Back in my day, before the Internet, when you might find things of interest in classified ads, you could send a money order. Who's gonna stop that? Now of course this is less secure than using credit card companies/payment processors but I bought so many cassettes and CDs in the 90's from various non-mainstream labels this way.
Credit-card firms are becoming reluctant regulators of the web
111–120 of 288 posts
Re: Credit-card firms are becoming reluctant regulators of the web
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
People did not shop online that much, 15 years ago (especially outside USA). But they already had travel booking needs, which could be taken fully online with CC payments over the net. You could often pay upon delivery even when shopping online, but there's no need of delivery for tickets.
Didn't take long for catalogs and mail order to go away
A web site which offers payment-upon-delivery goods is a glorified mail order, anyway. It does not transform the experience much apart from removing some friction.
Re: Credit-card firms are becoming reluctant regulators of the web
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
More like your web is ruined because the site that tries to write about some controversial topic has to stay less controversial else they can't make money by showing ads.
People can blog just fine without having to make money off them you know, and of those making doing it for the money the vast majority have to censor themselves to be able to grow and maintain their audience in the first place.
Somewhat obviously, you don't actually get a lot of people willing to pay for your content if you hold truly unpopular opinions.
Re: Credit-card firms are becoming reluctant regulators of the web
#114What 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…
> 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
I'm not sure if you are missing contacts or providing irony. But the fact is payment processors and banking in general is extremely heavily regulated.
A few years ago when you saw almost all banks and payment companies starting to crack down on spending money to buy and sell cryptocurrency, that was to no small extent because federal regulators gave them a little side-eye about the subject. No specific regulations, to be clear, but a few pointed questions.
When every means of sending money overseas demands clear documentation of your identity, That's not so much because banks feel the need to know every detail of your business; it is strictly mandated by federal law. And while my examples all involve US banking, most governments around the world are similarly strict.
Re: Credit-card firms are becoming reluctant regulators of the web
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
[deleted]
Re: Credit-card firms are becoming reluctant regulators of the web
#116I 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.
From the way you frame this, you seem to think legal or illegal is an easy thing for a bank to evaluate quickly and accurately. Is that a correct statement of your position?
Re: Credit-card firms are becoming reluctant regulators of the web
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I guess the question is whether the business they serve is legal. YouTube has some pirated content for sure. The business has rules in place to deal with it, for better or worse, and if someone pays with a credit card to watch something illegal in YT, that doesn’t count as the bank facilitating a crime. I’m not defending porn as a grand corner of free speech but I don’t like banks deciding who can and cannot be paid.
The counterpoint that a banker would make is that they're forced into this position by Congress, regulators, and prudence.
The alternative that might work is charging businesses fees that vary according to the risk of their transactions being illegal. Which sounds good on paper, but also runs the risk of leaving the bank in the position of making a large amount of fees from illegal activity, which rarely goes over well in court. Better, perhaps, to have a unified fee schedule and just refuse any business that could be unprofitable from liability.
I think the banker would have a strong point here. They're not in a place where these are always easy calls to make - transactions don't come with an evil bit. The constraints placed on them don't leave them a lot of viable choices.
Re: Credit-card firms are becoming reluctant regulators of the web
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> 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 I'm not sure if you are missing contacts or providing irony. But the fact is payment processors and banking in general is extremely heavily regulated. A few years ago when you saw almost all banks and payment companies starting to crack down on spending mon…
I think they're saying the regulations should include not excluding someones legal business because you 'dislike it' ala WikiLeaks.
Re: Credit-card firms are becoming reluctant regulators of the web
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> 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 I'm not sure if you are missing contacts or providing irony. But the fact is payment processors and banking in general is extremely heavily regulated. A few years ago when you saw almost all banks and payment companies starting to crack down on spending mon…
There are different types of regulation. The one that exists now and primarily is regulation such that individual human people cannot transfer or store in to large amounts of money without federal investigation of the source and identity. Banking and processors comply with these rules and generally go overboard making things hard for human people so they can keep their own corporate asses safe.
But the type of regulation that is needed is regulation of the banks and payment processors themselves. Not of their clients or things related to their clients.
Re: Credit-card firms are becoming reluctant regulators of the web
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
No, they demand a principled balance between the two freedoms, that's independent of the content of the speech. What you're talking about is what's status quo - freedom for private businesses to not serve someone, except when it contradicts certain narratives, at which point it becomes a national news story about bigoted business owners.
Saying the balance should be predicated on ignoring the content of the speech makes sense only if speech itself was a pure function without side-effects, only if saying something truly had no other consequence than it being said can we safely ignore the content.
But the precise content of speech is exactly the part that matters! If a death sentence is read out aloud in verse, or just sent in via a short text message (that is via two very different types of speech) is clearly not very important if the end result in either case is an aid worker being blown up with a Hellfire. Speech very often triggers actions, to ignore this fact is to state nothing may be prevented because judgment is only possible by examining actions committed to reality.