34 ms·

Personally I think they should not be able to decide such things. A payment provider should be forced to accept all legitimate customers. It is absolutely unwan

by _abox 4y ago

Personally I think they should not be able to decide such things. A payment provider should be forced to accept all legitimate customers. It is absolutely unwanted for a private business (in an unrelated category no less) to be playing the role of legislator. The problem is once a majority of payment providers (especially in this category where there's only really 2 major ones) starts blocking things, it becomes really difficult for fringe groups that are in fact perfectly legal. I understand that porn payments are a bit more risky but the providers can simply have a policy to deny chargebacks for this category and shift the risk to the customer. Similar to the way returns of sex toys are not accepted for hygiene reasons. Recently there was a lot of news in the Netherlands about prostitutes not being able to open bank account because all banks refused them. Think of prostitution what you will but over there it's legal work and they pay their taxes. But not being able to get a bank account gets them into very difficult situations and pushes them to shady people (which was exactly what the legalisation was avoiding). Also other platforms like fetlife have recently been forced to validate their users, leading to potentially serious consequences if this data ever becomes compromised. Many people there don't even show their face so the result is that they have to give a lot more personal info now than they would have wanted to.

c3534l 4y ago
Normally I would disagree with you, but there's only two major credit card companies. People aren't given a choice.
- leadingthenet 4y ago
  There’s also American Express, depending on your definition of “major”.
  - polski-g 4y ago
    AMEX, Visa, Discover, MasterCard. All prohibit "badthink".
    - Mindwipe 4y ago
      Discover also basically doesn't exist in most of the world, and AMEX barely so.
  - GekkePrutser 4y ago
    True but in Europe this is really hard to use. My work gives me an Amex and requires I pay all business expenses with it, which is really horrible over here (they know this as it's an EU company but they probably get great kickbacks or something). For starters, only hospitality sectors accept it here (hotels, restaurants). Outside that you can forget it. Even taxi drivers will laugh in your face in a country like Romania. In France some will accept it but usually the machine is suddenly 'broken' when it's time to pay. Then when I whip out my personal Visa it suddenly works. Right... I often have fights with the finance guys over this because I had to pay with foreign cash or my personal card. I think the issue is that Amex charges the merchants more or something. But it's just not a useful thing over here. I curse that card. I don't think any bank here offers it to their customers either, it's always bank-branded mastercard or visa.
    - nemothekid 4y ago
      >I think the issue is that Amex charges the merchants more or something. But it's just not a useful thing over here. I curse that card At this point it’s just network effects. Visa charges more for their premium tier cards (VISA infinite/Mastercard world elite) than AMEX charges for their basic cards; but people won’t turn away a Chase Sapphire Reserve
      - Macha 4y ago
        I don't think this is true in europe where CC fees are capped (and as a result CC rewards schemes are much more limited)
- eru 4y ago
  Sounds like we should be lowering barriers to entry, not piling up more regulations?
cwillu 4y ago
Deciding who controls the definition of “legitimate” is exactly the problem.
- markus92 4y ago
  Lawful? That's up to the government to decide.
  - jcranmer 4y ago
    Which government? If you're talking about something like paying for an abortion or marijuana, you're likely to get very different answers if you ask the US federal government versus certain state governments.
    - krrrh 4y ago
      Yeah, subsidiarity or lack thereof can get messy, but it’s not that unusual to get different answers from different levels of government. It’s a totally different situation when a private duopoly or oligopoly supersedes democratic control.
    - bryanrasmussen 4y ago
      so which side are you arguing here - credit card companies can decide who they want to provide services for even if they decide not to service legal companies or that they should be forced to service legal companies?
    - PenguinCoder 4y ago
      Most specific law applies then. Not hard.
    - pilif 4y ago
      I see two answers to this: 1) if something is legal wherever the purchase was made, then the credit card companies, as basic utilities, should be compelled to process the purchase. which would be the easiest for me to understand, but possibly more complicated to enforce than 2) if something is legal wherever the credit card company is incorporated in, then the credit card companies, as basic utilities, should be compelled to process the purchase. If laws or enforcement are unclear about the legality of a thing, handle it like it would be handled in case of a cash sale or have the credit card company be cautious and enforce the strictest rule.
themitigating 4y ago
Businesses shouldn't be forced to serve customers
- SkeuomorphicBee 4y ago
  Monopolies/oligopolies should. Imagine if your power company decided they don't want to serve you.
- oifjsidjf 4y ago
  At some point when 50% of the world uses your service the rules must change. Facebook and Twitter can sway elections with a press of a button. Once your company can directly affects direct democray and lives of billions these kind of statements make no sense anymore. Unless you like to be ruled by corporations.
  - jcadam 4y ago
    Yes, anti-trust laws came about for a reason.
    - jayparth 4y ago
      Yes, and we don't apply them to some companies for a reason. We call these businesses natural monopolies and regulate them. Like forcing them to serve everyone or cap their profits.
  - themitigating 4y ago
    Facebook and Twitter users sway elections. Every company can affect democracy in some way. Foxnews had a massive effect on elections, Gas prices being high affects elections. Should these be regulated?
    - benatkin 4y ago
      > Facebook and Twitter users sway elections. That's not what gp is saying. Facebook and Twitter control what users, in bulk, say in a way that can sway elections. Facebook and Twitter moderate and suspend and users adjust what they say in order to not get suspended again, if they care to not get banned. (Those who don't care if they get banned are a red herring.) There is also the algorithmic feed which gives a lot of control over what users say to other users.
monksy 4y ago
Also in this category. Buying weed from a depensary. You can't buy it with a debit card or credit card. The processors won't allow it. But you can ATM loophole your way through it.
- tflinton 4y ago
  I think this is more because its illegal on a federal level, not because of brand or pressure.
  - stjohnswarts 4y ago
    This is correct
- MBCook 4y ago
  Isn’t that different? Weed is still federally illegal. Porn is not.
makeitdouble 4y ago
I am coming to the conclusion that we’re in the current situation by design. A bunch of powerful people feel some stuff should be punished, but they can’t make it illegal. So they’ll stay in good term with de facto gate keepers and nudge them in their direction. In the article it’s some billionaire, but ruling parties are probably doing the same extensively: instead of making the controversial decisions themselves, go through all the paperwork and get all the backlash, they’ll have a private entity deal with 95% of the problem (the industry “self-regulating”) and call it a day. A pettier exemple than money transactions: there’s no reason smartphones shouldn’t be able to record calls out of the box (using it within legal boundaries should be on the user) but phone makers will self-block that behavior with no specific interest on their side.
