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

91–100 of 288 posts

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

#91

Post by curtisblaine »

TacticalCoder wrote: post #84
curtisblaine wrote: post #70

I always thought that cryptocurrencies and the whole circuit around them are "useful" in the sense that they provide an alternative to the Mastercard / VISA duopoly - see all the "free speech" platform that were refused by CC circuits and at the moment are alive only thanks to crypto payments. Obviously, a day will come when the biggest processors (ie Coinbase) will be forced to not accept certain clients / transacti…

> Obviously, a day will come when the biggest processors (ie Coinbase) will be forced to not accept certain clients / transactions, effectively destroying in practice the possibility of exchanging cryptocurrencies with dollars. This would only prevent that possibility for the affected clients and only on Coinbase. By the way Coinbase already has the possibility to blacklist any USDC address it is required to do so by…

> By the way Coinbase already has the possibility to blacklist any USDC address it is required to do so by law enforcement

> So in a way the day you're talking about is already there

In a way, yes. But there's a difference between "being required to do so by law enforcement" and "doing it preemptively". And obviously, there are many exchanges other than Coinbase.

The point is, I'm not even a crypto fan, but everytime someone comes up with the "how are crypto useful?" question, I can't help thinking "at the moment, they're the only alternative to VISA / MC for payments".

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

#92

Post by ClumsyPilot »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #63
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…

And they should, for their own protection; they will be taken down hard if they are found to be complicit in financing things like terrorism and child pornography. When it comes to the recent events around Pornhub and Onlyfans, the payment processors erred on the side of caution, because those two customers of theirs couldn't for definite guarantee that nothing shady was going on on their websites.

"nothing shady was going on on their websites"

There is more childporn on Facebook than Pornhub, you know why? Because pornhub requires an ID. But Facebook is untouchable because it's too big.

If they were concerned about 'shady', they would shut down Wells Fargo for fraud

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

#93

Post by Isinlor »

toyg wrote: post #75
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ban…

Yes, that's sounds like a very reasonable system. I like that it shift burden of law enforcement from banks onto actual law enforcement system with proper checks and balances.

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

#94

Post by ClumsyPilot »

0xy wrote: post #30
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.

It's a very difficult task to determine if a transaction is legal or not, sometimes impossible. Regulations differ not only on the country and state level, but sometimes the city level. For example, can you buy alcohol in Delaware? Well, not if it's Sunday. How about a weekday? Not if it's between 1am and 9am. Can you buy alcohol in New Jersey on Sunday? Sure, well not if you're in Bergen County. That's one product.…

"For example, can you buy alcohol in Delaware?"

Next, TESLA eula will forbid you from going to questionable establishments, and the car will shut off if you arwle going to a strip club.

USSR couldn't dream of this level of surveillance, turns out the trick was to privatise it.

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

#95

Post by traveler01 »

realmod wrote: post #87
traveler01 wrote: post #73

They're basically commiting suicide at this point. With them blocking all that kind of stuff, people will start looking another way (you know).

And this "other way" won't be cryptocurrency. Countries are and will continue to push for e-currency. It is simply too much power and granular control to give up.

It's not like they have a choice.

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

#96

Post by h2odragon »

rawbot wrote: post #50
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…

This is a recent situation. Back in the early 00's, paying for something online with a credit card, other than porn, was a novelty. I think things started to change in the late 00's. I remember a LOT of software being sold online (licenses and such) was sold via money orders or sometimes wire transfers.

The first time I had a customer lose their credit card merchant acct for political incorrectness was in 1997. They put a goat on stage with a "Clinton" sign on it at an event.

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

#97

Post by ajsnigrutin »

Credit card firms should be just utility providers... Like roads are. You go on a highway, pay your toll, and noone asks you if you're driving to meet your parents, if you're going to get a prostitute or if you're going to buy drugs.

Law enforcement should deal with the endpoints, so dealers, brothels, and your moms shitty meatloaf.

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

#100

Post by spottybanana »

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…

> I've seen sites start heavily censoring themselves because someone complained to Google and they pulled the ads. Stuff like this ruins the web.

You mean my web is ruined because I don't see more those ads selling the newest crypto ponzi scheme which promises 10000% yearly returns?

Let's deal with it, if advertising was totally uncensored that would be a nightmare for average user.

Post reply on HN