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

151–160 of 288 posts

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

#151

Post by jimbob45 »

Mindwipe wrote: post #141
exporectomy wrote: post #56

Earlier 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.

Mastercard's BRAM rules involve blocking quite a lot of things that are legal though - you're not allowed to mention hypnosis, or blood, or vampires in adult content, even in a completely fictional context.

Do you have a link for that? I'm having a frustratingly difficult time trying to find a concise list of the BRAM rules.

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

#152

Post by shapefrog »

OneTimePetes wrote: post #143
shapefrog wrote: post #67

Earlier 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.

So, if i would manage to besiege the city of rome, conquer it and declare the forum romanum mine, and to throw out all the romans. Does that make writing "Romanes eunt domus" an act, that forbids you forever the usage of my conquered streets? M i the conqueror allowed to sentence a citizen to house-arrest, by defining social negative space?

You are as free to forbid the speech as those are free to make the speech.

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

#153

Post by gumby »

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…

> If the payment processors don't want to be associated with a service

Generally financial institutions are happy to take anyone’s money, and lend to them too unless they don’t think they’ll get their money back.

Their regulators can change those criteria though, forcing upon them an unfunded mandate. This is no different than policing entities washing their searches through private entities (e.g. the telecoms).

I consider this a pernicious trend.

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

#154

Post by shartacct »

cletus wrote: post #130

I don't think they're that reluctant, honestly. But it goes beyond credit card companies too. It applies to the whole banking system. It will soon be the case where the majority of Americans live in states where recreational cannabis is legal (it was ~1 in 3 last year but NY, NJ and others will push it over). Yet you can't use a credit card to buy cannabis pretty much anywhere AFAIK. Worse, dispensaries have to opera…

> Yet you can't use a credit card to buy cannabis pretty much anywhere AFAIK.

Every dispensary I've visited here in the northeast accepts cash and debit cards, I assume they don't accept credit due to higher processing fees and higher risk of chargebacks rather than processors being problematic (otherwise they would not accept debit since they get ran through the same system anyway).

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

#155

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #94
0xy wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"I am sorry Dave, I am afraid I can't let you do that"

Only it won't be delivered by AI, but by a compliance script tied to geo-blocked locations. It will get extra tricky for cars to navigate when their owners are child molesters and have to stay 10 miles away from houses with children in it.

Onwards to our glorious future!

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

#156

Post by Mindwipe »

jimbob45 wrote: post #151
Mindwipe wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mastercard's BRAM rules involve blocking quite a lot of things that are legal though - you're not allowed to mention hypnosis, or blood, or vampires in adult content, even in a completely fictional context.

Do you have a link for that? I'm having a frustratingly difficult time trying to find a concise list of the BRAM rules.

Not a public one I can hand out, no. The lack of public transparency around the BRAM rules is also a significant issue imo.

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

#157

Post by jimbob45 »

The intuition here is that credit-card firms have to take these precautions in order to protect against excessive chargebacks, right? Would it not be possible to create a new style of transaction that is unable to be charged back but requires account authorization and 3-days forewarning (maybe with small withdrawals first)?

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

#158

Post by JumpCrisscross »

yunesj wrote: post #148

HN readers are wrong to think this will be fixed when the government creates a CBDC or regulates payment providers like a utility. In addition to the government currently blocking transactions from semi-legal industries that should be legal (cannabis), the government has a history of censoring mail mentioning contraceptives (Comstock Laws) and pressuring banks to cut businesses with legal, undesirable industries (Ope…

> the government currently blocking transactions from semi-legal industries that should be legal (cannabis)

What does this refer to?

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

#159

Post by jnwatson »

cletus wrote: post #130

I don't think they're that reluctant, honestly. But it goes beyond credit card companies too. It applies to the whole banking system. It will soon be the case where the majority of Americans live in states where recreational cannabis is legal (it was ~1 in 3 last year but NY, NJ and others will push it over). Yet you can't use a credit card to buy cannabis pretty much anywhere AFAIK. Worse, dispensaries have to opera…

The clothing manufacturing industry is also deeply tied to human trafficking, but no one is talking about banning credit card transactions at the Nike store.

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

#160

Post by JumpCrisscross »

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…

> Something similar could be done for banks: bank shuts down account for company, company appeals providing some proof, bank files proof somewhere and reinstates

You're describing your state banking regulator. Also, like a bajillion federal banking regulators.

Post reply on HN