111–120 of 272 posts
Payments are pretty much 'public infrastructure' at this point and should be treated the same as utilities. ie they should be required to provide service for anything legal.
China just banned OnlyFans as degenerate, as did Sweden. We should probably be _increasing_ enforcement of public morality through private systems. “You can just start your own payment processor.”
Who’s morals? Yours, specifically, I’m assuming?
What moral system do you advocate? Laissez-faire?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>not passing new laws to compel private behavior. I have IRL facepalmed reading this. This comment gave me the equivalent exposure to 10 hours on X/Twitter. Mate, the reason you now have clean air, safe to eat food and drinking water is BECAUSE OF government compelling private behavior. With your logic we should have just waited for free market competition to kick in for Cocal-Cola and McDonalds to decide on their ow…
You are correct, I don't think not being able to purchase porn games rises to the same level of danger as unsafe food or climate change, to require the government to tell businesses how they may operate. > With your logic we should have just waited for free market competition to kick in Cocal cola and McDonalds to deiced on their own to stop putting arsenic into our food. I don't think that's a fair comparison. No on…
Holy cow, so many comments here and you still missed the point by a mile. The point isn't video games, the point is payment processors shouldn't be arbiters on what you buy. Because if they can stop you buying/selling video games, they can do the same for other stuff. Where does their right to censor you begin and end?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the “instead of providing school lunches, eliminate poverty” argument. I am fully supportive of fostering competition. But until the market actualky changes, monopilies / duopolies should be regulated to prevent this abuse of power. Rejecting a simple tactical solution in favor of a future systemic overhaul is classic perfect vs good.
Calling for the creation of a government run alternative isn't arguing against School Lunches. It's the exact opposite.
Honestly, I think focusing on what is being censored is missing the point. Today it's adult content, which is an easy target. But what about tomorrow? What if they decide your political donation is 'problematic', or the indie news site you subscribe to is 'misinformation'? We're handing a kill switch for legal commerce to a handful of unelected execs.
Not even that easy of a target, because the crazy people in America want to call anything that acknowledges the existence of LGBTQ people or how they exist within greater society is "adult content" or "pornographic."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are correct, I don't think not being able to purchase porn games rises to the same level of danger as unsafe food or climate change, to require the government to tell businesses how they may operate. > With your logic we should have just waited for free market competition to kick in Cocal cola and McDonalds to deiced on their own to stop putting arsenic into our food. I don't think that's a fair comparison. No on…
>I don't think not being able to purchase porn games rises to the same level of danger as unsafe food or climate change Holy cow, so many comments here and you still missed the point by a mile. The point isn't video games, the point is payment processors shouldn't be arbiters on what you buy. Because if they can stop you buying/selling video games, they can do the same for other stuff. Where does their right to censo…
We both agree this is bad. What we are discussing is how best to solve it.
In the scenario where we enforced existing anti-trust law and broke up the big 2 to form many smaller payment processors, one of the newly formed processors could pick up the business that the pickier processors don't want and take that profit, right? So it solves the problem, without having to pass any controversial new laws about compelling private business behavior.
Cryptocurrencies are sufficiently diverse and popular in this day and age that this should be a non-issue at this time. So many sites accept them already. I even advise using Monero to fully shield the user.
Buying litecoin and sending it to someone else was a huge pain in my butt to put it mildly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Companies shouldn't have rights.
Companies are groups of people. Why should people have rights separately but not when they decide to work together in a group?
Take for example PG&E, the large gas/electric utility for the northern 2/3rds of California. PG&E is a convicted felon and was sentenced to five years probation, but they remain un-rehabilitated.[0] Under your theory, the "group" with the rights should have been jailed. Instead, a new layer of rights is created out of thin air for the corporation but no meaningful responsibility was ever assigned, unlike individuals.
[0]https://liberationnews.org/pges-rap-sheet-the-criminal-histo...
According to their own documentation, dating sites are indeed allowed, so long as there's no adult content. The site I built didn't allow adult content. I argued my case, provided the TOS as well as showed that I had features built into the site to prevent that sort of stuff. Still banned. The next step was to go for CCBill, etc. But they all charge a ~$2,000 setup fee. Not happening.
It had so many features built into it, and was by far my favorite project. Sadly, I just unpublished it and it will probably forever sit in my project folder unused.