Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FetLife Announcement

pastebin.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 110 posts

Re: FetLife Announcement

#51

Post by Coding_Cat »

TylerE wrote: post #15
Shank wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While this may be true, Coinbase isn't synonymous for Bitcoin -- the true "idealized" version is that you generate your own BTC transaction system (or use an off the shelf one?) -- not use a processor (ergo, not Coinbase).

Still have to cash out through somebody if you want ActualMoney(tm).

Can't they just pay boringCorp Ltd. in Bitcoin for use of their "bussiness solution" (that is managing your infrastructure or providing the bitcoin transaction platform). The boringCorp Ltd can cash out for ActualMoney(tm) and I'm sure there is some way of accounting to get that money back to where it needs to go.

Re: FetLife Announcement

#52

Post by LyndsySimon »

protomyth wrote: post #33
noarchy wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The linked text mentions that even Coinbase dropped Fetlife, because they (Coinbase) still processes credit card transactions. So it looks like any use of a cryptocurrency has to be completely decoupled from the credit card world.

The interface between me receiving cryptocurrency and me paying bills and food with said cryptocurrency is problematic. I get the feeling we are stuck in a credit card world. I cannot imagine a big payment outfit that gets accepted by merchants to not have credit card companies or deal with merchants without bank accounts. This is really one of those issues that cuts across party (in the US 2 party system) lines. We'…

> We've seen the crackdown on gun shops

The issue with firearms sales seems to be at the payment processor level, not the credit card issuers. The big names (e.g., Authorize.net) categorize firearms sales as "highly regulated industries" - even though they really aren't.

There are payment processors out there that specifically work with FFLs (Federal Firearms Licensees, a/k/a gun stores), but they charge a couple of percent higher transaction fees, and they just seem a little skeezy. A lot of them also service the adult industry.

Re: FetLife Announcement

#53

Post by mfringel »

tptacek wrote: post #44
zakk wrote: post #35

Two or three big players in the credit card market can effectively shutdown a business. Honest question: do we need better enforcement for the First Amendment rights in the current digital era? Shop owners cannot decide who enters in their shop, should digital service providers be allowed to discriminate? The same happens when someone is banned from Facebook and Twitter: of course there are other options, but he won'…

Businesses aren't allowed to discriminate against protected classes, but can discriminate against non-protected classes, and can apparently even impinge on protected classes in some ways when their restrictions aren't arbitrary (are tied to some reasonable business concern) and are applied universally. These boundaries don't appear to have anything to do with the First Amendment.

One novel way to think about the First Amendment is that it constrains two specific actors.

1) It explicitly constrains the US Government. 2) It implicitly constrains anyone who approximates the coercive power of the US government.

#1 is self-explanatory.

#2 implies that, in the US, anyone who attempts to use overwhelming coercive power of any form to silence speech tends to get looked on poorly by the law.

If Fetlife has a fraud rate that approaches normal and the banks cut them off anyway, it would be an interesting court fight.

Re: FetLife Announcement

#54

Post by philippnagel »

LordKano wrote: post #50
zakk wrote: post #35

Two or three big players in the credit card market can effectively shutdown a business. Honest question: do we need better enforcement for the First Amendment rights in the current digital era? Shop owners cannot decide who enters in their shop, should digital service providers be allowed to discriminate? The same happens when someone is banned from Facebook and Twitter: of course there are other options, but he won'…

Two or three big players in the credit card market can effectively shutdown a business. Which is just the tip of the iceberg as to why the idea of a cashless society is so terrifying. Shop owners cannot decide who enters in their shop, should digital service providers be allowed to discriminate? Oddly enough, if you belong to a group or political faction that is highly reviled, they certainly can. Remember when a Wal…

Cashless is fine as long as a decentralized, open alternative is available.

Re: FetLife Announcement

#55

Post by fweespeech »

hackermailman wrote: post #31
rhizome wrote: post #8

This has more front-loaded backstory than a recipe post at Pioneer Woman Cooks, but it sounds like a harbinger for Puritan effects on commerce. Who could be next on the list of these card companies? The cannabis world already has their own troubles, so maybe the ratchet will next tighten on them. That a criteria for canceling an account can be "Illegal or immoral," like those are synonyms, is telling.

