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

171–180 of 288 posts

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

#171

Post by HWR_14 »

paisawalla wrote: post #137
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…

I find it remarkable that in the same post where you criticize those who would maintain bans on drug purchases, you end up finding your own reasons why to maintain a ban on a different vice. But sex work has externalities I guess is how you might respond, but drug bans are also based on arguments of externalized social harm. At first I thought you were going to give an argument for removing financial gatekeeping, whi…

> you end up finding your own reasons why to maintain a ban on a different vice.

From my understanding, based on that 2018 rule, the executives at CC processors are personally liable if they process money for sex work. Like "you are an accomplice to human trafficking" guilty.

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

#173

Post by shartacct »

rootusrootus wrote: post #167
shartacct wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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).

Or they are working the system and making an ATM withdrawal look like a debit from the consumer's point of view.

How does that make any sense? I put my card into the reader and it debited from my bank account. I didn't pull cash from an ATM and there was no ATM present in the business.

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

#174

Post by Swizec »

shartacct wrote: post #173
rootusrootus wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or they are working the system and making an ATM withdrawal look like a debit from the consumer's point of view.

How does that make any sense? I put my card into the reader and it debited from my bank account. I didn't pull cash from an ATM and there was no ATM present in the business.

In California they charge your debit card and return cash change. They even overcharge your card to ensure there is cash to give back. $5 or so.

This turns it into an ATM withdrawal apparently.

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

#175

Post by some_random »

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…

>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.

There is not a single state where cannabis is legal, there are only states that have decided they won't enforce federal law.

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

#176

Post by devoutsalsa »

jnwatson wrote: post #159
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.

I had no idea that human trafficking in the garment industry was a thing.

https://www.borgenmagazine.com/textile-industry/

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

#178

Post by HWR_14 »

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…

How strange, because your examples don't make sense.

Sure, some things should be legal but aren't. It hardly seems surprising that while they are illegal the federal government tries to prevent them.

The Comstock Laws applied to all carriers (private or public) and therefore would apply to FedEx or UPS as well. They also were ruled unconstitutional over a hundred years ago.

Meanwhile, Operation Chokepoint was something that lasted less than a year before the same administration said it was an overreach and reversed it. It was an error, and between that and congressional oversight got fixed. It sucks, but it should be pointed out that, again, it was government pressure on private entities. Nothing that wouldn't be at least as good under government control.

Meanwhile, if an IRS agent refuses to help you because you're wearing a tank top, that seems like something you should escalate. But I will point out many private enterprises (airlines, etc.) have refused to serve people wearing tank tops. To the point of refusing to honor their ticket and screwing up their whole vacation with no recourse. But the only official IRS dress code deals with profane/offensive writings. Tank tops are allowed, even for IRS agents.

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

#179

Post by ars »

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 would want to see regulations where banks are explicitly forbidden from blocking legal transactions.

I want the same thing from web service providers - if the content is legal then Amazon, etc. should not be permitted to refuse service.

Twitter should not be permitted to have its own terms and conditions, rather they should follow the law - it's either illegal, and ban the person, or it's legal and they must leave it up.

Maybe put a limit like: If your number of registered users is at least 5% of the US adult population, then a new set of rules kicks in.

There are some details I don't have answers for: What if someone posts things that are legal, but offtopic for the location? I don't want to prevent moderators from removing that kind of thing, but I also don't want them using it as a false reason.

I'm sure there are other edge cases I have not thought of.

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

#180

Post by HWR_14 »

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.

The issue there is when it comes to likely fraudulent transactions. Like, a bank shouldn't have to give you 10MM in US currency because you hand them a "totally real check from Bill Gates" that looks like it was printed off a laserjet printer. But, they do make laserjet printed checks and maybe Gates uses them for the lulz.

All transactions have some likelihood of fraud, so it's a fuzzy line.

Post reply on HN