6 ms·

This should be illegal. Businesses like payment processors should not be allowed to refuse to provide their services to any legal clients. And legality is up t

This should be illegal. Businesses like payment processors should not be allowed to refuse to provide their services to any legal clients. And legality is up to the courts to decide not payment processors or any other middlemen. If enough people really want to ban porn (I don't know or care if this particular site was really porn) then go through the proper channels, and make a law explicitly banning it don't try to get private companies to do the work of enforcing arbitary rules.

jamestimmins 4y ago
In many cases, I suspect providers would love if this was illegal, as they likely dislike being forced by the public to become arbiters of decency (thinking especially of Cloudflare banning trolls). The balance, according to my limited understanding, is that certain types of activity including porn-adjacent sites have much higher card failure rates, so banning some activity is a way to reduce chargeback costs falling on Stripe's shoulders.
- Wowfunhappy 4y ago
  > The balance, according to my limited understanding, is that certain types of activity including porn-adjacent sites have much higher card failure rates, so banning some activity is a way to reduce chargeback costs falling on Stripe's shoulders. In that case, wouldn't the solution be to charge higher processing fees (possibly much higher) for websites in that category? Why ban them entirely?
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > In that case, wouldn't the solution be to charge higher processing fees (possibly much higher) for websites in that category? Which will the lead to deliberate miscategorization, and more costs to verify claimed categorization, and...
    - Wowfunhappy 4y ago
      Doesn't banning the category create an even stronger incentive for deliberate miscategorization?
      - hattmall 4y ago
        No, because the logical penalty for miscategorization is adjustment to the correct fees. The penalty for getting around a banned category is that they steal your money. In many cases it is very large amounts.
        Wowfunhappy 4y ago
        Huh. Well, I'm not sure of the legal details, but that seems like a system that ought to be changed, since the incentives are clearly misaligned.
yucky 4y ago
Doesn't this go back to the whole "if you don't like it build your own" argument that wrongthinkers have had to listen to for years? A business isn't required to support content they don't agree with, or something. I agree it's bullshit, but it shouldn't only be called out when it affects the right people.
xg15 4y ago
> then go through the proper channels, and make a law explicitly banning it don't try to get private companies to do the work of enforcing arbitary rules. I think one of the effects of the gridlock in US politics is that more and more actual policy is now implemented by circumventing the "normal" lawmaking process: e.g. through executive orders, court decisions or appeals to private companies or citizens. Whichever side you're on, this can't be a good thing for a democracy.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  Enforcement of social norms through convincing private actors to behave in certain ways in preference to government actions is a major point of the First Amendment, not a circumvention of the normal lawmaking process.
  - zzo38computer 4y ago
    It would be OK, if they did not then try to force everyone to use the services of private actors.
  - stevefan1999 4y ago
    No, its not okay either. You basically made a cartel that follows a government like structure
  - xg15 4y ago
    If you interpret the first amendment like this, then you shouldn't have any problems with Stripe's behaviour from the article either, right?
Waterluvian 4y ago
This idea is fundamentally at odds with the framework of US jurisprudence. It would require changing the Constitution: namely butchering the 1st Amendment. Forcing companies to do business with everyone creates a ton of wrong incentives as well. A law banning porn. Woof. Enough has already been written about that one.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > This idea is fundamentally at odds with the framework of US jurisprudence. Applying common-carrier rules to a particular, already highly-regulated, key industry to commerce is not “fundamentally at odds with the framework of US jurisprudence”. > It would require changing the Constitution: namely butchering the 1st Amendment. No, it wouldn’t. Just like it didn’t when we did it to telecoms.
  - Waterluvian 4y ago
    Massive uphill battle to have an online payment company treated as such.
    - alexeldeib 4y ago
      Perhaps the right one.
      - Waterluvian 4y ago
        I certainly don’t support the idea but I certainly support trying if there is sufficient interest… ideally by the people.
just-ok 4y ago
“It’s a private business, it can do whatever it wants.”
- puffoflogic 4y ago
  This stopped being true on October 27; where have you been?
candybar 4y ago
Then payment processors either need to either 1) be able to determine with 100% certainty whether something is legal or 2) be given broad immunity with respect to customers' illegal activities as long as they weren't strictly aware. The problem is that 1) is not possible and 2) incentivizes these intermediaries from keeping track of what their customers do, which then opens door to all kinds of criminal activities. Money laundering becomes virtually impossible to prosecute in that environment, which then makes other criminal activities substantially more profitable.
- blagie 4y ago
  If I were to list my top 10 problems in life, money laundering would not make the list. I would like payment processors to operate like common carriers. I prefer not having private law enforcement, and having it done by government agencies. The extent to which I want the government to have access to my day-to-day purchases is another matter, but even that's better than commercial operations where I have no recourse.
  - candybar 4y ago
    Money laundering isn't a big problem for you right now precisely because the world works the way it does, rather than the way you wish it did. The relationship between money laundering and corruption is well-established and globally, corruption is one of the biggest problems if you care about human welfare.
    - blagie 4y ago
      If I were to make a list of my top-10 problems, corruption would be near the top. None of the cases I've seen involved money laundering. If I were to make a trade-off, I would implement many more transparency measures for organizations, not for individuals. If I can see what happens in my local school, municipal government, corporation, university, church, and non-profit, that would cut down on all the corruption I've seen, dramatically. I see no downsides to transparency measures which don't impact individuals, and they have a lot more impact than corporations snooping on me. Indeed, in one case I saw corruption, corporate snooping meant that the corrupt place had more leverage over a whistleblower. That's no good.
puffoflogic 4y ago
> Businesses like payment processors should not be allowed to refuse to provide their services to any legal clients. And social media? Careful, this position is making you fascism-adjacent. Now is the time to decide if that's really where you want to be.

jamestimmins 4y ago

In many cases, I suspect providers would love if this was illegal, as they likely dislike being forced by the public to become arbiters of decency (thinking especially of Cloudflare banning trolls). The balance, according to my limited understanding, is that certain types of activity including porn-adjacent sites have much higher card failure rates, so banning some activity is a way to reduce chargeback costs falling on Stripe's shoulders.

