←back to thread

883 points freedomben | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.363s | source
Show context
miiiiiike ◴[] No.44611570[source]
Look. Ignore the content. Why the fuck do we allow credit card companies have a say in how we spend our money?

Fraud? Abuse? Fine, let me put cash onto a card and if that card gets stolen, oh well, my loss. Mastercard should have no say in what what speech is considered acceptable outside of their offices. We don't care what execs at a water company think? Why do we care about the people at Mastercard?

replies(7): >>44611601 #>>44611910 #>>44612123 #>>44613420 #>>44613595 #>>44616221 #>>44619373 #
SJC_Hacker ◴[] No.44611910[source]
Because they are on the hook for fraudulent transactions, until they get to merchant to refund. Otherwise they wouldn't care.

Which is why some merchants get effectively blacklisted if they have too many fraudulent transactions

replies(4): >>44612203 #>>44612226 #>>44612713 #>>44614542 #
miiiiiike ◴[] No.44612713[source]
No, I get it. Give me a "Freedom Card" or whatever that generates a one-time use number/cvv combo, backed by cash, that I'm fully responsible for. If I give a guy on the corner $5 cash and he walks off with it, that's between me and him. We don't need to resort to crypto. I don't care if there's a paper trail, I don't need to be anonymous. I just don't want money people to have any say in how people choose to spend their money.
replies(3): >>44613148 #>>44615772 #>>44620587 #
xboxnolifes ◴[] No.44613148[source]
Thats not exactly a credit card at that point. And with a credit card, you're explicitly not spending your money.

Though i agree with the idea of a debit card that doesn't allow chargebacks, but without so many annoying restrictions.

replies(2): >>44613370 #>>44613956 #
miiiiiike ◴[] No.44613370[source]
Yeah, a "Freedom Card". Our money, they move it, no moralizing. We don't need crypto to fix this, just common sense legislation.

No company or individual should be denied the right to receive funds digitally without due process.

Companies should be free to transact with or exclude anyone, but there should be neutral infrastructure that facilitates the flow of money, with multiple players each with differing rules and risk profiles setup to help people and companies access it.

No one financial institution should be able to dictate the speech allowed on a platform.

What's the status of FedNow?

replies(3): >>44614474 #>>44615808 #>>44620593 #
welshwelsh ◴[] No.44615808[source]
You think that common sense legislation is a more realistic solution than crypto?

You can never rely on governments or corporations to have reasonable policies. Any payment system that is centrally controlled will inevitably be corrupted.

replies(1): >>44616837 #
1. gimmeThaBeet ◴[] No.44616837[source]
That's really at this point that's back to where I am with crypto. Through all the speculation and cruft, there is still a shot at owning our own payments, or rather no one owning them.

The payment networks have power, and if you can twist the arm of the gatekeepers, people subvert that power.

The only thing I don't know about these days is with the stablecoins, how do you avoid the government sinking their claws into you if you intrinsically (esp. if successful) have to hold that much in cash or short-term instruments? Or you have something like tether, which leaving aside anything else, you can definitely say is comically opaque for an entity that is nominally running $160B.