- ravel-bar-foo 4y ago
  > there’s no reason smartphones shouldn’t be able to record calls out of the box (using it within legal boundaries should be on the user) but phone makers will self-block that behavior with no specific interest on their side. Which smartphones block call recording? Every brandname Android I have had enables this feature for voice calls. (Although the feature is missing for app calls, and I'm now at least 5 years behind the newest phones.)
  - GekkePrutser 4y ago
    > Which smartphones block call recording? Every brandname Android I have had enables this feature for voice calls. (Although the feature is missing for app calls, and I'm now at least 5 years behind the newest phones.) This explains a lot because this is a more recent development. https://www.pcmag.com/news/google-is-banning-call-recording-apps-on-android https://www.pcmag.com/news/google-is-banning-call-recording-... As the article says it was blocked a couple years ago but there was still a loophole which is now being closed as well. Though it's by blocking apps using it from the play store which can still be avoided by sideloading so technically there still is a loophole :) But it's definitely seeing more and more restrictions.
  - viceroyalbean 4y ago
goldcd 4y ago
I slightly disagree - I don't think Visa et al should be forced to do anything. I think the problem is external to Visa, where a once capitalist money accumulating machine, is having internal debates on what Furry depictions are allowed. I feel the unnoticed casualty of the "Culture Wars", that neither side seems to care about, is that harmless stuff should just be left alone. We don't have to have a view on everything.
- salawat 4y ago
  There are those, sadly, who argue that one person's "harmless, innocent thing" is a "crime most heinous". The measure societally is how much of the population considers it taboo. To illustrate, take the artform known as 'loli'. Drawn pictures of fictional neotenous girls doing recognizably adult things most people would say crosses the line into being child pornography, even though the act of drawing it hurts no one real. The argument goes, by facilitating the fulfillment of the demand you create a follow-on market for the real thing, which is definitely illegal. The problem isn't a harm inflicted against someone directly, but a perceived harm in potentia to the social/moral fabric and eventually the incentive structure to underpin physical harm to real victims by normalizing some form of deviance. A less controversial example (today) would be sex toys, (50 years ago) "free love", etc... In the past, many of these things were considered obscene, or at least things "not spoken of in polite company". This is exactly how you get businesses discussing whether these odd niche things are allowable on the basis of straddling the obscenity/deviance line, which necessarily entangles itself to some degree with the concept of legality. Scale makes every question relevant. While I agree with your assertion we don't have to have a view on everything, I assure you, with a hierarchical power structure consolidating the power to make policy in fewer individuals, this necessarily means that statistically speaking, you're going to have a much smaller slice of the world that happens to A) be a payment processor/business facilitator, and B) think your niche is harmless. So in short, while normatively we don't have to have a view on everything, practically speaking, it is guaranteed we will. Striking the right balance is a really tough nut to crack, and virtually guarantees somebody is leaving disappointed. This post brought to you by a really interesting Philosophy of Art class covering the interface between obscenity and cultural systems. I find the nature and mechanisms of determining exactly the periphery of the obscenity line in the highest resolution possible fascinating.
sshine 4y ago
> Think of prostitution what you will but over there it's legal work and they pay their taxes. Prostitution may be a line of work where less tax is paid. This does not make the act of prostitution less legitimate. Hair dressers and tattoo artists also, on average, declare less of their total income, and we don't consider hair dressers and tattoo artists illegitimate businesses. We just expect them to pay taxes and tolerate, to some degree, if they don't. Going to the hair dresser or getting a tattoo isn't seen as morally objectional because of what they pay in taxes. Less tax is paid because of cash. This is also true for prostitution. In part because the anonymity of cash is preferable among the customers, because the sex worker avoids scrutiny by the bank, and because sex workers don't necessarily have work permits in the countries in which they operate. Conversely, we can think of morally objectional jobs where taxes are paid.
- GekkePrutser 4y ago
  I agree tax and legitimacy are not the same thing. Tax avoidance being common in an industry does not make the work itself illegitimate. The reason I mentioned tax is that not having a bank account was making it more complex for them to actually pay their taxes as a business. Taxation in the Netherlands is no longer something you can pay with an envelope of cash. If you want to run a legit business you can't do so without one. It was one of the things mentioned during the debate about this. I'm not sure how it turned out because I don't live there anymore but there was talk of mandating the banks to offer them an account. After all without overdrafts or loans there is no real risk to the bank anyway.
- ars 4y ago
  I think it's more to do with prostitutes needing to keep the identities of their clients secret. So they keep no records, and are hard to audit for taxes. It would be interesting to compare to other (legal) business that keep identities secret in this way.
  - eru 4y ago
    When I go to the barber, I don't need to tell them my name either. Similar for the supermarket when I'm paying in cash. So I'm not sure prostitutes are anything special? Both barber and supermarket keep records of what services they performed or goods they sold, but not who purchased them (when paying in cash). A prostitute could do exactly the same. > It would be interesting to compare to other (legal) business that keep identities secret in this way. Basically almost any business where you can pay in cash?
handmodel 4y ago
I wonder if the card companies themselves would be happy with those rules. I don't think it's a grand conspiracy. I think they are just looking at the business and realizing that the amount of money to be made from it (especially with chargebacks) is very small compared to the potential lawsuits/headlines of facilitating child pornography and as a result have been conservative. If they were forced to allow it then it would give them cover and also their competitors would be as well - so there'd be no competitive disadvantage.
bsder 4y ago
> but the providers can simply have a policy to deny chargebacks for this category. Which then allows the porn providers to do very shady things. The problem with porn is that the players on both consumer and provider side tend to be really shitty. The consumers are causing a bunch of chargebacks whenever they get called out for porn or trying to get porn for free. However, the providers aren't innocent either. LOTS of OnlyFans girls get called out for not delivering what they promised which certainly should be able to be charged back. The big aggregators are generally run by people that will absolutely push the boundaries of dark patterns fully knowing that in person interaction will be embarassing while a chargeback isn't.
