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

211–220 of 288 posts

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

#211

Post by 542458 »

ashtonkem wrote: post #208
jonas21 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Granted, the legality of cannabis is a grey area since states allow it but the Federal government still maintains it as illegal. This isn't some incidental detail - it's the entire reason why the banking and credit card industry doesn't want to interact with cannabis right now. Guess who regulates the banking industry and has authority over interstate commerce? The federal government. This particular example has no…

The moment they’re legally allowed to they will be all over legal weed. It’s not like the finance industry has any issues profiting from other recreational substances, such as alcohol or tobacco.

Agreed. Any suggestion that “the banks won’t deal with $GROUP even though they could be making money” is an allegation that the banks aren’t actually very profit-motivated. This allegation seems unlikely to me.

As far as I can tell, the stuff the banks won’t touch is either legally risky (weed) or financially risky.

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

#212

Post by bduerst »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #97

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.

Do you mean Common Carrier laws? Kind of like how FedEx won't care that you're shipping to their competitor, like UPS.

This could happen, but it would also mean overhauling some of the finance laws that hold credit card companies accountable.

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

#213

Post by pessimizer »

cletus wrote: post #192
paisawalla wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> ... 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. Well done on missing my point entirely, possibly intentionally. I'm fine with whatever happening between consenting adults. Unfortunately, there's a link between sex work and human trafficking that cannot be ignored [1]: > Countries with legalized prostitution are a…

> Well done on missing my point entirely, possibly intentionally.

Nothing you said here illustrates that. You made yourself clear, and clearly you are for cannabis, but only theoretically for sex work between consenting adults, because you see negative effects from sex work that you think make it worth suppressing sex work between consenting adults.

Other people see externalities from cannabis use (although you argue as if you've never heard anyone mention any.) Other people see the fact that companies and banks can't support sex workers as something that causes sex work to be unmonitored and underground.

Neither of those last things are the point I'm making. The point I'm making and that the person you replied to was making is that you're having the debate. You don't have a problem in using the ability to receive payments or bank to prevent or encourage behavior, your problem is that you personally are not the regulator.

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

#215

Post by paisawalla »

cletus wrote: post #192
paisawalla wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> ... 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. Well done on missing my point entirely, possibly intentionally. I'm fine with whatever happening between consenting adults. Unfortunately, there's a link between sex work and human trafficking that cannot be ignored [1]: > Countries with legalized prostitution are a…

This is not compelling, and it's you who has missed the point. I can lay down as many links, and provide as many stats, as you want about the societal harms of drug use.

Is that how we should be deciding who gets to charge a credit card?

This is like the ring from LOTR: throw it out altogether, because there is no way to use its power responsibly.

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

#217

Post by shapefrog »

caoilte wrote: post #105
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.

The false equivalence here between your house and your company platform is so ick.

I take it you dont believe them to both be private property?

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

#218

Post by pessimizer »

zpeti wrote: post #68
mildmotive wrote: post #61

There was this case where Pornhub hosted a lot of rape footage of teenagers[1]. Victims came forward, they testified of their abuse and said that they tried very hard to remove videos involving their sexual assault from the platform. They were however unable to successfully do so because not only were Pornhub careless and unresponsive, the videos would shortly after being removed (if they ever were) resurface on the…

Don't forget that in this case 2 million people signed a petition saying what's happening on the platform is non consensual, AND they got taken to court and lost. That is the legal system working. Taking payments away for someone who has lost in the legal system, on the censorship scale is probably more acceptable even to someone who's very pro free speech. It's another thing when visa and mastercard ban forums or su…

Or for something actually happening, how about people accused of "critical race theory" or endorsing BDS? These are prohibitions that are entering state law - so are these more acceptable for people who are "very pro free speech?"

Right-wing talk about free speech usually just sounds like people want to make being a right-wing bigot a protected class. I've heard a reasonable argument that it's really just a largely unrecognized ethnic group of Scots-Irish evangelicals. From that point of view, it makes a little sense.

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

#219

Post by nobody9999 »

micromacrofoot wrote: post #183
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).

That's not true at all. I live in the northeast and my dispensary simply can not take credit cards even if they wanted to; credit card companies are liable for the transaction and they don't want to run up against federal law. Some dispensaries can take debit card transactions, and they have to do so through "high risk" processors... companies like Square will not work with them because of federal law.

>credit card companies are liable for the transaction and they don't want to run up against federal law.

This. And while it's obviously not the same thing at all, since cannabis is a schedule 1[0] substance, the US government could treat processing credit card transactions for cannabis companies the same as they treated HSBC[1] or worse.

As such, until cannabis is moved off of schedule 1, Congress acts to make cannabis legal at the federal level, and/or the US Department of Justice makes it clear that providing banking services to cannabis companies will not be prosecuted under money laundering laws, US banks won't jump into the pool.

[0] https://www.dea.gov/drug-information/drug-scheduling

[1] https://www.investopedia.com/stock-analysis/2013/investing-n...

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

#220

Post by lordgroff »

ashtonkem wrote: post #208
jonas21 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Granted, the legality of cannabis is a grey area since states allow it but the Federal government still maintains it as illegal. This isn't some incidental detail - it's the entire reason why the banking and credit card industry doesn't want to interact with cannabis right now. Guess who regulates the banking industry and has authority over interstate commerce? The federal government. This particular example has no…

The moment they’re legally allowed to they will be all over legal weed. It’s not like the finance industry has any issues profiting from other recreational substances, such as alcohol or tobacco.

Cannabis is legal in Canada, and indeed you can use credit and debit cards to buy it without any issue whatsoever.
Post reply on HN