4 ms·

Look. Ignore the content. Why the fuck do we allow credit card companies have a say in how we spend our money? Fraud? Abuse? Fine, let me put cash onto a card

Look. Ignore the content. Why the fuck do we allow credit card companies have a say in how we spend our money? Fraud? Abuse? Fine, let me put cash onto a card and if that card gets stolen, oh well, my loss. Mastercard should have no say in what what speech is considered acceptable outside of their offices. We don't care what execs at a water company think? Why do we care about the people at Mastercard?

hungmung 1y ago
It's because Visa got sued, lost, and it was found out they knowingly processed payments for illegal adult content, so they basically avoid the sector entirely now. Economist had an article about it maybe two years ago and came to much the same conclusion you did. IIRC, the failure in their mind was government not stepping in to make a law so things are less ambiguous in the future. Now payment processing cos get to gate keep people's speech, which means everything is basically a civil suit away from getting blacklisted.
- braiamp 1y ago
  > It's because Visa got sued, lost, and it was found out they knowingly processed payments for illegal adult content Got any source for that? What they got sued for? Aiding human trafficking?
  - driscoll42 1y ago
    It's not quite that specific, but close enough: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/01/business/dealbook/pornhub-visa-mastercard-disney.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/01/business/dealbook/pornhub... https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/08/california-court-says-visa-may-be-partly-liable-for-child-porn-problem/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/08/california-court... >This week, US District Judge Cormac Carney of the US District Court of the Central District of California decided that there's reason to believe that Visa knowingly processed payments that allowed MindGeek to monetize "a substantial amount of child porn." To decide, the court wants to know much more about Visa's involvement, calling for more evidence of legal harms caused during a jurisdictional discovery process extended through December 30, 2022. According to Court Listener, the case is still ongoing - https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59992265/serena-fleites-v-mindgeek-sarl/?page=4 https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59992265/serena-fleites...
- aranelsurion 1y ago
  I wonder what are the odds of Visa being succesfully sued for processing payments to such a huge brand like Steam. Steam has its virtual wallet and marketplace as well, so Visa is twice removed from where the money will actually go once it enters Steam ecosystem. Even as an abundance of caution, this doesn’t make sense to me.
- moffkalast 1y ago
  Seems rather weird that Visa out of all the parties involved got hit by this, that's like suing the national bank for printing cash currency that gets used in illegal ways? Or suing the pavement for allowing a heist getaway car to drive away. Or the gas station where they last filled it up.
SJC_Hacker 1y ago
Because they are on the hook for fraudulent transactions, until they get to merchant to refund. Otherwise they wouldn't care. Which is why some merchants get effectively blacklisted if they have too many fraudulent transactions
- jjeaff 1y ago
  that wouldn't apply in this case, because the vendor, Valve, would be on the hook for fraudulent purchases and they would definitely have the deep pockets to pay out. The cc companies only have to worry about the small, fly by night companies that might disappear after a bunch of fraud.
- lxgr 1y ago
  The card networks are never on the hook for fraudulent transactions (nor for any other type of chargeback for that matter). If anything, it's the merchant's payment service provider/card acquirer that absorbs the loss if the merchant can't pay.
  - zhivota 1y ago
    True until the acquiring (merchant side) bank is insolvent. Then the network pays. Source: worked at Visa for years. It's why it's so hard to become an acquiring bank on the network.
    - lxgr 1y ago
      True – I was debating whether I should mention that edge case :) I think the general idea is that acquiring banks are hopefully large enough to absorb any single merchant insolvency, but there are obviously limits to that. Airlines and event tickets are notorious example of that, since they usually take payment weeks or months ahead of providing the underlying service but want to get paid immediately.
- miiiiiike 1y ago
  No, I get it. Give me a "Freedom Card" or whatever that generates a one-time use number/cvv combo, backed by cash, that I'm fully responsible for. If I give a guy on the corner $5 cash and he walks off with it, that's between me and him. We don't need to resort to crypto. I don't care if there's a paper trail, I don't need to be anonymous. I just don't want money people to have any say in how people choose to spend their money.
nullc 1y ago
Well your comment tells us why-- as is the law in the US is that credit card companies are almost entirely responsible for fraud. It's part of why they and their dubiously usurious practices are allowed to exist in the US at all. If it were the case that the payment rail censorship were limited just to cases where there was an obvious elevated fraud risk-- then that would be the whole of the story. -- and there would be an obvious answer: use a payment mechanism where the fraud responsibility is entirely on the user, such as Bitcoin. But their censorship exists where no such elevated fraud risk exists too, due to abusive conduct by the government to indirectly suppress activity that would be plainly unlawful for them to directly suppress. And the governments out of control abuse of its regulatory power is not limited to fraud-responsible payment rails, and get applied just as or even more extensively on Bitcoin payment processors.
- miiiiiike 1y ago
  No, I get it. Give me a "Freedom Card" or whatever that generates a one-time use number/cvv combo, backed by cash, that I'm fully responsible for. If I give a guy on the corner $5 cash and he walks off with it, that's between me and him.
globular-toast 1y ago
Well, credit is not really "your money". The danger of course is if this gets extended to debit cards and they become the only option (ie. no cash). Every time you use your card you are giving them the power to do this.
- abcd_f 1y ago
  > credit is not really "your money" Unless it's a prepaid credit card or a debit card, both of which are serviced by MC and Visa and fairly common in Europe.
  - globular-toast 1y ago
    Yes, I mentioned debit cards in the second of the three sentences in my comment. It's an important distinction to make. Credit is very much not something you should feel entitled to and issuer can and should be selective about who and what they issue credit for. Or course the credit industry itself is disgusting, but that's another issue (this was covered almost 20 years ago in a documentary Maxed Out). This shouldn't be conflated with payments in general which is (imo) a much bigger problem. You should be entitled to spend the money you earn on exactly what you want, and to do it anonymously. You can fight back: don't spend on credit and refuse to use a card when cash would suffice. We are losing, though. For stuff like Steam you have no other option (as far as I know).
amelius 1y ago
> Why the fuck do we allow credit card companies have a say in how we spend our money? Because sadly 80% of people are sheep. Same reason we allow a company to decide what we can and cannot install on our smartphones.
- 9dev 1y ago
  No, don’t follow the underdog fallacy. What are you doing against it? How are you different from the other sheep? Merely complaining doesn’t make you any better.
  - 93po 1y ago
    youre allowed to be critical of things while still using said things. i have 8 million things going on in my life and the hill i die on isnt going to be the working conditions of humans that make iphones
    - 9dev 1y ago
      Sure you are, but don’t call others out for being complacent then.
      - pixl97 1y ago
        Why not? Being hypocritical doesn't mean you're wrong...
  - fsflover 1y ago
    My GNU/Linux phone (Librem 5) doesn't restrict what I can install on it.
- kergonath 1y ago
  When I buy an iPhone I am dealing with Apple. I know what I am buying and what I can or cannot do with the device. And if I am not happy there are alternatives. When I buy stuff on Steam I am in no way making a contract with Visa. When Visa strong arms Valve to delist games I lose even if I never had any relation with Visa ever. It really is not comparable.
ErigmolCt 1y ago
Nobody voted for them, there's no accountability, and yet here we are
draw_down 1y ago
[dead]
phendrenad2 1y ago
Fuck that. Why do we need credit card processors AT ALL? For that matter, why are debit cards tied to credit card networks? Unless and until people realize that these things are useless outmoded and antiquated, it's a waste of time trying to improve them. Do you want a faster horse, or the automobile?