- toast0 4y ago
  I agree, you can't end chargebacks on this category. You could maybe require a chargeback for 'i didn't buy this' to disable that card for that category (maybe that's a feature you want anyway?). You could maybe require enhanced authentication for this category (3D-secure??). You could charge merchants a higher fee and/or hold payments for a much longer time to avoid the need to pull the money back from the merchant. I think most chargebacks need to be started within 120 days of the initial charge, and it's fairly annoying to need to wait 4 months to get paid, but it's better than not being able to access payment methods.
gnopgnip 4y ago
Do similar laws apply to any businesses besides public utilities?
- giantg2 4y ago
  We have non-discrimination laws on a variety of protected classes. It seems there could be support for expanding those classes, like the recent story about political affiliation and that dog shelter.
  - gnopgnip 4y ago
    Many businesses can't discriminate based on set classes, but they broadly aren't required to take on all customers
- GekkePrutser 4y ago
  This is a really good point. I think payment providers are like utilities these days, as cash becomes more obscure in society.
  - bitreality 4y ago
    This is the reality. Payment processing is a utility. Small businesses literally cannot operate online without payment processing. On first glance there appears to be many third party providers, but ultimately they are all processing Visa/MC, and are selecting customers on the same criteria.
giantg2 4y ago
"Personally I think they should not be able to decide such things. A payment provider should be forced to accept all legitimate customers." Payment providers are companies. They should be able to decide what they'll cover or not. In this case the bigger issue is that you essentially have a duopoly that allows 2 companies to affect the market with those decisions.
- GekkePrutser 4y ago
  I feel like in today's world they are also kind of utilities. This is where the trouble starts. If you want to run a business these days (especially online) you need a payment provider in many cases, and pretty much always need a bank account.
- franga2000 4y ago
  > Payment providers are companies. They should be able to decide what they'll cover or not Companies exist to provide people with goods and services. They have no inalienable rights beyond that. If a company does so in a way we see as unacceptable (in this case discriminatory), we have the right to force it and the only rights it has are to comply or cease operation. > In this case the bigger issue is that you essentially have a duopoly that allows 2 companies to affect the market with those decisions. Yes, everyone know that's an issue. The solution, obviously, is to limit their ability to manipulate. We can achieve a big part pf this this by forcing them to serve everyone equally.
  - giantg2 4y ago
    "We can achieve a big part pf this this by forcing them to serve everyone equally." Why don't we force all companies to do this then? The other alternative is to break them up and create true competition.
    - Aerroon 4y ago
      >Why don't we force all companies to do this then? Because this can end up adding a barrier to entry for new businesses, especially in new niches. However, I think once any company becomes large enough then this should apply to them.
bilekas 4y ago
Yes, payment processors should 'process' all legit payments. However.. Visa/Mastercard hire people to do risk analysis though, those people are rightly assessing that pr0n payments is a higher risk than the insurance premium is worth. Which is newsworthy itself, goes to how credit card fraud is overtaking the insurance market and maybe those 2 companies should invest in that area.. But that's gonna take too long. There are a lot of reasons for that. On a 'credit' card this makes sense. They own/lend the outgoing funds, you just pay them back with some interest. The debit cards are not, the debit card is your balance being debited. Instantly. With 0 interest. I'm not 100% sure about the insurance on that, but from experience the bank itself will be the point of contact to dispute a payment that is fraudulent. The bank may or may not pursue lost monies from the insurance or debtor etc. But VISA as a whole, just processed the transaction. There used to be, in Ireland at least, a debit card issued by banks under the name "Laser" so it was your 'laser' card you paid with.. Only in recent years, I realised this was competition. So V & MC cornered the market, "Use at X amount of ATM's worldwide" etc. I would love to say "there is a way out, once the payment processors process without influence from V/MC" but imagine, a payment processor not accepting one of those.. That's game over. I do think companies like N26/Revolut and co have standing to create their own 'standard' after really generating an incredible userbase, would prefer maybe open source but financal companies are slow to adopt. Imagine a payment gateway standard that wasn't restricted, open source/readable and had it's own userbase. I'm not a proponent of using crypto as currency but you can see why they got carried away. The problems to overcome are just... Well, bureaucratic.
fsckboy 4y ago
Think of prostitution what you will but over there it's legal work and they pay their taxes. I don't know if this has any impact on V & MC payment processing, but the trafficking of women is still a problem in countries with legal prostitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_trafficking_in_the_Netherlands https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_trafficking_in_the_Nethe...
- yieldcrv 4y ago
  which should be treated the same as labor trafficking the overlap with all forms of work are too numerous to point that out as if it needs a different solution labor rights, more avenues for reporting, outreach, help, evaluation of the employer and thats only available in a place with some form of legalized framework (which can be greatly improved even in those places)
timcavel 4y ago
Bitcoin fixes this.
- bitreality 4y ago
  Does it? Bitcoin just says anyone can transact. But that doesn't really solve the problem. The problem is that legal businesses should be able to transact. Illegal businesses should not. Bitcoin just removes all the limitations. But that creates new problems, quite frankly. Plus, it's very difficult for businesses to utilize Bitcoin. Fiat onboards have similar limitations to Visa/MC. Many legitimate business models will be denied accounts at reputable exchanges.
  - herbst 4y ago
    For me it solves the problem. I provide advertisment for a visa forbidden area. In Switzerland I can exchange directly to SWIFT up to $1000/day and whatever it is per year without even KYC. Crypto is the only common factor for payment I get these days. Every region/niche has their own weird alternatives with their own weird limits (Payeer, perfect money, ...) Point is nobody can deny anything as I am 'processing payments myself'
- Mindwipe 4y ago
  Not unless Bitcoin makes transactions work better, faster and more scalable than they currently do.
jimbob45 4y ago
It cuts both ways. Visa/MC have to deal with high numbers of fraud on these sites. Even worse, they have to deal with “fraud” where husbands get caught and blame it on fraud. It seems like linking porn accounts to phone numbers is the most sensible solution but how popular is that idea going to be?
- jacobr1 4y ago
  But shouldn't that be handled on a commercial level? Riskier site, with higher chargebacks or less identity verification (like the historical no-signature-present) get charged higher rates and fees. This already happens, but the rates could be even higher if needed. There doesn't seem to be any need to police content, that is just factored in the risk and thus cost of service.
