6 ms·

> Visa/Mastercard should have the right to refuse service Really? If this was any other small to medium business where there were potentially tens, hundreds or

> Visa/Mastercard should have the right to refuse service Really? If this was any other small to medium business where there were potentially tens, hundreds or even thousands of viable alternate businesses that provide what could be deemed as an equivalent service I might agree, but a global payments duopoly is essentially public infrastructure and should not be able to discriminate based on protected characteristics or personal subjective moral compass.

willprice89 1y ago
I agree with your assessment of the current situation. But I think the solution is to break up the duopoly, either by leveling the playing field or creating government-run alternatives, rather than force the duopoly to do certain things.
- brookst 1y ago
  This is the “instead of providing school lunches, eliminate poverty” argument. I am fully supportive of fostering competition. But until the market actualky changes, monopilies / duopolies should be regulated to prevent this abuse of power. Rejecting a simple tactical solution in favor of a future systemic overhaul is classic perfect vs good.
  - hx8 1y ago
    Calling for the creation of a government run alternative isn't arguing against School Lunches. It's the exact opposite.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - charlieyu1 1y ago
      There is still an alternative, plain paper cash, and is run by the government. Won't trust most governments these days to do it though
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- busterarm 1y ago
  Governments put up infinite hurdles to creating new payment processors. There actually used to be more of them before the industry consolidated. Also Discover just got bought and American Express is getting their ass kicked by the big two. People have been trying and failing to create new payment processing companies since at least the 90s. The richest men in the world, even (Musk). Governments prefer the current status quo.
phyzix5761 1y ago
As public infrastructure shouldn't the public take on the burden of funding and operation risk? Or are we saying we should force others to do what we want with their money?
- sunrunner 1y ago
  I guess I was using the phrase to broadly mean a service that's intended to be available for use by the general public and with the service itself providing a means to an end without 'public ownership' being part of that (in the same vein as 'public' transport). Not sure if there's a more appropriate term here.
  - phyzix5761 1y ago
    But, effectively, you want to tell other people what to do with their money without taking on any financial risk for those policies. The majority shareholders for Visa are retirement accounts and retail investors. Why does one segment of the public get to tell another segment of the public what to do with their money without putting any skin in the game?
    - sunrunner 1y ago
      > But, effectively, you want to tell other people what to do with their money without taking on any financial risk for those policies. For this kind of service (again leaning on a classification as 'public infrastructure') I suppose my answer is yes. > Why does one segment of the public get to tell another segment of the public what to do with their money without putting any skin in the game? I'm suggesting that regulation prevents them from _disallowing_ access to payments services for things that are not explicitly illegal. In this case I don't see 'Telling X what to do' and 'Telling X that they're NOT allowed to refuse to provide service in these cases' as the same thing, even though they're both essentially 'Mandating that X operate in a certain way'. The difference here being that refusal of service, while still being a choice about how to run, is explicitly a blocking choice for others in certain situations, and not just a choice to, for example, create a new credit product for the market. > Why does one segment of the public get to tell another segment of the public what to do with their money without putting any skin in the game? Is this not also just Collective Shout themselves pressuring the payment processors into refusing transactions from a third party for content that they themselves deem inappropriate? > The majority shareholders for Visa are retirement accounts and retail investors Is Visa not refusing a legitimate transaction (non-fraudulent, no rollback or refund) going to hurt these investors when part of their investment income comes from usage fees? And if an investor that has concerns about _how_ their investment makes money is that not now a different issue? Edit: Added last point about shareholders.

willprice89 1y ago

I agree with your assessment of the current situation. But I think the solution is to break up the duopoly, either by leveling the playing field or creating government-run alternatives, rather than force the duopoly to do certain things.

brookst 1y ago
This is the “instead of providing school lunches, eliminate poverty” argument. I am fully supportive of fostering competition. But until the market actualky changes, monopilies / duopolies should be regulated to prevent this abuse of power. Rejecting a simple tactical solution in favor of a future systemic overhaul is classic perfect vs good.
- hx8 1y ago
  Calling for the creation of a government run alternative isn't arguing against School Lunches. It's the exact opposite.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - charlieyu1 1y ago
    There is still an alternative, plain paper cash, and is run by the government. Won't trust most governments these days to do it though
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
busterarm 1y ago
Governments put up infinite hurdles to creating new payment processors. There actually used to be more of them before the industry consolidated. Also Discover just got bought and American Express is getting their ass kicked by the big two. People have been trying and failing to create new payment processing companies since at least the 90s. The richest men in the world, even (Musk). Governments prefer the current status quo.

phyzix5761 1y ago

As public infrastructure shouldn't the public take on the burden of funding and operation risk? Or are we saying we should force others to do what we want with their money?

sunrunner 1y ago
I guess I was using the phrase to broadly mean a service that's intended to be available for use by the general public and with the service itself providing a means to an end without 'public ownership' being part of that (in the same vein as 'public' transport). Not sure if there's a more appropriate term here.
- phyzix5761 1y ago
  But, effectively, you want to tell other people what to do with their money without taking on any financial risk for those policies. The majority shareholders for Visa are retirement accounts and retail investors. Why does one segment of the public get to tell another segment of the public what to do with their money without putting any skin in the game?
  - sunrunner 1y ago
    > But, effectively, you want to tell other people what to do with their money without taking on any financial risk for those policies. For this kind of service (again leaning on a classification as 'public infrastructure') I suppose my answer is yes. > Why does one segment of the public get to tell another segment of the public what to do with their money without putting any skin in the game? I'm suggesting that regulation prevents them from _disallowing_ access to payments services for things that are not explicitly illegal. In this case I don't see 'Telling X what to do' and 'Telling X that they're NOT allowed to refuse to provide service in these cases' as the same thing, even though they're both essentially 'Mandating that X operate in a certain way'. The difference here being that refusal of service, while still being a choice about how to run, is explicitly a blocking choice for others in certain situations, and not just a choice to, for example, create a new credit product for the market. > Why does one segment of the public get to tell another segment of the public what to do with their money without putting any skin in the game? Is this not also just Collective Shout themselves pressuring the payment processors into refusing transactions from a third party for content that they themselves deem inappropriate? > The majority shareholders for Visa are retirement accounts and retail investors Is Visa not refusing a legitimate transaction (non-fraudulent, no rollback or refund) going to hurt these investors when part of their investment income comes from usage fees? And if an investor that has concerns about _how_ their investment makes money is that not now a different issue? Edit: Added last point about shareholders.