-laundering trump any "payment neutrality". If you want to see naked ladies go to "a place" and risk on your own, pay with cash.

toomuchtodo 5y ago
Payment networks should operate according to laws and regulations, not reputation and public opinion. Would you want your electricity turned off because someone did not like who you were or what you believe? That is a road to tyranny.
- emodendroket 5y ago
  No business operates this way.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - kelnos 5y ago
    Given that payment processors are an oligopoly, and it's incredibly difficult to build another Visa or MasterCard, they should be regulated as utilities (or at the very least, similarly to telecom providers), and be required to be content-neutral. Just like Comcast can't tell me I can't download porn, Visa shouldn't be able to tell me I can't buy it, either.
- ozim 5y ago
  Slippery slope argument. So you are going to run naked in the city center because public opinion about this does not match what you want.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - ben_w 5y ago
    I think you and @toomuchtodo are talking about different things. Laws, democratic or otherwise, can indeed constrain what payment providers will allow themselves to be used for. Public opinion short of law should not be able to add further constraints. IMO the question of “what should Visa and MasterCard be allowed to restrict?” is the same category of question as “what category of app should Apple and Google be allowed to restrict?”
    - InitialLastName 5y ago
      > Public opinion short of law should not be able to add further constraints. Isn't reputational feedback one of the key enablers of the free market? Unless you want to move to a system that is fully centrally planned and noncompetitive, you'll have reputational differences (read: public opinion) affecting the success of a firm. To the extent that reputation affects a firm's success, the firm will make decisions (including "do we carry this unpopular thing") based on its reputation. Shall we require all firms to do business with all potential partners, regardless of reputational repercussions, or if the partner has an established history of abuse (say, a contractor who repeatedly under-delivers on contracts)?
      - ben_w 5y ago
        I see your point, but I was thinking specifically of the case where public opinion influences the behaviour of monopolies and duopolies. If there were e.g. a thousand payment providers each with 0.05-0.15% market shares, I’d agree with the free market and reputation approach; but as the number of important players gets smaller, public opinion becomes more like an plutocracy (because one dollar is one vote) without any of the institutional self-regulation governments develop out of necessity.
- adamc 5y ago
  I agree, but the law does have to consider the very different risk profile some customers present. As has been pointed out, adult businesses have to deal with shame and a lot of fraudulent chargebacks. The reality is that they are much more expensive to service.
aaaaaaaaaaab 5y ago
>General public agrees that explicit material is bad I don’t think that’s true when asked anonymously.
pjc50 5y ago
Which general public? This stuff varies by jurisdiction.
bserge 5y ago
And when the general public agrees cash is bad? After all you can buy anything with digital methods nowadays. Cash is only for criminals.
postsantum 5y ago
No, this is dictated by a vocal minority of puritans, don't drag "democracy" into this

by ozim 5y ago

toomuchtodo 5y ago

Payment networks should operate according to laws and regulations, not reputation and public opinion. Would you want your electricity turned off because someone did not like who you were or what you believe? That is a road to tyranny.

emodendroket 5y ago
No business operates this way.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- kelnos 5y ago
  Given that payment processors are an oligopoly, and it's incredibly difficult to build another Visa or MasterCard, they should be regulated as utilities (or at the very least, similarly to telecom providers), and be required to be content-neutral. Just like Comcast can't tell me I can't download porn, Visa shouldn't be able to tell me I can't buy it, either.
ozim 5y ago
Slippery slope argument. So you are going to run naked in the city center because public opinion about this does not match what you want.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- ben_w 5y ago
  I think you and @toomuchtodo are talking about different things. Laws, democratic or otherwise, can indeed constrain what payment providers will allow themselves to be used for. Public opinion short of law should not be able to add further constraints. IMO the question of “what should Visa and MasterCard be allowed to restrict?” is the same category of question as “what category of app should Apple and Google be allowed to restrict?”
  - InitialLastName 5y ago
    > Public opinion short of law should not be able to add further constraints. Isn't reputational feedback one of the key enablers of the free market? Unless you want to move to a system that is fully centrally planned and noncompetitive, you'll have reputational differences (read: public opinion) affecting the success of a firm. To the extent that reputation affects a firm's success, the firm will make decisions (including "do we carry this unpopular thing") based on its reputation. Shall we require all firms to do business with all potential partners, regardless of reputational repercussions, or if the partner has an established history of abuse (say, a contractor who repeatedly under-delivers on contracts)?
    - ben_w 5y ago
      I see your point, but I was thinking specifically of the case where public opinion influences the behaviour of monopolies and duopolies. If there were e.g. a thousand payment providers each with 0.05-0.15% market shares, I’d agree with the free market and reputation approach; but as the number of important players gets smaller, public opinion becomes more like an plutocracy (because one dollar is one vote) without any of the institutional self-regulation governments develop out of necessity.
adamc 5y ago
I agree, but the law does have to consider the very different risk profile some customers present. As has been pointed out, adult businesses have to deal with shame and a lot of fraudulent chargebacks. The reality is that they are much more expensive to service.

aaaaaaaaaaab 5y ago

>General public agrees that explicit material is bad I don’t think that’s true when asked anonymously.

pjc50 5y ago

Which general public? This stuff varies by jurisdiction.

bserge 5y ago

And when the general public agrees cash is bad? After all you can buy anything with digital methods nowadays. Cash is only for criminals.

postsantum 5y ago

No, this is dictated by a vocal minority of puritans, don't drag "democracy" into this