- salawat 4y ago
  How about we stop trying to by default create identifier networks with the sole purpose of increasing the amount of information open to disclosure via Third Party Doctrine? The closer you get to a de facto UUID for a person, the faster it's going to be abused.
johnmarcus 4y ago
this sounds good until those businesses you are talking about are fronts for human trafficking.
Aerroon 4y ago
I agree that they shouldn't be able to do this. I think once businesses become too big then they should have to serve all customers. This is one type of regulation that I think needs to be more common. When the governments take the choice of playing politics with their customers away from large companies, then those companies can't be pressured into doing so by activists.
chadash 4y ago
> I understand that porn payments are a bit more risky but the providers can simply have a policy to deny chargebacks for this category and shift the risk to the customer. Similar to the way returns of sex toys are not accepted for hygiene reasons. But chargebacks have nothing to do with return policies [1]. In theory, when you issue a chargeback you are basically saying "I didn't authorize this purchase". How do you have a general policy that says "you won't get charged for fraudulent charges, unless those fraudulent charges are porn"? [1] If I buy a sandwich with my credit card, I can't then return it if I decide I'm not hungry 15 minutes later. But I can dispute the charge (dishonestly) and say that I never bought a sandwich in the first place.
- GekkePrutser 4y ago
  But isn't that what 3D secure and SecureCode are supposed to solve? They confirm the customer gave personal authorisation. They can offer it only with those.
  - eru 4y ago
    'Supposed' being the keyword here. The last time I looked into them, they weren't actually very secure.
    - sofixa 4y ago
      Maybe it depends on the country, but here in the EU with the latest regulations we have MFA for payments, with either an SMS, or authorising in the bank's app all payments over a certain sum. So the merchant, the payment processor and the bank are a 100% sure it's you. The only case remaining is "i did initiate the transaction, but the merchant scammed me by not providing what was agreed".
      - eru 4y ago
        Well, SMS is not really secure. Eg it's relatively easy to use social engineering on the phone company.
dylan604 4y ago
> But not being able to get a bank account gets them into very difficult situations and pushes them to shady people (which was exactly what the legalisation was avoiding). It's the same situation for dispensaries or other legal cannabis companies operating legally in states where it is approved, yet because of the federal status, banks will not accept them either.
- jacobr1 4y ago
  Not quite the same thing. The dispensaries are operating illegally. The fact that the states "legalized" it, doesn't mean it isn't illegal. There are plenty of other federal laws that don't have state equivalents outlawing them that are widely understood to be illegal as well. But what is different are the social norms and expectations. The general agreement that they are legal, makes them defacto legal ... except where the federal jurisdiction matters. But, if there was political appetite for it, federal law enforcement could arrest and prosecute everyone involved in the recreational cannabis business in "legal" states. There is just no political appetite. The Rohrabacher–Farr amendment, though, prohibits this for medical usage (just enforcement, it still is illegal). Note I do think we should broadly decriminalize (not the same as make fully legal) most drugs, and fully legalize things like cannabis.
fredgrott 4y ago
it goes according to financial risks of high chargebacks, it's not a moral choice just a choice of avoiding high chargebacks.
- Mindwipe 4y ago
  But the article here explicitly makes clear that it isn't.
stjohnswarts 4y ago
I agree, given their hegemony of payment systems they should be required to accept payment and government should state that they have to provide payment services to any _legal_ enterprise. That would also give them cover from the bible thumpers.
wl 4y ago
Citibank also tries to regulate the firearms industry: https://www.wsj.com/articles/citigroup-tried-and-failed-to-rally-banks-to-pressure-gun-sellers-11656124086 https://www.wsj.com/articles/citigroup-tried-and-failed-to-r...
Spooky23 4y ago
rendaw 4y ago
I think "the right to spend and receive money" is (or should be considered) a human right. Being able to live is for a large part contingent on paying people and/or receiving money from people. Companies involved with payments should be regulated on this basis. This doesn't address the banking thing, although spending and receiving money at times requires a bank account.
- pvillano 4y ago
  what would (does?) a government run electronic payment system look like?
- eru 4y ago
  Eh, the right not to touch money that was involved in activities you don't like has just as much standing in my opinion. Or do you want to force people to deal with money made from 'blood diamonds' or from fossil fuels or tobacco or abortion clinics or gay wedding cakes or pineapple pizza etc? (I deliberately picked examples from different points of politics and with different levels of severity.) Instead of regulating more heavily, we should look into lowering barriers to entry, so that people doing legal things can find someone to facilitate their payments (without the need to force anyone to facilitate payments they disagree with).
  - Ekaros 4y ago
    On level of individuals I would agree. You should be free to choose your customers. But when you are the dominant player let's say 20%+ of market alone or with your partners it really changes. At that point no, you should not be able to choose your customers. Outside individual reasons like repeated fraud or attempts of such.
  - rendaw 4y ago
    I think sibling has a stronger argument, but I just want to add that, even if you take a free market approach for everything else, I think paying and receiving money deserves to be treated separately. Monetary transaction is fundamental to civilization, more than any other single service or good. You very nearly can't participate in civilization and can't at all in the free market without being able to freely spend and receive money. And this is the first time in history that monetary flow has been centralized to this degree, and it's hard to imagine things going less digital.
eru 4y ago
> Personally I think they should not be able to decide such things. A payment provider should be forced to accept all legitimate customers. It is absolutely unwanted for a private business (in an unrelated category no less) to be playing the role of legislator. Why? I would say just the opposite: by default people should be able to decide who they want to do business with. Payment providers are no exception. Some people might want to refuse to facilitate payments for eg bakeries that refuse to bake cakes for gay weddings. Some other people might want to refuse to facilitate payments for bakers that bake cakes for gay weddings. (Similar for many other issues you can think of.) > Recently there was a lot of news in the Netherlands about prostitutes not being able to open bank account because all banks refused them. The bigger problem here seems to be a lack of competition? If barriers to entry were low enough, presumably someone would open a bank that accepted prostitutes' money and make a tidy profit (since there would be less competition, when they are the first ones). Banking is regulated so heavily in an attempt to keep out even slightly 'shady' things, that the effect is to drive people into the arms of the really shady.

