3 ms·

> Payment processors as gatekeepers is absurd, even worse the entire system is completely opaque. This is what the end-game of unspooling government functions

> Payment processors as gatekeepers is absurd, even worse the entire system is completely opaque. This is what the end-game of unspooling government functions into the private sector looks like. The decision still has to be made, but rather than petitioning representatives to arrive at a democratic solution, we have to appeal to corporations and fight public opinion turf wars where optics and boycott pressure are the levers of change for our collective rights.

iAMkenough 1y ago
> rather than petitioning representatives to arrive at a democratic solution, we have to appeal to corporations and fight public opinion turf wars This sums up my experience with my representatives in recent years. You only get a meeting with my reps if you're a large donor or you cause enough public outrage. Otherwise they feel no obligation to their constituents and hope that the automated form letter (in varying font sizes and colors between paragraphs) they send you in response is enough to appease you.
Ferret7446 1y ago
Not quite, the payment processor monopoly is maintained in part due to regulation, so the government has a hand in this private-public scheme, and this would not happen if there were competition, which is why porn sites and such often accept crypto now.
- const_cast 1y ago
  No, the monopoly is natural and obvious. It would have always happened. Do you, as a developer, want to wrangle together 20 different payment processors so you can sell shitty 100% polyester T-shirts? No. Do I, as a customer, want to have to carry around 20 different cards just so I have a chance at being able to pay at an arbitrary merchant? No. And do I, as a business, want to pay for the additional complexity of managing fees across so many processors? No. So everyone actually wants the same thing: very, very few payment processors.
Dylan16807 1y ago
> The decision still has to be made Well, not really. Right now we're making two separate decisions. One for what is legal to sell, and one for what you can meaningfully sell. Those shouldn't be different, so the latter decision shouldn't be happening.

iAMkenough 1y ago

> rather than petitioning representatives to arrive at a democratic solution, we have to appeal to corporations and fight public opinion turf wars This sums up my experience with my representatives in recent years. You only get a meeting with my reps if you're a large donor or you cause enough public outrage. Otherwise they feel no obligation to their constituents and hope that the automated form letter (in varying font sizes and colors between paragraphs) they send you in response is enough to appease you.

Ferret7446 1y ago

Not quite, the payment processor monopoly is maintained in part due to regulation, so the government has a hand in this private-public scheme, and this would not happen if there were competition, which is why porn sites and such often accept crypto now.

const_cast 1y ago
No, the monopoly is natural and obvious. It would have always happened. Do you, as a developer, want to wrangle together 20 different payment processors so you can sell shitty 100% polyester T-shirts? No. Do I, as a customer, want to have to carry around 20 different cards just so I have a chance at being able to pay at an arbitrary merchant? No. And do I, as a business, want to pay for the additional complexity of managing fees across so many processors? No. So everyone actually wants the same thing: very, very few payment processors.

Dylan16807 1y ago

> The decision still has to be made Well, not really. Right now we're making two separate decisions. One for what is legal to sell, and one for what you can meaningfully sell. Those shouldn't be different, so the latter decision shouldn't be happening.