6 ms·

Is it a moral judgement? Or is it an extremely high number of chargebacks making it unprofitable? I don’t think payment processors care, but they have margins

Is it a moral judgement? Or is it an extremely high number of chargebacks making it unprofitable? I don’t think payment processors care, but they have margins they want to maintain. Dipping their margins for particular companies or industries would be making a moral decision. For your mutual fund, I expect similar in that weed stocks aren’t performing as well as they once were and aren’t projected to perform as well so they no longer fit the targets of your fund. I’d read the prospectus before assuming some moral aversion to weed.

Retric 4y ago
[citation needed] on the chargebacks. Sex workers get a lot of repeat business and aren’t used for the kind of stolen credit card validation that hits many online businesses.
- HappySweeney 4y ago
  I have a buddy that used to own a brothel in Arizona. He said he got a lot of chargebacks, but he would dispute them with the physical signatures and generally won.
  - stametseater 4y ago
    Do you mean Nevada? When was prostitution last legal in Arizona? 1918 as far as I can tell.
    - HappySweeney 4y ago
      I mean Arizona. He was aware his business was not legal.
      - quotz 4y ago
        Am I the only one dying to learn more about this? How was he running a brothel in AZ?? Was it near the border?
      - stametseater 4y ago
        I'm surprised that such a person was willing to create such an extensive paper trail for their crimes, and that their customers were willing to go along with it too. If I were trying to hire a prostitute and the matter of my signature on a contract came up, I would conclude it was a police sting and GTFO. Then again I don't hire prostitutes in the first place. I suppose those that do probably have a higher tolerance for criminal risk.
- themitigating 4y ago
  [Citation needed] on moral concerns?
  - Retric 4y ago
    Nah, they asserted an “extremely high number of chargebacks” which while the article says it’s “related to sexual businesses.”
    - yanderekko 4y ago
      It's the same thing. Payment processors often ban sex-related businesses not out of prudishness or brand risk but simple financial risk controls. The evidence on this is readily available via Google. Just search for high risk industries for payment processors, it will always include sex industry stuff.
- adrianmonk 4y ago
  I think the chargeback scenario here isn't cards which are actually stolen. It's that someone makes a purchase, their spouse notices it on the credit card statement, and they deny it. Then in order to sell the lie to their spouse, they call the credit card company and say, "Of course I didn't make those purchases! I would never do such a thing! I'm not some kind of pervert! Remove these charges immediately or I'll close my account!" And then the credit card company's thought process is like, "Well, you probably did! But we can pretend you didn't, if that's what it takes to keep you as a customer so we can keep making money off you."
mosburger 4y ago
Wouldn't chargebacks only really impact the merchant, and not the acquirer/payment processor?
rabite 4y ago
I have a 0% chargeback rate. I am banned from every US and EU retail bank, brokerage (both crypto and equities), and SEPA, on the basis of my 1st amendment protected behavior. The sites that got me this status are donations-only -- nobody has any incentive to chargeback, we aren't offering merchandise or subscriptions. People who give us money just generally want to give us money. Similar anti-immigration, anti-government, and pro-gun businesses (3d printed firearm toolchain companies have had a hell of a time staying banked) also have very low chargeback rates, lower than the industry average. Financial institutions should not be allowed to discriminate against law abiding citizens. If a transaction is legal it should be their job to move the money from party A to party B.
- LBJsPNS 4y ago
  Just for the record, your "first amendment protected behavior" means the government can't prosecute you for said behavior. It doesn't mean anyone else has to tolerate you or your nonsense, including major financial organizations. Or are you saying you want that ebil gummint to impose your will on others?
  - zen_1 4y ago
    To quote GP: > Financial providers shouldn't be issuing moral judgements. It seems to be more common too.
  - bioemerl 4y ago
    It is absolutely reasonable to expect that freedom of speech involves the preservation of being able to make basic purchases. This "freedom of speech isn't freedom of consequences" line is exactly the sort of attitude people take in the countries in which the government does suppress free speech, and they think it's just perfectly fine. You have freedom of speech and every country then, the consequences just going to jail. There's a limit to this. There should be consequences for you saying things that are wrong, lying to people, spreading hatred, and so on. However, protecting basic human decency in the ability to continue to participate in society is incredibly important to preserving free expression across our nations. Being able to purchase things, being able to post to the internet, are both aspects of this. It's fine to have this attitude when they're is a strong diversity of companies that allow you to participate and is likely that not all of them can collude with each other. We have two payment processing companies. Four social media companies, and those four all literally live in the same city. The patj you tread is a path leading to suppression of speech, and the point of free speech is to ensure that people are able to speak without fear of undue consequence.
Havoc 4y ago
>mutual fund >aren’t projected to perform as well To be clear in my case this was not a managed portfolio. They literally dumped individual shares I had specifically selected and purchased
- justin66 4y ago
  What country are you in? What brokerage are you using? I'm wondering how this is even possible.
- prepend 4y ago
  That’s interesting. I’ve never encountered a brokerage that restricted what shares I could buy. Usually it’s if the share is traded on an exchange it’s fair game. What kind of account did this?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
giantg2 4y ago
Technically you could just charge higher transaction fees and require additional validation, like a phone call to the card holder to confirm the purchase to reduce charge backs and maintain the margin. As providers continue to drop out, your transaction fee could increase to create a higher margin.
- prepend 4y ago
  Technically they have different product lines for everything. I think it’s a situation where it’s possible but not profitable so they don’t do it. What you’re describing is a lot of work, when there are higher margins elsewhere. Why would a payment processor build a special system just for porn? If it’s profitable someone will eventually create a product. My assumption is that they looked into this and decided it wasn’t worth it. I remember years ago the issue of chargebacks is due to shame and people in relationships denying that they ever did it to appease partners. So it’s pretty hard to be in a business that has to fix shame and relationship problems to succeed. If they could do that, they need to release it as a psychology tool.
  - giantg2 4y ago
    "Why would a payment processor build a special system just for porn?" But you don't. You just have to extend the current system for calls about hitting a limit, fraud, etc. "So it’s pretty hard to be in a business that has to fix shame and relationship problems to succeed." You don't have to fix shame. You just need to pre-approve the transaction so they can't later charge back without a compelling argument for why the person on the phone wasn't really you.
ddtaylor 4y ago
The reason they do this is the same reason why visa and MasterCard cut off all ties with these types of companies. The reason is that if they continue to be "complicit" they run the risk of having the federal government attack them legally because of their ongoing involvement and controlled substances.

