←back to thread

892 points freedomben | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.223s | source
Show context
maxbond ◴[] No.44611358[source]
Why do payment processors do stuff like this? Is there some regulation that requires them to? I get that they don't want to process fraudulent transactions, but I'd think the response to a higher percentage of fraud from some industry would be to charge them more. It doesn't make sense to me why they would be concerned about the content of games, as long as everything is legal and the parties concerned aren't subject to sanctions.

Some of these games seem completely abhorrent, and probably illegal in more restrictive jurisdictions, but not the United States. And I've not seen any suggestion they're funding terrorism or something. So I'm perplexed.

replies(31): >>44611411 #>>44611419 #>>44611451 #>>44611517 #>>44611528 #>>44611604 #>>44611625 #>>44611674 #>>44611713 #>>44611790 #>>44611866 #>>44612085 #>>44612637 #>>44612830 #>>44613322 #>>44613401 #>>44613483 #>>44613691 #>>44613744 #>>44614120 #>>44614860 #>>44615550 #>>44615769 #>>44616205 #>>44616269 #>>44616805 #>>44616821 #>>44616872 #>>44618565 #>>44619671 #>>44621033 #
ijk ◴[] No.44611517[source]
One factor is the ongoing campaigns from number of moral crusading groups who lobby them to cut off payment processing for things they don't approve of. NCOSE has been working for decades on the project, and targeting credit card companies has been a successful tactic for them for a decade or so.

[1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/12/visa-and-mastercard-ar...

[2] https://www.newsweek.com/why-visa-mastercard-being-blamed-on...

[3] https://scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace/bitstreams/761eb6c3-9377-...

replies(12): >>44611654 #>>44611877 #>>44611989 #>>44612150 #>>44612962 #>>44613291 #>>44613510 #>>44614064 #>>44614490 #>>44618418 #>>44618739 #>>44621081 #
mapt ◴[] No.44611989[source]
Targeting them with what?

What could possibly hold enough leverage that Visa would jeopardize their sweet gig as an ideology-neutral, essential piece of American infrastructure siphoning 1-2% off of every dollar of consumer spending?

replies(6): >>44612032 #>>44612163 #>>44612346 #>>44612764 #>>44613251 #>>44621549 #
terminalshort ◴[] No.44612163[source]
The leverage is that the activists will potentially be able to draw the ire of the government. Visa and MC get away with absolute murder in terms of the size of the fees that they charge in the US. Most developed countries don't allow that. The US government could easily regulate them (as they already do with debit card fees) or use anti-trust law against the obvious duopoly charging exorbitant prices. Because of this situation, Visa and MC have a very strong incentive to crack down on things the government doesn't like.

The unspoken arrangement is that the government allows them to keep charging a de facto sales tax on a massive portion of the economy as long as they cooperate and de facto ban things that the government wants banned but can't ban themselves due to that pesky constitution.

replies(5): >>44612195 #>>44613318 #>>44613833 #>>44613889 #>>44618125 #
denkmoon ◴[] No.44613833[source]
sounds like the fix is counter activism to remove the leverage these interest groups have
replies(1): >>44616861 #
tavavex ◴[] No.44616861[source]
The fix is legislation that ensures that payment processors aren't allowed to extra-legally moderate transactions based on "I don't like it". They need to be forced to process all legal transactions. Because these entities are nearly irreplaceable and are the cornerstone of many consumer industries, it seems like a reasonable compromise to me.

Just pushing back is neither guaranteed to succeed nor last for any serious amount of time. The ideological crazies can throw their entire existence at ensuring the fact that the "impure, corrupting filth" is squashed. People who oppose it might like the things that get censored, but none are religiously attached to the cause, not to an extent that would lead to a serious amount of organizing, anyway.

replies(2): >>44618304 #>>44622978 #
1. LorenPechtel ◴[] No.44618304[source]
The problem comes from "legal transactions".

The Pornhub problem came from going after the payment processors for facilitating supposedly illegal transactions--namely, underage porn. The crusaders (in every direction) keep looking for ways to undermine the protections (Section 230 in this case) and all too often the government doesn't fight back.

As for keeping it in the family games--we still have "obscenity" on the books and such games fall afoul of it. I find the concept of "obscenity" bonkers amongst consenting adults.