by _abox 4y ago

c3534l 4y ago

Normally I would disagree with you, but there's only two major credit card companies. People aren't given a choice.

leadingthenet 4y ago
There’s also American Express, depending on your definition of “major”.
- polski-g 4y ago
  AMEX, Visa, Discover, MasterCard. All prohibit "badthink".
  - Mindwipe 4y ago
    Discover also basically doesn't exist in most of the world, and AMEX barely so.
- GekkePrutser 4y ago
  True but in Europe this is really hard to use. My work gives me an Amex and requires I pay all business expenses with it, which is really horrible over here (they know this as it's an EU company but they probably get great kickbacks or something). For starters, only hospitality sectors accept it here (hotels, restaurants). Outside that you can forget it. Even taxi drivers will laugh in your face in a country like Romania. In France some will accept it but usually the machine is suddenly 'broken' when it's time to pay. Then when I whip out my personal Visa it suddenly works. Right... I often have fights with the finance guys over this because I had to pay with foreign cash or my personal card. I think the issue is that Amex charges the merchants more or something. But it's just not a useful thing over here. I curse that card. I don't think any bank here offers it to their customers either, it's always bank-branded mastercard or visa.
  - nemothekid 4y ago
    >I think the issue is that Amex charges the merchants more or something. But it's just not a useful thing over here. I curse that card At this point it’s just network effects. Visa charges more for their premium tier cards (VISA infinite/Mastercard world elite) than AMEX charges for their basic cards; but people won’t turn away a Chase Sapphire Reserve
    - Macha 4y ago
      I don't think this is true in europe where CC fees are capped (and as a result CC rewards schemes are much more limited)
eru 4y ago
Sounds like we should be lowering barriers to entry, not piling up more regulations?

cwillu 4y ago

Deciding who controls the definition of “legitimate” is exactly the problem.

markus92 4y ago
Lawful? That's up to the government to decide.
- jcranmer 4y ago
  Which government? If you're talking about something like paying for an abortion or marijuana, you're likely to get very different answers if you ask the US federal government versus certain state governments.
  - krrrh 4y ago
    Yeah, subsidiarity or lack thereof can get messy, but it’s not that unusual to get different answers from different levels of government. It’s a totally different situation when a private duopoly or oligopoly supersedes democratic control.
  - bryanrasmussen 4y ago
    so which side are you arguing here - credit card companies can decide who they want to provide services for even if they decide not to service legal companies or that they should be forced to service legal companies?
  - PenguinCoder 4y ago
    Most specific law applies then. Not hard.
  - pilif 4y ago
    I see two answers to this: 1) if something is legal wherever the purchase was made, then the credit card companies, as basic utilities, should be compelled to process the purchase. which would be the easiest for me to understand, but possibly more complicated to enforce than 2) if something is legal wherever the credit card company is incorporated in, then the credit card companies, as basic utilities, should be compelled to process the purchase. If laws or enforcement are unclear about the legality of a thing, handle it like it would be handled in case of a cash sale or have the credit card company be cautious and enforce the strictest rule.

themitigating 4y ago

Businesses shouldn't be forced to serve customers

SkeuomorphicBee 4y ago
Monopolies/oligopolies should. Imagine if your power company decided they don't want to serve you.
oifjsidjf 4y ago
At some point when 50% of the world uses your service the rules must change. Facebook and Twitter can sway elections with a press of a button. Once your company can directly affects direct democray and lives of billions these kind of statements make no sense anymore. Unless you like to be ruled by corporations.
- jcadam 4y ago
  Yes, anti-trust laws came about for a reason.
  - jayparth 4y ago
    Yes, and we don't apply them to some companies for a reason. We call these businesses natural monopolies and regulate them. Like forcing them to serve everyone or cap their profits.
- themitigating 4y ago
  Facebook and Twitter users sway elections. Every company can affect democracy in some way. Foxnews had a massive effect on elections, Gas prices being high affects elections. Should these be regulated?
  - benatkin 4y ago
    > Facebook and Twitter users sway elections. That's not what gp is saying. Facebook and Twitter control what users, in bulk, say in a way that can sway elections. Facebook and Twitter moderate and suspend and users adjust what they say in order to not get suspended again, if they care to not get banned. (Those who don't care if they get banned are a red herring.) There is also the algorithmic feed which gives a lot of control over what users say to other users.

monksy 4y ago

Also in this category. Buying weed from a depensary. You can't buy it with a debit card or credit card. The processors won't allow it. But you can ATM loophole your way through it.

tflinton 4y ago
I think this is more because its illegal on a federal level, not because of brand or pressure.
- stjohnswarts 4y ago
  This is correct
MBCook 4y ago
Isn’t that different? Weed is still federally illegal. Porn is not.

makeitdouble 4y ago

I am coming to the conclusion that we’re in the current situation by design. A bunch of powerful people feel some stuff should be punished, but they can’t make it illegal. So they’ll stay in good term with de facto gate keepers and nudge them in their direction. In the article it’s some billionaire, but ruling parties are probably doing the same extensively: instead of making the controversial decisions themselves, go through all the paperwork and get all the backlash, they’ll have a private entity deal with 95% of the problem (the industry “self-regulating”) and call it a day. A pettier exemple than money transactions: there’s no reason smartphones shouldn’t be able to record calls out of the box (using it within legal boundaries should be on the user) but phone makers will self-block that behavior with no specific interest on their side.

