11 ms·

We need Congress to make a law here in the US that businesses involved in facilitating financial transactions in the United States are considered “common carri

by efitz 1y ago

We need Congress to make a law here in the US that businesses involved in facilitating financial transactions in the United States are considered “common carriers” and must not discriminate against, cancel or disadvantage any customer or legal transaction, without a court order. We can write language to allow booting people for fraud, hacking, etc if “legal” + “court order” are insufficient.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
shagie 1y ago
How would that work with international money laundering regulations? Would that apply to Australian courts?
- alphager 1y ago
  If the regulation is legally binding by an act of Congress, it falls under the legal umbrella. Same thing in AUS: If there's a AUS law, they have to follow it.
  - shagie 1y ago
    In those cases, what would a law... "that businesses involved in facilitating financial transactions in the United States are considered “common carriers” and must not discriminate against, cancel or disadvantage any customer or legal transaction, without a court order" provide? It might have prevented Visa and Mastercard from being brought into the PornHub lawsuit... in the US. It wouldn't have protected them from Australian laws weaponized by organizations such as Collective Shout.
    - LudwigNagasena 1y ago
      Yes, the US is not the world police and that’s okay. Let Australians deal with Australian laws and Australian lobbying groups.
      - shagie 1y ago
        ... and risk adverse international companies (like Visa and Mastercard) need to follow the laws everywhere despite what various jurisdictions shield them from in those jurisdictions.
        altairprime 1y ago
        No: it’s cheaper for them to follow the minimum common compliance across all countries, but Mastercard-sized firms absolutely can and often do vary compliance per country (gestures at Google, Facebook) when it’s profitable to do so. Mastercard could have simply enforced Australia-specific rules on Itch if they’d wanted to, but they’re anxious about being labeled as smutty due to domestic U.S., and apparently exported Australian, puritanism. The solution is to ensure that cowardice does more lasting harm to their brand than they feel that their strategy prevents — which requires both loud and immediate response, as well as sustained pressure over time.
        shagie 1y ago
        Mastercard and Visa have rather corse information about the transactions. They've got the credit card number, the merchant name, the time, and the total amount of the transaction. They do not have line item level filtering of a transaction. Remember those old carbon paper credit card thingies? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_card_imprinter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_card_imprinter - that's all that's needed and all they get. Similarly, the credit card terminals where the merchant enters the amount, swipes the card (or reads the chip) and that's it is sufficient. Mastercard and Visa would only be able to say "that merchant" not "that product." Filtering based on products and if it's legal there needs to be done by the merchant. Mastercard cannot check to see if someone is selling liquor to an underage customer... but if a merchant is doing that, Mastercard may drop that merchant as one of their clients. If Itch and Valve are unable to enforce Australia specific laws on their own storefront, Mastercard and Visa can only enforce it at the "this merchant isn't allowed to transact with our network."
        deleted 1y ago
crooked-v 1y ago
There's a bill for almost exactly that currently pending in committee: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/401 https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/401 If you like the idea, read the text on there and call your senators to support it.
- weberer 1y ago
  The relevant part is section 5b. >(b) Prohibition.—No payment card network, including a subsidiary of a payment card network, may, directly or through any agent, processor, or licensed member of the network, by contract, requirement, condition, penalty, or otherwise, prohibit or inhibit the ability of any person who is in compliance with the law, including section 8 of this Act, to obtain access to services or products of the payment card network because of political or reputational risk considerations.
  - btown 1y ago
    Then the goalposts shift to: “This isn’t for reputational risk, it’s because we consider fraud more likely for this type of industry, and we are within our rights to take a proactive approach to fraud.” And there is no requirement that they disclose the reasons for that decision. Don’t get me wrong: it’s progress. But it’s far from a panacea.
    - notatoad 1y ago
      i think that sounds like a perfectly fine compromise - choosing not to provide services that are an especially high risk of fraud should be within their rights. it just means that they could be forced to defend those decisions in court, which is good and exactly the sort of thing that courts are supposed to decide.
      - crazygringo 1y ago
        Exactly. If they are misapplying their fraud criteria, companies start suing and winning and Mastercard stops misapplying their criteria.
charlieyu1 1y ago
I won't trust the Congress. Far left and far right are both pushing for more censorship
- nso 1y ago
  The US barely has any genuinely left-wing politicians (Bernie Sanders, AOC, DSA). There are no one who realistically could be called far left in any significant position of governing power.
  - mullingitover 1y ago
    Even these are not far left, they're just basic liberal left. Which groups or media that are commonly labeled 'far left' that are calling for nationalizing all land. Or eliminating all inheritances. Or nationalizing all communications and transportation industries. Or nationalizing the Federal Reserve (that one's really gone horseshoe theory, and is a republican plan now). The only thing 'far left' people want to nationalize is health care, and that's simply the fiscally responsible policy. The thing that is crushing the federal budget is the obscene level of graft occurring in that industry, and the only way out is to nationalize or otherwise burn the existing system to the ground via government policy.
    - zdragnar 1y ago
      The meaning of words can change over time and across space. The meaning of left and right in US politics encompasses more topics than the matter of who may legally own things. Pretending that those referred to as left and right are all the same because the only true scottsman is Karl Marx is silly.
      - stuaxo 1y ago
        There's a whole bunch of socialism to the right of *!=) Marx and the left of classic liberalism. Words have meaning, trying to characterise "far left" as some sort of US caricature of Blue haired liberal types is less than useful and only serves right wing outlets. There is very little left wing discourse in the US.
tzs 1y ago
Careful. That could backfire. Right now there are things that a significant majority think are terrible and shouldn't exist but aren't a high enough priority to actually make illegal because they are small because most mainstream service providers don't want to serve them. Take that away an those things might grow enough that they do become a priority for legally banning.
- stinkbeetle 1y ago
  What kinds of things?
john_the_writer 1y ago
Nah.. Congress won't. When paypal stopped payments to wiki-leaks Congress was happy as to close their eyes.