hungmung 1y ago

It's because Visa got sued, lost, and it was found out they knowingly processed payments for illegal adult content, so they basically avoid the sector entirely now. Economist had an article about it maybe two years ago and came to much the same conclusion you did. IIRC, the failure in their mind was government not stepping in to make a law so things are less ambiguous in the future. Now payment processing cos get to gate keep people's speech, which means everything is basically a civil suit away from getting blacklisted.

braiamp 1y ago
> It's because Visa got sued, lost, and it was found out they knowingly processed payments for illegal adult content Got any source for that? What they got sued for? Aiding human trafficking?
- driscoll42 1y ago
  It's not quite that specific, but close enough: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/01/business/dealbook/pornhub-visa-mastercard-disney.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/01/business/dealbook/pornhub... https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/08/california-court-says-visa-may-be-partly-liable-for-child-porn-problem/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/08/california-court... >This week, US District Judge Cormac Carney of the US District Court of the Central District of California decided that there's reason to believe that Visa knowingly processed payments that allowed MindGeek to monetize "a substantial amount of child porn." To decide, the court wants to know much more about Visa's involvement, calling for more evidence of legal harms caused during a jurisdictional discovery process extended through December 30, 2022. According to Court Listener, the case is still ongoing - https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59992265/serena-fleites-v-mindgeek-sarl/?page=4 https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59992265/serena-fleites...
aranelsurion 1y ago
I wonder what are the odds of Visa being succesfully sued for processing payments to such a huge brand like Steam. Steam has its virtual wallet and marketplace as well, so Visa is twice removed from where the money will actually go once it enters Steam ecosystem. Even as an abundance of caution, this doesn’t make sense to me.
moffkalast 1y ago
Seems rather weird that Visa out of all the parties involved got hit by this, that's like suing the national bank for printing cash currency that gets used in illegal ways? Or suing the pavement for allowing a heist getaway car to drive away. Or the gas station where they last filled it up.