ravel-bar-foo 4y ago
> there’s no reason smartphones shouldn’t be able to record calls out of the box (using it within legal boundaries should be on the user) but phone makers will self-block that behavior with no specific interest on their side. Which smartphones block call recording? Every brandname Android I have had enables this feature for voice calls. (Although the feature is missing for app calls, and I'm now at least 5 years behind the newest phones.)
- GekkePrutser 4y ago
  > Which smartphones block call recording? Every brandname Android I have had enables this feature for voice calls. (Although the feature is missing for app calls, and I'm now at least 5 years behind the newest phones.) This explains a lot because this is a more recent development. https://www.pcmag.com/news/google-is-banning-call-recording-apps-on-android https://www.pcmag.com/news/google-is-banning-call-recording-... As the article says it was blocked a couple years ago but there was still a loophole which is now being closed as well. Though it's by blocking apps using it from the play store which can still be avoided by sideloading so technically there still is a loophole :) But it's definitely seeing more and more restrictions.
- viceroyalbean 4y ago

goldcd 4y ago

I slightly disagree - I don't think Visa et al should be forced to do anything. I think the problem is external to Visa, where a once capitalist money accumulating machine, is having internal debates on what Furry depictions are allowed. I feel the unnoticed casualty of the "Culture Wars", that neither side seems to care about, is that harmless stuff should just be left alone. We don't have to have a view on everything.

salawat 4y ago
There are those, sadly, who argue that one person's "harmless, innocent thing" is a "crime most heinous". The measure societally is how much of the population considers it taboo. To illustrate, take the artform known as 'loli'. Drawn pictures of fictional neotenous girls doing recognizably adult things most people would say crosses the line into being child pornography, even though the act of drawing it hurts no one real. The argument goes, by facilitating the fulfillment of the demand you create a follow-on market for the real thing, which is definitely illegal. The problem isn't a harm inflicted against someone directly, but a perceived harm in potentia to the social/moral fabric and eventually the incentive structure to underpin physical harm to real victims by normalizing some form of deviance. A less controversial example (today) would be sex toys, (50 years ago) "free love", etc... In the past, many of these things were considered obscene, or at least things "not spoken of in polite company". This is exactly how you get businesses discussing whether these odd niche things are allowable on the basis of straddling the obscenity/deviance line, which necessarily entangles itself to some degree with the concept of legality. Scale makes every question relevant. While I agree with your assertion we don't have to have a view on everything, I assure you, with a hierarchical power structure consolidating the power to make policy in fewer individuals, this necessarily means that statistically speaking, you're going to have a much smaller slice of the world that happens to A) be a payment processor/business facilitator, and B) think your niche is harmless. So in short, while normatively we don't have to have a view on everything, practically speaking, it is guaranteed we will. Striking the right balance is a really tough nut to crack, and virtually guarantees somebody is leaving disappointed. This post brought to you by a really interesting Philosophy of Art class covering the interface between obscenity and cultural systems. I find the nature and mechanisms of determining exactly the periphery of the obscenity line in the highest resolution possible fascinating.

sshine 4y ago

> Think of prostitution what you will but over there it's legal work and they pay their taxes. Prostitution may be a line of work where less tax is paid. This does not make the act of prostitution less legitimate. Hair dressers and tattoo artists also, on average, declare less of their total income, and we don't consider hair dressers and tattoo artists illegitimate businesses. We just expect them to pay taxes and tolerate, to some degree, if they don't. Going to the hair dresser or getting a tattoo isn't seen as morally objectional because of what they pay in taxes. Less tax is paid because of cash. This is also true for prostitution. In part because the anonymity of cash is preferable among the customers, because the sex worker avoids scrutiny by the bank, and because sex workers don't necessarily have work permits in the countries in which they operate. Conversely, we can think of morally objectional jobs where taxes are paid.

GekkePrutser 4y ago
I agree tax and legitimacy are not the same thing. Tax avoidance being common in an industry does not make the work itself illegitimate. The reason I mentioned tax is that not having a bank account was making it more complex for them to actually pay their taxes as a business. Taxation in the Netherlands is no longer something you can pay with an envelope of cash. If you want to run a legit business you can't do so without one. It was one of the things mentioned during the debate about this. I'm not sure how it turned out because I don't live there anymore but there was talk of mandating the banks to offer them an account. After all without overdrafts or loans there is no real risk to the bank anyway.
ars 4y ago
I think it's more to do with prostitutes needing to keep the identities of their clients secret. So they keep no records, and are hard to audit for taxes. It would be interesting to compare to other (legal) business that keep identities secret in this way.
- eru 4y ago
  When I go to the barber, I don't need to tell them my name either. Similar for the supermarket when I'm paying in cash. So I'm not sure prostitutes are anything special? Both barber and supermarket keep records of what services they performed or goods they sold, but not who purchased them (when paying in cash). A prostitute could do exactly the same. > It would be interesting to compare to other (legal) business that keep identities secret in this way. Basically almost any business where you can pay in cash?

handmodel 4y ago

I wonder if the card companies themselves would be happy with those rules. I don't think it's a grand conspiracy. I think they are just looking at the business and realizing that the amount of money to be made from it (especially with chargebacks) is very small compared to the potential lawsuits/headlines of facilitating child pornography and as a result have been conservative. If they were forced to allow it then it would give them cover and also their competitors would be as well - so there'd be no competitive disadvantage.

bsder 4y ago

> but the providers can simply have a policy to deny chargebacks for this category. Which then allows the porn providers to do very shady things. The problem with porn is that the players on both consumer and provider side tend to be really shitty. The consumers are causing a bunch of chargebacks whenever they get called out for porn or trying to get porn for free. However, the providers aren't innocent either. LOTS of OnlyFans girls get called out for not delivering what they promised which certainly should be able to be charged back. The big aggregators are generally run by people that will absolutely push the boundaries of dark patterns fully knowing that in person interaction will be embarassing while a chargeback isn't.