There is a lot of escorting on Fetlife, a quick check of the site will reveal plenty of prostitution which is why I didn't apply there for a job when they were once advertising for Rails devOps people with a gigantic salary(for Canada) and I went through the site to check it out. Too risky to end up like Redbook people who got arrested.

Yeah.

FetLife acts more like a porn/escort site than a social network in many respects. Its unfortunate since a sex positive kink community would be a great boon but they all seem to get seedy when they allow RL nudity/discussions.

I wonder if a no RL rule outside of things like clubs, etc. that are larger organized group activities with physical presences and business licenses would have been the "real" solution.

Re: FetLife Announcement

#56

Post by [deleted] »

Tharkun wrote: post #36

The problem with major Credit Card companies is that they're all American and that the US of A is incredibly moralistic. For the sake of convenience, I'm considering PayPal to be part of the same club of moralistic knobs. It's virtually impossible to set up any kind of online shop without accepting one or more of PayPal, MasterCard, Visa or AmEx. As soon as you accept money for anything one of these FOUR(!) financial…

[deleted]

Re: FetLife Announcement

#57

Post by X86BSD »

goatforce5 wrote: post #30
X86BSD wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're correct. AFAIK all those pot shops in Colorado for instance are cash based only. And have vaults built to store all their cash because the banks won't touch it. There was an episode on Vice TV that touched on this I believe.

There was an amusing tidbit in CNN's High Profits (I think it was) where the Colorado tax department was having to put on extra security because the pot shops were having to pay their taxes by physically handing over bags of cash.

Yeah! It's absolutely crazy!!

When legalization gets to my state I hope I have the foresight to have the planning and financing in place to be the first dispensary to open here. These things are just redonculous cash cows.

Re: FetLife Announcement

#58

Post by dragontamer »

troncheadle wrote: post #4

There are things that, in the interest of global freedom, need to be taken out of the hands of corporations and government, permanently, forever. The transfer of value is definitely one of them.

Erm, VISA, Mastercard, American Express, and Paypal are not US Government. They're private companies.

Visa, Mastercard, and AmEx are doing this on behalf of their own internal policies. Welcome to the free market.

Re: FetLife Announcement

#59

Post by zakk »

Navarr wrote: post #49
zakk wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> These boundaries don't appear to have anything to do with the First Amendment. In my opinion they have a lot to do with the First Amendment. When a few big players can effectively and arbitrarily put someone out of business, that's quite a problem in my opinion. When a few big players can effectively silence a voice, that's a free speech problem, in my opinion. As our lives move from physical places to the Internet…

> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. These boundaries have nothing to do with the first amendment.

You didn't get my point. I'll try to make it clearer.

Nowadays the right to free speech is enforced in a passive way, so-to-say: "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech".

However the Constitution was written in a different era, when doing nothing to abridge the freedom of speech was effectively granting freedom of speech to everyone. Today on the Internet a few corporations can effectively abridge one's freedom of speech.

So, what I am asking is: do we need a stronger and active enforcement of the free speech rights? An active enforcement in which the Government mandates that all businesses must give equal voice to citizens?

Apparently that's not something new, see mfringel's comment above:

"#2 implies that, in the US, anyone who attempts to use overwhelming coercive power of any form to silence speech tends to get looked on poorly by the law."

Edit: guys, that's not Reddit, try not to downvote a civil debate.

Re: FetLife Announcement

#60

Post by kirykl »

Coding_Cat wrote: post #51
TylerE wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still have to cash out through somebody if you want ActualMoney(tm).

Can't they just pay boringCorp Ltd. in Bitcoin for use of their "bussiness solution" (that is managing your infrastructure or providing the bitcoin transaction platform). The boringCorp Ltd can cash out for ActualMoney(tm) and I'm sure there is some way of accounting to get that money back to where it needs to go.

Why commit a crime (money laundering) to hide a non crime?
Post reply on HN