3 ms·

First, one government uses power to regulate who and how receives money. Than another government uses power to regulate who and how accepts money. Why nobody qu

First, one government uses power to regulate who and how receives money. Than another government uses power to regulate who and how accepts money. Why nobody questions why governments are regulating money flow at all? If nobody was after WikiLeaks, Visa and MasterCard would be happy to provide them with payments. Or, on the other hand, if Visa does not want to provide a service for any reason, why anyone should force them to?

JohnGB 14y ago
Because they hold an effective duopoly, and therefore have an ability to unfairly harm companies. Would it be fair if an electricity provider decided to stop providing energy to a company because they did something that they didn't like?
userulluipeste 14y ago
"if Visa does not want to provide a service for any reason, why anyone should force them to?" If the government won't want to provide them a licence to operate in a certain way and place, why would anyone have something against it's decision?
mfringel 14y ago
Visa and MC are, as mentioned, an effective duopoly over card payments in the EU. This means that Visa and MC are in a position to govern the flow of money. Since they have started acting as a governing body by unilaterally cutting off access for political reasons, they have exposed themselves to political control over their behavior, also for political reasons. Only the government gets to be the government. That's why it works.
eCa 14y ago
> if Visa does not want to provide a service for any reason, why anyone should force them to? Since Visa (and MasterCard) are such a big part of the flow of payments that leaving that decision to them is almost like letting organized crime charge protection money. I guess you missed this part: > banks in Sweden were caught in the act of arbitrarily > discriminating against fully legal business owners that the > banks claimed sold (according to the banks) “questionable > products” like horror movies, movies with nudity, or sex toys; > meanwhile, these same banks happily channeled stock in > corporations under investigation of genocide. When pressed on > the matter, the banks referred to vague rules from Visa and > MasterCard Imagine being a startup that competes with (say) Amazon in some fringe market (say porn, of which Amazon has plenty). You get shutdown (by Visa/MC proxied by your bank) for selling "questionable products" while Amazon happily can continue selling the same products, since they bring so much more profit to Visa/MasterCard. Is that fair?

JohnGB 14y ago

Because they hold an effective duopoly, and therefore have an ability to unfairly harm companies. Would it be fair if an electricity provider decided to stop providing energy to a company because they did something that they didn't like?

userulluipeste 14y ago

"if Visa does not want to provide a service for any reason, why anyone should force them to?" If the government won't want to provide them a licence to operate in a certain way and place, why would anyone have something against it's decision?

mfringel 14y ago

Visa and MC are, as mentioned, an effective duopoly over card payments in the EU. This means that Visa and MC are in a position to govern the flow of money. Since they have started acting as a governing body by unilaterally cutting off access for political reasons, they have exposed themselves to political control over their behavior, also for political reasons. Only the government gets to be the government. That's why it works.

eCa 14y ago

> if Visa does not want to provide a service for any reason, why anyone should force them to? Since Visa (and MasterCard) are such a big part of the flow of payments that leaving that decision to them is almost like letting organized crime charge protection money. I guess you missed this part: > banks in Sweden were caught in the act of arbitrarily > discriminating against fully legal business owners that the > banks claimed sold (according to the banks) “questionable > products” like horror movies, movies with nudity, or sex toys; > meanwhile, these same banks happily channeled stock in > corporations under investigation of genocide. When pressed on > the matter, the banks referred to vague rules from Visa and > MasterCard Imagine being a startup that competes with (say) Amazon in some fringe market (say porn, of which Amazon has plenty). You get shutdown (by Visa/MC proxied by your bank) for selling "questionable products" while Amazon happily can continue selling the same products, since they bring so much more profit to Visa/MasterCard. Is that fair?