Wowfunhappy 4y ago
> The balance, according to my limited understanding, is that certain types of activity including porn-adjacent sites have much higher card failure rates, so banning some activity is a way to reduce chargeback costs falling on Stripe's shoulders. In that case, wouldn't the solution be to charge higher processing fees (possibly much higher) for websites in that category? Why ban them entirely?
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > In that case, wouldn't the solution be to charge higher processing fees (possibly much higher) for websites in that category? Which will the lead to deliberate miscategorization, and more costs to verify claimed categorization, and...
  - Wowfunhappy 4y ago
    Doesn't banning the category create an even stronger incentive for deliberate miscategorization?
    - hattmall 4y ago
      No, because the logical penalty for miscategorization is adjustment to the correct fees. The penalty for getting around a banned category is that they steal your money. In many cases it is very large amounts.
      - Wowfunhappy 4y ago
        Huh. Well, I'm not sure of the legal details, but that seems like a system that ought to be changed, since the incentives are clearly misaligned.

yucky 4y ago

Doesn't this go back to the whole "if you don't like it build your own" argument that wrongthinkers have had to listen to for years? A business isn't required to support content they don't agree with, or something. I agree it's bullshit, but it shouldn't only be called out when it affects the right people.

xg15 4y ago

> then go through the proper channels, and make a law explicitly banning it don't try to get private companies to do the work of enforcing arbitary rules. I think one of the effects of the gridlock in US politics is that more and more actual policy is now implemented by circumventing the "normal" lawmaking process: e.g. through executive orders, court decisions or appeals to private companies or citizens. Whichever side you're on, this can't be a good thing for a democracy.

dragonwriter 4y ago
Enforcement of social norms through convincing private actors to behave in certain ways in preference to government actions is a major point of the First Amendment, not a circumvention of the normal lawmaking process.
- zzo38computer 4y ago
  It would be OK, if they did not then try to force everyone to use the services of private actors.
- stevefan1999 4y ago
  No, its not okay either. You basically made a cartel that follows a government like structure
- xg15 4y ago
  If you interpret the first amendment like this, then you shouldn't have any problems with Stripe's behaviour from the article either, right?

Waterluvian 4y ago

This idea is fundamentally at odds with the framework of US jurisprudence. It would require changing the Constitution: namely butchering the 1st Amendment. Forcing companies to do business with everyone creates a ton of wrong incentives as well. A law banning porn. Woof. Enough has already been written about that one.

dragonwriter 4y ago
> This idea is fundamentally at odds with the framework of US jurisprudence. Applying common-carrier rules to a particular, already highly-regulated, key industry to commerce is not “fundamentally at odds with the framework of US jurisprudence”. > It would require changing the Constitution: namely butchering the 1st Amendment. No, it wouldn’t. Just like it didn’t when we did it to telecoms.
- Waterluvian 4y ago
  Massive uphill battle to have an online payment company treated as such.
  - alexeldeib 4y ago
    Perhaps the right one.
    - Waterluvian 4y ago
      I certainly don’t support the idea but I certainly support trying if there is sufficient interest… ideally by the people.

just-ok 4y ago

“It’s a private business, it can do whatever it wants.”

puffoflogic 4y ago
This stopped being true on October 27; where have you been?

candybar 4y ago

Then payment processors either need to either 1) be able to determine with 100% certainty whether something is legal or 2) be given broad immunity with respect to customers' illegal activities as long as they weren't strictly aware. The problem is that 1) is not possible and 2) incentivizes these intermediaries from keeping track of what their customers do, which then opens door to all kinds of criminal activities. Money laundering becomes virtually impossible to prosecute in that environment, which then makes other criminal activities substantially more profitable.

blagie 4y ago
If I were to list my top 10 problems in life, money laundering would not make the list. I would like payment processors to operate like common carriers. I prefer not having private law enforcement, and having it done by government agencies. The extent to which I want the government to have access to my day-to-day purchases is another matter, but even that's better than commercial operations where I have no recourse.
- candybar 4y ago
  Money laundering isn't a big problem for you right now precisely because the world works the way it does, rather than the way you wish it did. The relationship between money laundering and corruption is well-established and globally, corruption is one of the biggest problems if you care about human welfare.
  - blagie 4y ago
    If I were to make a list of my top-10 problems, corruption would be near the top. None of the cases I've seen involved money laundering. If I were to make a trade-off, I would implement many more transparency measures for organizations, not for individuals. If I can see what happens in my local school, municipal government, corporation, university, church, and non-profit, that would cut down on all the corruption I've seen, dramatically. I see no downsides to transparency measures which don't impact individuals, and they have a lot more impact than corporations snooping on me. Indeed, in one case I saw corruption, corporate snooping meant that the corrupt place had more leverage over a whistleblower. That's no good.

puffoflogic 4y ago

> Businesses like payment processors should not be allowed to refuse to provide their services to any legal clients. And social media? Careful, this position is making you fascism-adjacent. Now is the time to decide if that's really where you want to be.