5 ms·

Do we really want private companies to be in the business of law enforcement?

treis 4y ago
No, but we probably don't want them profiting off of child pornography either.
coldtea 4y ago
No, but if they could have state power they could. Private companies after a certain size (which Visa certainly qualifies) have to be forced to be open and neutral - they'd expand their power to anything they can given the chance. (Same goes for the government, but at least that you get to vote for).
- R0b0t1 4y ago
  > but at least that you get to vote for). Unbridled optimism.
quest88 4y ago
They're trying to prevent the law from being used against them. From the article: A federal judge in California on Friday denied Visa’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit by a woman who accuses the payment processor of knowingly facilitating the distribution of child pornography on Pornhub and other sites operated by parent company MindGeek.
- nickff 4y ago
  The real costs here are not from the expected outcome of the lawsuit (which is unlikely to succeed), but from the discovery and other legal costs. When large companies are defendants/respondents in lawsuits like this, the costs of going to trial are astronomical. I think Visa doesn't mind the law as much as the legal system.
richbell 4y ago
Credit card companies have an incredible amount of influence: they're effectively gate-keepers for monetization on the web. There's a long history of them blacklisting people and even using their influence to pressure companies from removing them.
sandworm101 4y ago
No, but we also do not want private companies being in the business of facilitating illegal activity. We wouldn't expect UPS to deliver cocaine once they become aware that a particular customer is using UPS to ship drugs. Visa isn't obligated to investigate all of its customers, but once informed of wrongdoing it should take reasonable steps to distance itself.
- stickfigure 4y ago
  UPS is used to deliver illegal drugs. Visa is aware of this fact. Should they ban UPS?
  - sandworm101 4y ago
    Yes. If a delivery company continues to do business with known drug dealers, refuses to stop once faced with reasonable evidence, then it is perfectly reasonable for Visa and everyone else to walk away.
    - actually_a_dog 4y ago
      "Reasonable evidence" according to whom?
      - sandworm101 4y ago
        There is no one definition. Each customer is free to use their own definition. If Visa doesn't like what a website is doing, Visa can walk away. If I don't agree with Visa's decision, I am free to walk away from Visa. I am also free to publicly criticize Visa. Each market actor is free to make their own decisions purely on their own interpretation of reasonableness.
        nawgz 4y ago
        > If Visa doesn't like what a website is doing, Visa can walk away Right, which does massive damage to that website as Visa is part of a duopoly with a complete stranglehold on the market > If I don't agree with Visa's decision, I am free to walk away from Visa Ok, and if Mastercard follows suit, where do you go? The problem with essential services - monetary transmission, in this case - being monopolized by private companies is that your trite claim that "each party can walk away" is actually quite clearly untrue for the consumer in each such situation. Market actors should be free to make their own decisions, but monopoly and cartel situations need regulation to prevent consumer harm, and it's clear what this is.
powerhour 4y ago
We want private companies to be in the business of rule enforcement, IMO. Some want to prevent monopolies from having too much influence over commerce but it's far from the majority (based on all available evidence).
mise_en_place 4y ago
Dropping a customer is not law enforcement. There are other credit card payment processors. This really only affects companies who purchase ads on PornHub. Those companies are usually very shady, run by people like Andrew Tate
- dahdum 4y ago
  > There are other credit card payment processors. No other processors are allowed to take their payments either, it's on the Visa/MC network level.
cush 4y ago
It's similar to DMCA takedowns. They aren't responsible for investigations.
pessimizer 4y ago
I think the answer is that we love private companies in the business of law enforcement, because private companies are allowed to do things we pretty consistently tell the government not to do. The government will even blackmail or extort private companies into doing law enforcement, if they can find the leverage.

No, but we probably don't want them profiting off of child pornography either.

No, but if they could have state power they could. Private companies after a certain size (which Visa certainly qualifies) have to be forced to be open and neutral - they'd expand their power to anything they can given the chance. (Same goes for the government, but at least that you get to vote for).

R0b0t1 4y ago
> but at least that you get to vote for). Unbridled optimism.

quest88 4y ago

They're trying to prevent the law from being used against them. From the article: A federal judge in California on Friday denied Visa’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit by a woman who accuses the payment processor of knowingly facilitating the distribution of child pornography on Pornhub and other sites operated by parent company MindGeek.

nickff 4y ago
The real costs here are not from the expected outcome of the lawsuit (which is unlikely to succeed), but from the discovery and other legal costs. When large companies are defendants/respondents in lawsuits like this, the costs of going to trial are astronomical. I think Visa doesn't mind the law as much as the legal system.

richbell 4y ago

Credit card companies have an incredible amount of influence: they're effectively gate-keepers for monetization on the web. There's a long history of them blacklisting people and even using their influence to pressure companies from removing them.

sandworm101 4y ago

No, but we also do not want private companies being in the business of facilitating illegal activity. We wouldn't expect UPS to deliver cocaine once they become aware that a particular customer is using UPS to ship drugs. Visa isn't obligated to investigate all of its customers, but once informed of wrongdoing it should take reasonable steps to distance itself.

stickfigure 4y ago
UPS is used to deliver illegal drugs. Visa is aware of this fact. Should they ban UPS?
- sandworm101 4y ago
  Yes. If a delivery company continues to do business with known drug dealers, refuses to stop once faced with reasonable evidence, then it is perfectly reasonable for Visa and everyone else to walk away.
  - actually_a_dog 4y ago
    "Reasonable evidence" according to whom?
    - sandworm101 4y ago
      There is no one definition. Each customer is free to use their own definition. If Visa doesn't like what a website is doing, Visa can walk away. If I don't agree with Visa's decision, I am free to walk away from Visa. I am also free to publicly criticize Visa. Each market actor is free to make their own decisions purely on their own interpretation of reasonableness.
      - nawgz 4y ago
        > If Visa doesn't like what a website is doing, Visa can walk away Right, which does massive damage to that website as Visa is part of a duopoly with a complete stranglehold on the market > If I don't agree with Visa's decision, I am free to walk away from Visa Ok, and if Mastercard follows suit, where do you go? The problem with essential services - monetary transmission, in this case - being monopolized by private companies is that your trite claim that "each party can walk away" is actually quite clearly untrue for the consumer in each such situation. Market actors should be free to make their own decisions, but monopoly and cartel situations need regulation to prevent consumer harm, and it's clear what this is.

powerhour 4y ago

We want private companies to be in the business of rule enforcement, IMO. Some want to prevent monopolies from having too much influence over commerce but it's far from the majority (based on all available evidence).

mise_en_place 4y ago

Dropping a customer is not law enforcement. There are other credit card payment processors. This really only affects companies who purchase ads on PornHub. Those companies are usually very shady, run by people like Andrew Tate

dahdum 4y ago
> There are other credit card payment processors. No other processors are allowed to take their payments either, it's on the Visa/MC network level.

cush 4y ago

It's similar to DMCA takedowns. They aren't responsible for investigations.

pessimizer 4y ago

I think the answer is that we love private companies in the business of law enforcement, because private companies are allowed to do things we pretty consistently tell the government not to do. The government will even blackmail or extort private companies into doing law enforcement, if they can find the leverage.