4 ms·

Parent's point seems like what they're doing here. Trading underage porn is illegal, as well as revenge porn in some places, etc. so they forbid that and allow

Parent's point seems like what they're doing here. Trading underage porn is illegal, as well as revenge porn in some places, etc. so they forbid that and allow legal porn. Seems like they really are doing "all legal things and no illegal things" more accurately, and it really is burdensome to everyone.

Mindwipe 5y ago
Mastercard's BRAM rules involve blocking quite a lot of things that are legal though - you're not allowed to mention hypnosis, or blood, or vampires in adult content, even in a completely fictional context.
- jimbob45 5y ago
  Do you have a link for that? I'm having a frustratingly difficult time trying to find a concise list of the BRAM rules.
  - Mindwipe 5y ago
    Not a public one I can hand out, no. The lack of public transparency around the BRAM rules is also a significant issue imo.
rich_sasha 5y ago
I guess the question is whether the business they serve is legal. YouTube has some pirated content for sure. The business has rules in place to deal with it, for better or worse, and if someone pays with a credit card to watch something illegal in YT, that doesn’t count as the bank facilitating a crime. I’m not defending porn as a grand corner of free speech but I don’t like banks deciding who can and cannot be paid.
- Kalium 5y ago
  The counterpoint that a banker would make is that they're forced into this position by Congress, regulators, and prudence. The alternative that might work is charging businesses fees that vary according to the risk of their transactions being illegal. Which sounds good on paper, but also runs the risk of leaving the bank in the position of making a large amount of fees from illegal activity, which rarely goes over well in court. Better, perhaps, to have a unified fee schedule and just refuse any business that could be unprofitable from liability. I think the banker would have a strong point here. They're not in a place where these are always easy calls to make - transactions don't come with an evil bit. The constraints placed on them don't leave them a lot of viable choices.
TeMPOraL 5y ago
> Seems like they really are doing "all legal things and no illegal things" more accurately Well, they're doing that but there's also a huge set of things whose legal status is "shmaybe?", and AnthonyMouse's point is that this is where the defaults matter. Currently, banks tend to merge that third category into "illegal" set. They could merge it into "legal" set instead, which would arguably be better for society.

Mindwipe 5y ago

Mastercard's BRAM rules involve blocking quite a lot of things that are legal though - you're not allowed to mention hypnosis, or blood, or vampires in adult content, even in a completely fictional context.

jimbob45 5y ago
Do you have a link for that? I'm having a frustratingly difficult time trying to find a concise list of the BRAM rules.
- Mindwipe 5y ago
  Not a public one I can hand out, no. The lack of public transparency around the BRAM rules is also a significant issue imo.

rich_sasha 5y ago

I guess the question is whether the business they serve is legal. YouTube has some pirated content for sure. The business has rules in place to deal with it, for better or worse, and if someone pays with a credit card to watch something illegal in YT, that doesn’t count as the bank facilitating a crime. I’m not defending porn as a grand corner of free speech but I don’t like banks deciding who can and cannot be paid.

Kalium 5y ago
The counterpoint that a banker would make is that they're forced into this position by Congress, regulators, and prudence. The alternative that might work is charging businesses fees that vary according to the risk of their transactions being illegal. Which sounds good on paper, but also runs the risk of leaving the bank in the position of making a large amount of fees from illegal activity, which rarely goes over well in court. Better, perhaps, to have a unified fee schedule and just refuse any business that could be unprofitable from liability. I think the banker would have a strong point here. They're not in a place where these are always easy calls to make - transactions don't come with an evil bit. The constraints placed on them don't leave them a lot of viable choices.

TeMPOraL 5y ago

> Seems like they really are doing "all legal things and no illegal things" more accurately Well, they're doing that but there's also a huge set of things whose legal status is "shmaybe?", and AnthonyMouse's point is that this is where the defaults matter. Currently, banks tend to merge that third category into "illegal" set. They could merge it into "legal" set instead, which would arguably be better for society.