toast0 4y ago
I agree, you can't end chargebacks on this category. You could maybe require a chargeback for 'i didn't buy this' to disable that card for that category (maybe that's a feature you want anyway?). You could maybe require enhanced authentication for this category (3D-secure??). You could charge merchants a higher fee and/or hold payments for a much longer time to avoid the need to pull the money back from the merchant. I think most chargebacks need to be started within 120 days of the initial charge, and it's fairly annoying to need to wait 4 months to get paid, but it's better than not being able to access payment methods.

gnopgnip 4y ago

Do similar laws apply to any businesses besides public utilities?

giantg2 4y ago
We have non-discrimination laws on a variety of protected classes. It seems there could be support for expanding those classes, like the recent story about political affiliation and that dog shelter.
- gnopgnip 4y ago
  Many businesses can't discriminate based on set classes, but they broadly aren't required to take on all customers
GekkePrutser 4y ago
This is a really good point. I think payment providers are like utilities these days, as cash becomes more obscure in society.
- bitreality 4y ago
  This is the reality. Payment processing is a utility. Small businesses literally cannot operate online without payment processing. On first glance there appears to be many third party providers, but ultimately they are all processing Visa/MC, and are selecting customers on the same criteria.

giantg2 4y ago

"Personally I think they should not be able to decide such things. A payment provider should be forced to accept all legitimate customers." Payment providers are companies. They should be able to decide what they'll cover or not. In this case the bigger issue is that you essentially have a duopoly that allows 2 companies to affect the market with those decisions.

GekkePrutser 4y ago
I feel like in today's world they are also kind of utilities. This is where the trouble starts. If you want to run a business these days (especially online) you need a payment provider in many cases, and pretty much always need a bank account.
franga2000 4y ago
> Payment providers are companies. They should be able to decide what they'll cover or not Companies exist to provide people with goods and services. They have no inalienable rights beyond that. If a company does so in a way we see as unacceptable (in this case discriminatory), we have the right to force it and the only rights it has are to comply or cease operation. > In this case the bigger issue is that you essentially have a duopoly that allows 2 companies to affect the market with those decisions. Yes, everyone know that's an issue. The solution, obviously, is to limit their ability to manipulate. We can achieve a big part pf this this by forcing them to serve everyone equally.
- giantg2 4y ago
  "We can achieve a big part pf this this by forcing them to serve everyone equally." Why don't we force all companies to do this then? The other alternative is to break them up and create true competition.
  - Aerroon 4y ago
    >Why don't we force all companies to do this then? Because this can end up adding a barrier to entry for new businesses, especially in new niches. However, I think once any company becomes large enough then this should apply to them.

bilekas 4y ago

Yes, payment processors should 'process' all legit payments. However.. Visa/Mastercard hire people to do risk analysis though, those people are rightly assessing that pr0n payments is a higher risk than the insurance premium is worth. Which is newsworthy itself, goes to how credit card fraud is overtaking the insurance market and maybe those 2 companies should invest in that area.. But that's gonna take too long. There are a lot of reasons for that. On a 'credit' card this makes sense. They own/lend the outgoing funds, you just pay them back with some interest. The debit cards are not, the debit card is your balance being debited. Instantly. With 0 interest. I'm not 100% sure about the insurance on that, but from experience the bank itself will be the point of contact to dispute a payment that is fraudulent. The bank may or may not pursue lost monies from the insurance or debtor etc. But VISA as a whole, just processed the transaction. There used to be, in Ireland at least, a debit card issued by banks under the name "Laser" so it was your 'laser' card you paid with.. Only in recent years, I realised this was competition. So V & MC cornered the market, "Use at X amount of ATM's worldwide" etc. I would love to say "there is a way out, once the payment processors process without influence from V/MC" but imagine, a payment processor not accepting one of those.. That's game over. I do think companies like N26/Revolut and co have standing to create their own 'standard' after really generating an incredible userbase, would prefer maybe open source but financal companies are slow to adopt. Imagine a payment gateway standard that wasn't restricted, open source/readable and had it's own userbase. I'm not a proponent of using crypto as currency but you can see why they got carried away. The problems to overcome are just... Well, bureaucratic.

fsckboy 4y ago

Think of prostitution what you will but over there it's legal work and they pay their taxes. I don't know if this has any impact on V & MC payment processing, but the trafficking of women is still a problem in countries with legal prostitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_trafficking_in_the_Netherlands https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_trafficking_in_the_Nethe...

yieldcrv 4y ago
which should be treated the same as labor trafficking the overlap with all forms of work are too numerous to point that out as if it needs a different solution labor rights, more avenues for reporting, outreach, help, evaluation of the employer and thats only available in a place with some form of legalized framework (which can be greatly improved even in those places)

timcavel 4y ago

Bitcoin fixes this.

bitreality 4y ago
Does it? Bitcoin just says anyone can transact. But that doesn't really solve the problem. The problem is that legal businesses should be able to transact. Illegal businesses should not. Bitcoin just removes all the limitations. But that creates new problems, quite frankly. Plus, it's very difficult for businesses to utilize Bitcoin. Fiat onboards have similar limitations to Visa/MC. Many legitimate business models will be denied accounts at reputable exchanges.
- herbst 4y ago
  For me it solves the problem. I provide advertisment for a visa forbidden area. In Switzerland I can exchange directly to SWIFT up to $1000/day and whatever it is per year without even KYC. Crypto is the only common factor for payment I get these days. Every region/niche has their own weird alternatives with their own weird limits (Payeer, perfect money, ...) Point is nobody can deny anything as I am 'processing payments myself'
Mindwipe 4y ago
Not unless Bitcoin makes transactions work better, faster and more scalable than they currently do.

jimbob45 4y ago

It cuts both ways. Visa/MC have to deal with high numbers of fraud on these sites. Even worse, they have to deal with “fraud” where husbands get caught and blame it on fraud. It seems like linking porn accounts to phone numbers is the most sensible solution but how popular is that idea going to be?

jacobr1 4y ago
But shouldn't that be handled on a commercial level? Riskier site, with higher chargebacks or less identity verification (like the historical no-signature-present) get charged higher rates and fees. This already happens, but the rates could be even higher if needed. There doesn't seem to be any need to police content, that is just factored in the risk and thus cost of service.
salawat 4y ago
How about we stop trying to by default create identifier networks with the sole purpose of increasing the amount of information open to disclosure via Third Party Doctrine? The closer you get to a de facto UUID for a person, the faster it's going to be abused.

johnmarcus 4y ago

this sounds good until those businesses you are talking about are fronts for human trafficking.

