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

Credit-card firms are becoming reluctant regulators of the web

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 288 posts

Re: Credit-card firms are becoming reluctant regulators of the web

#71

Post by TeMPOraL »

exporectomy wrote: post #56
sverhagen wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that a false choice, that's only phrased to cater to the "that makes it easy for the bank"? They are now categorically refusing certain businesses. If those businesses could at least appeal and demonstrate that they are within the law, why wouldn't banks be mandated to process the transactions? This could go with some sort of safe haven for the banks, that if they did this review process that they won't be liab…

Parent's point seems like what they're doing here. Trading underage porn is illegal, as well as revenge porn in some places, etc. so they forbid that and allow legal porn. Seems like they really are doing "all legal things and no illegal things" more accurately, and it really is burdensome to everyone.

> Seems like they really are doing "all legal things and no illegal things" more accurately

Well, they're doing that but there's also a huge set of things whose legal status is "shmaybe?", and AnthonyMouse's point is that this is where the defaults matter. Currently, banks tend to merge that third category into "illegal" set. They could merge it into "legal" set instead, which would arguably be better for society.

Re: Credit-card firms are becoming reluctant regulators of the web

#72

Post by [deleted] »

busymom0 wrote: post #64
BiteCode_dev wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, and didn't seem reluctant at all at the time.

Every single time there’s a HN discussion about censorship and I comment about how we shouldn’t be okay with censorship of anyone regardless of how offensive they might be or whether or not it’s some private corporation and usually it gets downvoted. When the wind starts blowing the opposite direction, only then do people wake up.

[deleted]

Re: Credit-card firms are becoming reluctant regulators of the web

#74

Post by toyg »

rektide wrote: post #16
toyg wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My thoughts exactly. They might be reluctant to show they have so much power, but they're definitely not reluctant to wield it.

They're reluctant to take on risk, but that doesn't mean they want to have to suss out what's safe for them to transact & what isn't. I'm sure they've had to grow headcount to tackle this expanding question, and they certainly don't consider it as driving up business value: it's a growing overhead to avoid risk, without cutting off too much business, and without becoming too visible/noteable for refusing service. Non…

> that doesn't mean they want to have to suss out what's safe for them to transact

There is nothing "unsafe" about handling money for journalist outfits, yet they still police the space - and very arbitrarily too.

Re: Credit-card firms are becoming reluctant regulators of the web

#75

Post by toyg »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #47
sverhagen wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that a false choice, that's only phrased to cater to the "that makes it easy for the bank"? They are now categorically refusing certain businesses. If those businesses could at least appeal and demonstrate that they are within the law, why wouldn't banks be mandated to process the transactions? This could go with some sort of safe haven for the banks, that if they did this review process that they won't be liab…

Challenging it in court is an impossible burden for most people, so the most important thing is the default. Do we want the bank to assume you're a criminal, or do we want to assume you're innocent and make the police be the ones to prove if you're not?

The DMCA, with all its faults, outlines a challenge process performed largely outside the courts. Something similar could be done for banks: bank shuts down account for company, company appeals providing some proof, bank files proof somewhere and reinstates. If the bank is then sued by government or third party, it is "safe-havened" by such proof. If proof is found to be false, the company is responsible, not the bank.

Re: Credit-card firms are becoming reluctant regulators of the web

#76

Post by pornel »

oleganza wrote: post #43

Since HN generally does not like mentions of Bitcoin, here are some stats. Bitcoin was launched 12 years ago, reached $1'000'000'000'000 monetization this year (>1.5x larger than IMF), exploded interest and funding for cryptography and p2p networking over the past 6-8 years, and is marching towards reaching monetization of gold ($11T). Lightning network runs over 3 years already and growing its capacity exponentially…

Now do stats about energy usage!

Re: Credit-card firms are becoming reluctant regulators of the web

#77

Post by dotancohen »

White_Wolf wrote: post #36
matheusmoreira wrote: post #19

What do you mean, "are becoming"? They have always been. If the payment processors don't want to be associated with a service, they'll refuse to handle payments and then there's simply no way for the service providers to get paid. See wikileaks and other "problematic" sites. Advertisers are also regulators. I've seen sites start heavily censoring themselves because someone complained to Google and they pulled the ads…

In a world where cash is starting to dissapear, payment processors and banking in general should be regulated and treated just like some sort of utility company (Ex: Water, electricity). Advertising is a different beast altogether. Being able to to exchanges (money for goods, etc) is something quite a basic right(If I can call it that). That doesn't apply to making money though. I don't think it's normal in any way t…

I'm not a fan of digital currencies, but this is one of their shining points.

Re: Credit-card firms are becoming reluctant regulators of the web

#78

Post by dotancohen »

Isinlor wrote: post #8

I would want to see regulations where banks are explicitly forbidden from blocking legal transactions. If it's legal then banks should have no choice but to handle it.

I believe that the concept is called Common Carrier in other fields and legislation is very well established and developed.

Re: Credit-card firms are becoming reluctant regulators of the web

#79

Post by busymom0 »

shapefrog wrote: post #67
busymom0 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every single time there’s a HN discussion about censorship and I comment about how we shouldn’t be okay with censorship of anyone regardless of how offensive they might be or whether or not it’s some private corporation and usually it gets downvoted. When the wind starts blowing the opposite direction, only then do people wake up.

So you demand freedom for all ... except those that are using their freedom in the way you dont like. For the avoidence of doubt, I am talking about the freedom to not have someone in your house / your company platform.

Social media companies which are actively working with the government to censor opposing view points while also enjoying legal immunity from lawsuits. You think there’s a fair balance of “freedom” here? Should telecom/electricity/railroads also get to ban whoever they like? Did you support net neutrality?

Re: Credit-card firms are becoming reluctant regulators of the web

#80

Post by kevinak »

ArtTimeInvestor wrote: post #4

The Lightning Network might or might not lead to a widely used open payment network. I would love to hear more from people who already use it. How well does it work? As far as I know, El Salvador is currently trying to shift their whole economy to Bitcoin. Handling day to day payments via Lightning. Is anybody from HN there? How practical is it for non tech people to use it for their daily payments?

I use it almost daily, don't have any issues. I run my own node though for my main "wallet". I've done transactions of up to 3k without hick-ups.

Any custodial ones I have tested have worked well, though.

Post reply on HN