by efitz 1y ago

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

shagie 1y ago

How would that work with international money laundering regulations? Would that apply to Australian courts?

alphager 1y ago
If the regulation is legally binding by an act of Congress, it falls under the legal umbrella. Same thing in AUS: If there's a AUS law, they have to follow it.
- shagie 1y ago
  In those cases, what would a law... "that businesses involved in facilitating financial transactions in the United States are considered “common carriers” and must not discriminate against, cancel or disadvantage any customer or legal transaction, without a court order" provide? It might have prevented Visa and Mastercard from being brought into the PornHub lawsuit... in the US. It wouldn't have protected them from Australian laws weaponized by organizations such as Collective Shout.
  - LudwigNagasena 1y ago
    Yes, the US is not the world police and that’s okay. Let Australians deal with Australian laws and Australian lobbying groups.
    - shagie 1y ago
      ... and risk adverse international companies (like Visa and Mastercard) need to follow the laws everywhere despite what various jurisdictions shield them from in those jurisdictions.
      - altairprime 1y ago
        No: it’s cheaper for them to follow the minimum common compliance across all countries, but Mastercard-sized firms absolutely can and often do vary compliance per country (gestures at Google, Facebook) when it’s profitable to do so. Mastercard could have simply enforced Australia-specific rules on Itch if they’d wanted to, but they’re anxious about being labeled as smutty due to domestic U.S., and apparently exported Australian, puritanism. The solution is to ensure that cowardice does more lasting harm to their brand than they feel that their strategy prevents — which requires both loud and immediate response, as well as sustained pressure over time.
        shagie 1y ago
        Mastercard and Visa have rather corse information about the transactions. They've got the credit card number, the merchant name, the time, and the total amount of the transaction. They do not have line item level filtering of a transaction. Remember those old carbon paper credit card thingies? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_card_imprinter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_card_imprinter - that's all that's needed and all they get. Similarly, the credit card terminals where the merchant enters the amount, swipes the card (or reads the chip) and that's it is sufficient. Mastercard and Visa would only be able to say "that merchant" not "that product." Filtering based on products and if it's legal there needs to be done by the merchant. Mastercard cannot check to see if someone is selling liquor to an underage customer... but if a merchant is doing that, Mastercard may drop that merchant as one of their clients. If Itch and Valve are unable to enforce Australia specific laws on their own storefront, Mastercard and Visa can only enforce it at the "this merchant isn't allowed to transact with our network."
        deleted 1y ago

crooked-v 1y ago

There's a bill for almost exactly that currently pending in committee: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/401 https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/401 If you like the idea, read the text on there and call your senators to support it.

weberer 1y ago
The relevant part is section 5b. >(b) Prohibition.—No payment card network, including a subsidiary of a payment card network, may, directly or through any agent, processor, or licensed member of the network, by contract, requirement, condition, penalty, or otherwise, prohibit or inhibit the ability of any person who is in compliance with the law, including section 8 of this Act, to obtain access to services or products of the payment card network because of political or reputational risk considerations.
- btown 1y ago
  Then the goalposts shift to: “This isn’t for reputational risk, it’s because we consider fraud more likely for this type of industry, and we are within our rights to take a proactive approach to fraud.” And there is no requirement that they disclose the reasons for that decision. Don’t get me wrong: it’s progress. But it’s far from a panacea.
  - notatoad 1y ago
    i think that sounds like a perfectly fine compromise - choosing not to provide services that are an especially high risk of fraud should be within their rights. it just means that they could be forced to defend those decisions in court, which is good and exactly the sort of thing that courts are supposed to decide.
    - crazygringo 1y ago
      Exactly. If they are misapplying their fraud criteria, companies start suing and winning and Mastercard stops misapplying their criteria.

charlieyu1 1y ago

I won't trust the Congress. Far left and far right are both pushing for more censorship

nso 1y ago
The US barely has any genuinely left-wing politicians (Bernie Sanders, AOC, DSA). There are no one who realistically could be called far left in any significant position of governing power.
- mullingitover 1y ago
  Even these are not far left, they're just basic liberal left. Which groups or media that are commonly labeled 'far left' that are calling for nationalizing all land. Or eliminating all inheritances. Or nationalizing all communications and transportation industries. Or nationalizing the Federal Reserve (that one's really gone horseshoe theory, and is a republican plan now). The only thing 'far left' people want to nationalize is health care, and that's simply the fiscally responsible policy. The thing that is crushing the federal budget is the obscene level of graft occurring in that industry, and the only way out is to nationalize or otherwise burn the existing system to the ground via government policy.
  - zdragnar 1y ago
    The meaning of words can change over time and across space. The meaning of left and right in US politics encompasses more topics than the matter of who may legally own things. Pretending that those referred to as left and right are all the same because the only true scottsman is Karl Marx is silly.
    - stuaxo 1y ago
      There's a whole bunch of socialism to the right of *!=) Marx and the left of classic liberalism. Words have meaning, trying to characterise "far left" as some sort of US caricature of Blue haired liberal types is less than useful and only serves right wing outlets. There is very little left wing discourse in the US.

tzs 1y ago

Careful. That could backfire. Right now there are things that a significant majority think are terrible and shouldn't exist but aren't a high enough priority to actually make illegal because they are small because most mainstream service providers don't want to serve them. Take that away an those things might grow enough that they do become a priority for legally banning.

stinkbeetle 1y ago
What kinds of things?

john_the_writer 1y ago

Nah.. Congress won't. When paypal stopped payments to wiki-leaks Congress was happy as to close their eyes.