Aerroon 4y ago

I agree that they shouldn't be able to do this. I think once businesses become too big then they should have to serve all customers. This is one type of regulation that I think needs to be more common. When the governments take the choice of playing politics with their customers away from large companies, then those companies can't be pressured into doing so by activists.

chadash 4y ago

> I understand that porn payments are a bit more risky but the providers can simply have a policy to deny chargebacks for this category and shift the risk to the customer. Similar to the way returns of sex toys are not accepted for hygiene reasons. But chargebacks have nothing to do with return policies [1]. In theory, when you issue a chargeback you are basically saying "I didn't authorize this purchase". How do you have a general policy that says "you won't get charged for fraudulent charges, unless those fraudulent charges are porn"? [1] If I buy a sandwich with my credit card, I can't then return it if I decide I'm not hungry 15 minutes later. But I can dispute the charge (dishonestly) and say that I never bought a sandwich in the first place.

GekkePrutser 4y ago
But isn't that what 3D secure and SecureCode are supposed to solve? They confirm the customer gave personal authorisation. They can offer it only with those.
- eru 4y ago
  'Supposed' being the keyword here. The last time I looked into them, they weren't actually very secure.
  - sofixa 4y ago
    Maybe it depends on the country, but here in the EU with the latest regulations we have MFA for payments, with either an SMS, or authorising in the bank's app all payments over a certain sum. So the merchant, the payment processor and the bank are a 100% sure it's you. The only case remaining is "i did initiate the transaction, but the merchant scammed me by not providing what was agreed".
    - eru 4y ago
      Well, SMS is not really secure. Eg it's relatively easy to use social engineering on the phone company.

dylan604 4y ago

> But not being able to get a bank account gets them into very difficult situations and pushes them to shady people (which was exactly what the legalisation was avoiding). It's the same situation for dispensaries or other legal cannabis companies operating legally in states where it is approved, yet because of the federal status, banks will not accept them either.

jacobr1 4y ago
Not quite the same thing. The dispensaries are operating illegally. The fact that the states "legalized" it, doesn't mean it isn't illegal. There are plenty of other federal laws that don't have state equivalents outlawing them that are widely understood to be illegal as well. But what is different are the social norms and expectations. The general agreement that they are legal, makes them defacto legal ... except where the federal jurisdiction matters. But, if there was political appetite for it, federal law enforcement could arrest and prosecute everyone involved in the recreational cannabis business in "legal" states. There is just no political appetite. The Rohrabacher–Farr amendment, though, prohibits this for medical usage (just enforcement, it still is illegal). Note I do think we should broadly decriminalize (not the same as make fully legal) most drugs, and fully legalize things like cannabis.

fredgrott 4y ago

it goes according to financial risks of high chargebacks, it's not a moral choice just a choice of avoiding high chargebacks.

Mindwipe 4y ago
But the article here explicitly makes clear that it isn't.

stjohnswarts 4y ago

I agree, given their hegemony of payment systems they should be required to accept payment and government should state that they have to provide payment services to any _legal_ enterprise. That would also give them cover from the bible thumpers.

wl 4y ago

Citibank also tries to regulate the firearms industry: https://www.wsj.com/articles/citigroup-tried-and-failed-to-rally-banks-to-pressure-gun-sellers-11656124086 https://www.wsj.com/articles/citigroup-tried-and-failed-to-r...

Spooky23 4y ago

rendaw 4y ago

I think "the right to spend and receive money" is (or should be considered) a human right. Being able to live is for a large part contingent on paying people and/or receiving money from people. Companies involved with payments should be regulated on this basis. This doesn't address the banking thing, although spending and receiving money at times requires a bank account.

pvillano 4y ago
what would (does?) a government run electronic payment system look like?
eru 4y ago
Eh, the right not to touch money that was involved in activities you don't like has just as much standing in my opinion. Or do you want to force people to deal with money made from 'blood diamonds' or from fossil fuels or tobacco or abortion clinics or gay wedding cakes or pineapple pizza etc? (I deliberately picked examples from different points of politics and with different levels of severity.) Instead of regulating more heavily, we should look into lowering barriers to entry, so that people doing legal things can find someone to facilitate their payments (without the need to force anyone to facilitate payments they disagree with).
- Ekaros 4y ago
  On level of individuals I would agree. You should be free to choose your customers. But when you are the dominant player let's say 20%+ of market alone or with your partners it really changes. At that point no, you should not be able to choose your customers. Outside individual reasons like repeated fraud or attempts of such.
- rendaw 4y ago
  I think sibling has a stronger argument, but I just want to add that, even if you take a free market approach for everything else, I think paying and receiving money deserves to be treated separately. Monetary transaction is fundamental to civilization, more than any other single service or good. You very nearly can't participate in civilization and can't at all in the free market without being able to freely spend and receive money. And this is the first time in history that monetary flow has been centralized to this degree, and it's hard to imagine things going less digital.

eru 4y ago

> Personally I think they should not be able to decide such things. A payment provider should be forced to accept all legitimate customers. It is absolutely unwanted for a private business (in an unrelated category no less) to be playing the role of legislator. Why? I would say just the opposite: by default people should be able to decide who they want to do business with. Payment providers are no exception. Some people might want to refuse to facilitate payments for eg bakeries that refuse to bake cakes for gay weddings. Some other people might want to refuse to facilitate payments for bakers that bake cakes for gay weddings. (Similar for many other issues you can think of.) > Recently there was a lot of news in the Netherlands about prostitutes not being able to open bank account because all banks refused them. The bigger problem here seems to be a lack of competition? If barriers to entry were low enough, presumably someone would open a bank that accepted prostitutes' money and make a tidy profit (since there would be less competition, when they are the first ones). Banking is regulated so heavily in an attempt to keep out even slightly 'shady' things, that the effect is to drive people into the arms of the really shady.