2 ms·

>I’ve worked in payments for 10 years I know what I’m saying, imprecise wording was just rounding for the audience. Ok. >neither is debit, although that’s fin

by RC_ITR 4y ago

>I’ve worked in payments for 10 years I know what I’m saying, imprecise wording was just rounding for the audience. Ok. >neither is debit, although that’s fine too. I want equal access for all merchants to VisaNet and its peers. This is such an odd thing for a payment professional to say. Are you under the impression that debit transactions don't run on Visanet? >not because they are not how people are choosing to pay. I’m being pragmatic. Again I implore you to look to Europe/Asia, where there are plenty of non-network cards that work just fine for essentially free domestic payments (and would you like to guess how those transactions are settled? You must know...) [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girocard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girocard

arcticbull 4y ago
> This is such an odd thing for a payment professional to say. Are you under the impression that debit transactions don't run on Visanet? I think you're misunderstanding me. That's not what I was saying at all. My argument is that payment networks, issuers and acquirers should not decide unilaterally what kinds of lawful merchants, customers and transactions they permit. I'm talking about various merchant acquirers not permitting lawful gun or drug sales, networks going after OnlyFans in 2021, and PayPal shutting down WikiLeaks' account back in 2010. [1,2] I don't necessarily agree with what these people or businesses are doing personally but it is not my decision to make nor should it be that of any other private entity. If they are lawful, they should be permitted. If they aren't then the business owners/operators should be prosecuted - or at minimum there should be a legal proceeding that can be appealed by the target party when payments processing is suspended. Somehow we hold domain name registrars to a higher standard than the aggregate of payments entities in this regard. > Again I implore you to look to Europe/Asia, where there are plenty of non-network cards that work just fine for essentially free domestic payments (and would you like to guess how those transactions are settled? That's not really the point. My point is that these aggregated payments entities are the infrastructure of the modern economy. Giving a few private entity gatekeepers the ability to extrajudicially decide what is and is not permitted in the modern economy - without appeal or recourse - is undemocratic, and it's wrong. While different options exist in different places, one should not be forced to seek them out to participate in the lawful economy. It's simply too important. I am advocating for a modern, digital equivalent of '[valid] for all debts public and private.' We have granted these aggregate systems a de facto duopoly on commerce in the United States. They are quickly becoming or already are essential and so it's time we treat them from a legal and regulatory perspective more like what they are. How long would Amazon last if they were cut off? Why do we give two private entities the ability to decide if Amazon can continue to exist? [1] https://www.protocol.com/policy/onlyfans-visa-mastercard https://www.protocol.com/policy/onlyfans-visa-mastercard [2] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/04/paypal-shuts-down-wikileaks-account https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/04/paypal-shuts-d...

by RC_ITR 4y ago

arcticbull 4y ago

> This is such an odd thing for a payment professional to say. Are you under the impression that debit transactions don't run on Visanet? I think you're misunderstanding me. That's not what I was saying at all. My argument is that payment networks, issuers and acquirers should not decide unilaterally what kinds of lawful merchants, customers and transactions they permit. I'm talking about various merchant acquirers not permitting lawful gun or drug sales, networks going after OnlyFans in 2021, and PayPal shutting down WikiLeaks' account back in 2010. [1,2] I don't necessarily agree with what these people or businesses are doing personally but it is not my decision to make nor should it be that of any other private entity. If they are lawful, they should be permitted. If they aren't then the business owners/operators should be prosecuted - or at minimum there should be a legal proceeding that can be appealed by the target party when payments processing is suspended. Somehow we hold domain name registrars to a higher standard than the aggregate of payments entities in this regard. > Again I implore you to look to Europe/Asia, where there are plenty of non-network cards that work just fine for essentially free domestic payments (and would you like to guess how those transactions are settled? That's not really the point. My point is that these aggregated payments entities are the infrastructure of the modern economy. Giving a few private entity gatekeepers the ability to extrajudicially decide what is and is not permitted in the modern economy - without appeal or recourse - is undemocratic, and it's wrong. While different options exist in different places, one should not be forced to seek them out to participate in the lawful economy. It's simply too important. I am advocating for a modern, digital equivalent of '[valid] for all debts public and private.' We have granted these aggregate systems a de facto duopoly on commerce in the United States. They are quickly becoming or already are essential and so it's time we treat them from a legal and regulatory perspective more like what they are. How long would Amazon last if they were cut off? Why do we give two private entities the ability to decide if Amazon can continue to exist? [1] https://www.protocol.com/policy/onlyfans-visa-mastercard https://www.protocol.com/policy/onlyfans-visa-mastercard [2] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/04/paypal-shuts-down-wikileaks-account https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/04/paypal-shuts-d...