Retric 4y ago

[citation needed] on the chargebacks. Sex workers get a lot of repeat business and aren’t used for the kind of stolen credit card validation that hits many online businesses.

HappySweeney 4y ago
I have a buddy that used to own a brothel in Arizona. He said he got a lot of chargebacks, but he would dispute them with the physical signatures and generally won.
- stametseater 4y ago
  Do you mean Nevada? When was prostitution last legal in Arizona? 1918 as far as I can tell.
  - HappySweeney 4y ago
    I mean Arizona. He was aware his business was not legal.
    - quotz 4y ago
      Am I the only one dying to learn more about this? How was he running a brothel in AZ?? Was it near the border?
    - stametseater 4y ago
      I'm surprised that such a person was willing to create such an extensive paper trail for their crimes, and that their customers were willing to go along with it too. If I were trying to hire a prostitute and the matter of my signature on a contract came up, I would conclude it was a police sting and GTFO. Then again I don't hire prostitutes in the first place. I suppose those that do probably have a higher tolerance for criminal risk.
themitigating 4y ago
[Citation needed] on moral concerns?
- Retric 4y ago
  Nah, they asserted an “extremely high number of chargebacks” which while the article says it’s “related to sexual businesses.”
  - yanderekko 4y ago
    It's the same thing. Payment processors often ban sex-related businesses not out of prudishness or brand risk but simple financial risk controls. The evidence on this is readily available via Google. Just search for high risk industries for payment processors, it will always include sex industry stuff.
adrianmonk 4y ago
I think the chargeback scenario here isn't cards which are actually stolen. It's that someone makes a purchase, their spouse notices it on the credit card statement, and they deny it. Then in order to sell the lie to their spouse, they call the credit card company and say, "Of course I didn't make those purchases! I would never do such a thing! I'm not some kind of pervert! Remove these charges immediately or I'll close my account!" And then the credit card company's thought process is like, "Well, you probably did! But we can pretend you didn't, if that's what it takes to keep you as a customer so we can keep making money off you."

