←back to thread

327 points beeburrt | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.351s | source
Show context
rwarfield ◴[] No.44002548[source]
We have normalized the treatment of the financial and payments systems as things that exist primarily to perform law enforcement surveillance functions. It's the same dynamic that leads to debanking of small accounts - payments firms exist on thin margins and the potential fines for inadvertently servicing a bad actor are stratospheric, so it's entirely logical to play it safe by refusing to service anyone whose profile looks even the slightest bit risky.
replies(8): >>44002574 #>>44002616 #>>44002858 #>>44002883 #>>44002926 #>>44003438 #>>44006920 #>>44009595 #
ThePhysicist ◴[] No.44002883[source]
These companies aren't public utilities, no one would complain about a US bank not doing money exchange business with entities in the Ukraine or Belarus, why would that be different for US companies offering donations over the Internet? The fact is that all platforms that facilitate cross-border money transfers between two parties without clear services or good being exchanged are used for all kinds of money laundering, and governments try to contain that for good reasons. In the end they probably don't care much about the revenue they make in these countries as it's probably negligible. Again, their good right to do so, I don't see any issue with this at all.
replies(4): >>44002918 #>>44002920 #>>44003364 #>>44005366 #
1. elric ◴[] No.44002920[source]
The article claims that funds were held after being donated. That certainly goes way beyond "not choosing to do business". The claims were refuted by BuyMeACoffee, which changes things.

But if I, as a donator, donate money to someone using your service, and you then don't give that money to its intended recipient, you've effectively defrauded me. Had you said in advance "I can't do that, because you're trying to give me money to $foo which I don't support", then that is your right as a business.