SJC_Hacker 1y ago

Because they are on the hook for fraudulent transactions, until they get to merchant to refund. Otherwise they wouldn't care. Which is why some merchants get effectively blacklisted if they have too many fraudulent transactions

jjeaff 1y ago
that wouldn't apply in this case, because the vendor, Valve, would be on the hook for fraudulent purchases and they would definitely have the deep pockets to pay out. The cc companies only have to worry about the small, fly by night companies that might disappear after a bunch of fraud.
lxgr 1y ago
The card networks are never on the hook for fraudulent transactions (nor for any other type of chargeback for that matter). If anything, it's the merchant's payment service provider/card acquirer that absorbs the loss if the merchant can't pay.
- zhivota 1y ago
  True until the acquiring (merchant side) bank is insolvent. Then the network pays. Source: worked at Visa for years. It's why it's so hard to become an acquiring bank on the network.
  - lxgr 1y ago
    True – I was debating whether I should mention that edge case :) I think the general idea is that acquiring banks are hopefully large enough to absorb any single merchant insolvency, but there are obviously limits to that. Airlines and event tickets are notorious example of that, since they usually take payment weeks or months ahead of providing the underlying service but want to get paid immediately.
miiiiiike 1y ago
No, I get it. Give me a "Freedom Card" or whatever that generates a one-time use number/cvv combo, backed by cash, that I'm fully responsible for. If I give a guy on the corner $5 cash and he walks off with it, that's between me and him. We don't need to resort to crypto. I don't care if there's a paper trail, I don't need to be anonymous. I just don't want money people to have any say in how people choose to spend their money.

nullc 1y ago

Well your comment tells us why-- as is the law in the US is that credit card companies are almost entirely responsible for fraud. It's part of why they and their dubiously usurious practices are allowed to exist in the US at all. If it were the case that the payment rail censorship were limited just to cases where there was an obvious elevated fraud risk-- then that would be the whole of the story. -- and there would be an obvious answer: use a payment mechanism where the fraud responsibility is entirely on the user, such as Bitcoin. But their censorship exists where no such elevated fraud risk exists too, due to abusive conduct by the government to indirectly suppress activity that would be plainly unlawful for them to directly suppress. And the governments out of control abuse of its regulatory power is not limited to fraud-responsible payment rails, and get applied just as or even more extensively on Bitcoin payment processors.

miiiiiike 1y ago
No, I get it. Give me a "Freedom Card" or whatever that generates a one-time use number/cvv combo, backed by cash, that I'm fully responsible for. If I give a guy on the corner $5 cash and he walks off with it, that's between me and him.

globular-toast 1y ago

Well, credit is not really "your money". The danger of course is if this gets extended to debit cards and they become the only option (ie. no cash). Every time you use your card you are giving them the power to do this.

abcd_f 1y ago
> credit is not really "your money" Unless it's a prepaid credit card or a debit card, both of which are serviced by MC and Visa and fairly common in Europe.
- globular-toast 1y ago
  Yes, I mentioned debit cards in the second of the three sentences in my comment. It's an important distinction to make. Credit is very much not something you should feel entitled to and issuer can and should be selective about who and what they issue credit for. Or course the credit industry itself is disgusting, but that's another issue (this was covered almost 20 years ago in a documentary Maxed Out). This shouldn't be conflated with payments in general which is (imo) a much bigger problem. You should be entitled to spend the money you earn on exactly what you want, and to do it anonymously. You can fight back: don't spend on credit and refuse to use a card when cash would suffice. We are losing, though. For stuff like Steam you have no other option (as far as I know).

amelius 1y ago

> Why the fuck do we allow credit card companies have a say in how we spend our money? Because sadly 80% of people are sheep. Same reason we allow a company to decide what we can and cannot install on our smartphones.

9dev 1y ago
No, don’t follow the underdog fallacy. What are you doing against it? How are you different from the other sheep? Merely complaining doesn’t make you any better.
- 93po 1y ago
  youre allowed to be critical of things while still using said things. i have 8 million things going on in my life and the hill i die on isnt going to be the working conditions of humans that make iphones
  - 9dev 1y ago
    Sure you are, but don’t call others out for being complacent then.
    - pixl97 1y ago
      Why not? Being hypocritical doesn't mean you're wrong...
- fsflover 1y ago
  My GNU/Linux phone (Librem 5) doesn't restrict what I can install on it.
kergonath 1y ago
When I buy an iPhone I am dealing with Apple. I know what I am buying and what I can or cannot do with the device. And if I am not happy there are alternatives. When I buy stuff on Steam I am in no way making a contract with Visa. When Visa strong arms Valve to delist games I lose even if I never had any relation with Visa ever. It really is not comparable.

ErigmolCt 1y ago

Nobody voted for them, there's no accountability, and yet here we are

draw_down 1y ago

[dead]

phendrenad2 1y ago

Fuck that. Why do we need credit card processors AT ALL? For that matter, why are debit cards tied to credit card networks? Unless and until people realize that these things are useless outmoded and antiquated, it's a waste of time trying to improve them. Do you want a faster horse, or the automobile?