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

241–250 of 288 posts

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

#241

Post by zinekeller »

varispeed wrote: post #235
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. You can in the UK. Dispensaries here do accept credit cards.

"anywhere" is basically inside US, not in other countries.

(Yes, I also hate it, but I do concede that America is physically big.)

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

#242

Post by Root_Denied »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #108
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.

I do not see why credit specifically be a utility. But electronic transfer of money should be, and supposedly will be: https://www.frbservices.org/financial-services/fednow

Regulations like OFAC are still going to restrict payments, especially those made internationally or over a certain amount.

I'm not saying that the regulatory framework should allow payments to known terrorists or terrorist groups, more pointing out that electronic transfers are never going to be structured like a utility without significant restructuring of banking laws.

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

#243

Post by webspinner »

streamofdigits wrote: post #23

Everybody wants to become a "reluctant regulator of the web" if it means them getting a cut of all economic activity (as the new tax man) without any liability Let us not be naive. The decades long preference for oligopolistic rather than competitive markets is what created behemoths (both new and old) and now the only question is who of them is going to be granted the keys to the digital kingdom by fiat.

They aren't so reluctant. I think they get off on the power of doing this, but that's just me.

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

#244

Post by ghaff »

pvarangot wrote: post #226
HeyLaughingBoy wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the really nice thing about this is that there are no fees. If I just need $80 or so (I think the limit is $100), it's faster to go to the local Walmart and buy a candy bar or something and get back $80 cash than to go the closest ATM owned by my bank to avoid the double dipping fees.

Yeah it makes sense there are no fees for cash back. Walmart doesn't want cash, they want to get rid of it as soon as possible. The ATM has to be actually refilled with cash, so they charge you for it.

It probably depends on the type of account you have with the bank. I certainly don't pay ATM fees so long as I use my bank's own ATM but perhaps there are more bare-bones account types that do.

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

#245

Post by HeyLaughingBoy »

pvarangot wrote: post #226
HeyLaughingBoy wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the really nice thing about this is that there are no fees. If I just need $80 or so (I think the limit is $100), it's faster to go to the local Walmart and buy a candy bar or something and get back $80 cash than to go the closest ATM owned by my bank to avoid the double dipping fees.

Yeah it makes sense there are no fees for cash back. Walmart doesn't want cash, they want to get rid of it as soon as possible. The ATM has to be actually refilled with cash, so they charge you for it.

That doesn't really make sense. My bank's ATM has to be refilled with cash and they don't charge me. Likewise, I doubt the Walmart self-checkout is sorting bills and only dispensing $20's: they also have to be loaded with cash separately.

The only charges I encounter are from using my bank's card at another bank's ATM.

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

#246

Post by Dylan16807 »

gamacodre wrote: post #223
jstanley wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This bugs the crap out of me, it sounds like "waaaahhh I can't rake in ad money being a provocateur". So deal with it. Get a day job. Accept that large chunks of society will hate you (that's the goal anyway, right?) and that your business won't be welcome.

They should still have access to basic banking services, as a utility.

Would you think it's okay if their water company tried to cut them off?

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

#247

Post by webspinner »

mindslight wrote: post #190
franga2000 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Innovation isn't what's needed, it's regulation. Making an alternative that does a couple things better but a thousand things worse isn't going to turn a broken market into a free one. There are multiple types of decentralization and the one we need for finance isn't the "everyone is (theoretically) equal and there are no rules" of crypto but the "distributed network of trusted providers" that we use for things like…

I'm no apologist for corporate power, but most payment network censorship seems to be driven by government regulations - Wikileaks, sex work, weed, and gambling are all things the government has passed laws to explicitly harm. As such, additional regulation is more likely to cement the current restrictions rather than repudiate them.

Yeah I should know this. I tried to donate to WikiLeaks before. My bank flagged my account and alerted my mother.

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

#248

Post by kroltan »

jaywalk wrote: post #239
kroltan wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's because there is no open standard for it, which is mentioned in the following sentence. > A room of computer science students could write an open standard for that in like a month and have a working implementation within the year. (While I don't share the optimism regarding the timeframe, I agree with the general sentiment)

There are standards, however making them "open" wouldn't change anything. You've obviously never tried to integrate with a large number of separate entities before.

I have not, I've just clarified the point of the parent in case you misread.

But now I'm curious, what are the challenges with having a large number of entities implement a standard? Is it "just" the shrink-wrap effect of having a few-initial or large players, is it getting the parties involved to even agree to the standard, or what?

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

#249

Post by webspinner »

londons_explore wrote: post #127
woofcat wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they're saying the regulations should include not excluding someones legal business because you 'dislike it' ala WikiLeaks.

Todays finance regulators require you to not do business with some people, often without good evidence. For example, if you do business with wikileaks, you will get a nudge from the regulator to 'reduce the number of high risk clients' you work with... They're not saying it's illegal, but they're also saying they're going to find some regulation to prosecute you with unless you do as they say. It's a sad state of aff…

Is this still the case today, in 2021? I know that Wikileaks was blockaded for several years, but I thought those were all dealt with.

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

#250

Post by manquer »

epicureanideal wrote: post #2

Reluctant? Really? Citation needed.

Simple economics is main reason.

Regulating is expensive and they are not being paid for it. It Same reason why online social media would do as little content moderation as they can get away with .

Jon Oliver did a great piece yesterday on the state of non English content moderation on popular social media like YouTube and Facebook : the numbers he gave were 90% users can be non English but only 13% of the moderators deployed for other languages .

The real sad part is most of the content moderators for these companies all come from developing countries like India and already know a lot of other languages better than they do English.

They only care so far as to make users and regulators think they doing enough.

Post reply on HN