mosburger 4y ago

Wouldn't chargebacks only really impact the merchant, and not the acquirer/payment processor?

rabite 4y ago

I have a 0% chargeback rate. I am banned from every US and EU retail bank, brokerage (both crypto and equities), and SEPA, on the basis of my 1st amendment protected behavior. The sites that got me this status are donations-only -- nobody has any incentive to chargeback, we aren't offering merchandise or subscriptions. People who give us money just generally want to give us money. Similar anti-immigration, anti-government, and pro-gun businesses (3d printed firearm toolchain companies have had a hell of a time staying banked) also have very low chargeback rates, lower than the industry average. Financial institutions should not be allowed to discriminate against law abiding citizens. If a transaction is legal it should be their job to move the money from party A to party B.

LBJsPNS 4y ago
Just for the record, your "first amendment protected behavior" means the government can't prosecute you for said behavior. It doesn't mean anyone else has to tolerate you or your nonsense, including major financial organizations. Or are you saying you want that ebil gummint to impose your will on others?
- zen_1 4y ago
  To quote GP: > Financial providers shouldn't be issuing moral judgements. It seems to be more common too.
- bioemerl 4y ago
  It is absolutely reasonable to expect that freedom of speech involves the preservation of being able to make basic purchases. This "freedom of speech isn't freedom of consequences" line is exactly the sort of attitude people take in the countries in which the government does suppress free speech, and they think it's just perfectly fine. You have freedom of speech and every country then, the consequences just going to jail. There's a limit to this. There should be consequences for you saying things that are wrong, lying to people, spreading hatred, and so on. However, protecting basic human decency in the ability to continue to participate in society is incredibly important to preserving free expression across our nations. Being able to purchase things, being able to post to the internet, are both aspects of this. It's fine to have this attitude when they're is a strong diversity of companies that allow you to participate and is likely that not all of them can collude with each other. We have two payment processing companies. Four social media companies, and those four all literally live in the same city. The patj you tread is a path leading to suppression of speech, and the point of free speech is to ensure that people are able to speak without fear of undue consequence.

Havoc 4y ago

>mutual fund >aren’t projected to perform as well To be clear in my case this was not a managed portfolio. They literally dumped individual shares I had specifically selected and purchased

justin66 4y ago
What country are you in? What brokerage are you using? I'm wondering how this is even possible.
prepend 4y ago
That’s interesting. I’ve never encountered a brokerage that restricted what shares I could buy. Usually it’s if the share is traded on an exchange it’s fair game. What kind of account did this?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

giantg2 4y ago

Technically you could just charge higher transaction fees and require additional validation, like a phone call to the card holder to confirm the purchase to reduce charge backs and maintain the margin. As providers continue to drop out, your transaction fee could increase to create a higher margin.

prepend 4y ago
Technically they have different product lines for everything. I think it’s a situation where it’s possible but not profitable so they don’t do it. What you’re describing is a lot of work, when there are higher margins elsewhere. Why would a payment processor build a special system just for porn? If it’s profitable someone will eventually create a product. My assumption is that they looked into this and decided it wasn’t worth it. I remember years ago the issue of chargebacks is due to shame and people in relationships denying that they ever did it to appease partners. So it’s pretty hard to be in a business that has to fix shame and relationship problems to succeed. If they could do that, they need to release it as a psychology tool.
- giantg2 4y ago
  "Why would a payment processor build a special system just for porn?" But you don't. You just have to extend the current system for calls about hitting a limit, fraud, etc. "So it’s pretty hard to be in a business that has to fix shame and relationship problems to succeed." You don't have to fix shame. You just need to pre-approve the transaction so they can't later charge back without a compelling argument for why the person on the phone wasn't really you.

ddtaylor 4y ago

The reason they do this is the same reason why visa and MasterCard cut off all ties with these types of companies. The reason is that if they continue to be "complicit" they run the risk of having the federal government attack them legally because of their ongoing involvement and controlled substances.