Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Against the censorship of adult content by payment processors

soatok.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 272 posts

Re: Against the censorship of adult content by payment processors

#21

Post by willprice89 »

anal_reactor wrote: post #14
willprice89 wrote: post #4

I had never heard the term "jawboning" before. According to Merriam-Webster it is "the use of public appeals (as by a president) to influence the actions especially of business and labor leaders" or "broadly : the use of spoken persuasion". Regarding TFA: I don't think trading freedoms of one group (the platform users) for those of another (the platform operators) is a good solution. Visa/Mastercard should have the r…

> Visa/Mastercard should have the right to refuse service. No. A company beyond certain size functions more akin to a government body providing public service, and should be treated as such. Imagine the only ISP in the area refusing to provide service because fuck you that's why. Or Microsoft banning you from using Windows ever again. Think about it for a second - if Apple made a policy "iPhones cannot be sold to bla…

I think the market would punish Apple sufficiently enough for something like that and government intervention wouldn't be required...

What about a small, local ISP? Should they be able to refuse to provide service? At what size can/should the government step in a force companies to do things?

Re: Against the censorship of adult content by payment processors

#23

Post by brookst »

willprice89 wrote: post #18
sunrunner wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Visa/Mastercard should have the right to refuse service Really? If this was any other small to medium business where there were potentially tens, hundreds or even thousands of viable alternate businesses that provide what could be deemed as an equivalent service I might agree, but a global payments duopoly is essentially public infrastructure and should not be able to discriminate based on protected characteristics…

I agree with your assessment of the current situation. But I think the solution is to break up the duopoly, either by leveling the playing field or creating government-run alternatives, rather than force the duopoly to do certain things.

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.

Re: Against the censorship of adult content by payment processors

#24

Post by phyzix5761 »

sunrunner wrote: post #16
willprice89 wrote: post #4

I had never heard the term "jawboning" before. According to Merriam-Webster it is "the use of public appeals (as by a president) to influence the actions especially of business and labor leaders" or "broadly : the use of spoken persuasion". Regarding TFA: I don't think trading freedoms of one group (the platform users) for those of another (the platform operators) is a good solution. Visa/Mastercard should have the r…

> Visa/Mastercard should have the right to refuse service Really? If this was any other small to medium business where there were potentially tens, hundreds or even thousands of viable alternate businesses that provide what could be deemed as an equivalent service I might agree, but a global payments duopoly is essentially public infrastructure and should not be able to discriminate based on protected characteristics…

As public infrastructure shouldn't the public take on the burden of funding and operation risk? Or are we saying we should force others to do what we want with their money?

Re: Against the censorship of adult content by payment processors

#25

Post by dedicate »

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.

Re: Against the censorship of adult content by payment processors

#26

Post by sunrunner »

phyzix5761 wrote: post #24
sunrunner wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Visa/Mastercard should have the right to refuse service Really? If this was any other small to medium business where there were potentially tens, hundreds or even thousands of viable alternate businesses that provide what could be deemed as an equivalent service I might agree, but a global payments duopoly is essentially public infrastructure and should not be able to discriminate based on protected characteristics…

As public infrastructure shouldn't the public take on the burden of funding and operation risk? Or are we saying we should force others to do what we want with their money?

I guess I was using the phrase to broadly mean a service that's intended to be available for use by the general public and with the service itself providing a means to an end without 'public ownership' being part of that (in the same vein as 'public' transport). Not sure if there's a more appropriate term here.

Re: Against the censorship of adult content by payment processors

#27

Post by phyzix5761 »

cmitsakis wrote: post #13
protocolture wrote: post #5

Clarifying I find the furry art weird, and not pornographic. (Weird is fine btw, normal is the worse insult imho) I think the biggest issue is the damage that the word "Censorship" has taken in the last few years. If I ran a payment processor, the first thing I would do is try to be as neutral as my moral compass allows. The second thing I would do is intentionally stop processing payments on behalf of anyone I was u…

While freedom of association is fine on a personal level and maybe for small businesses, big corporation that are monopolies or oligopolies shouldn't have this freedom. They should be regulated and forced to serve everyone otherwise they have the power to exclude some people completely from such services with no alternative. Due to their power, their decisions affect people as if they are government decisions, yet we…

Why do we have this idea that big corporations are these giant scary entities disconnected from real people? Majority shareholders for Visa are the retirement accounts of regular people and retail investors. We want the public to dictate the actions of what other regular people do with their money without taking on any financial risk for those policies.

Re: Against the censorship of adult content by payment processors

#28

Post by bfg_9k »

willprice89 wrote: post #19
cwillu wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Companies shouldn't have rights.

If I'm the sole owner and only employee of a small business, should I have the right to choose my clients? If so, at what size/scale/level of market capture should I lose my rights?

It's an interesting one - I've always thought that businesses should have no right to refuse business, and it kind of already exists, for example you can't refuse to serve a customer purely on the basis of their skin color.

Likewise, if a casino or betting company (ladbrokes, for example) have customers that win too often, I also think it should be illegal to stop them betting. Fundamentally if you're running a business that is an uneven coin toss (to your favour) and you have customers that are able to make money off you - that's your fault for having a bad business model.

So to answer your question, any size.

Re: Against the censorship of adult content by payment processors

#29

Post by phyzix5761 »

sunrunner wrote: post #26
phyzix5761 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As public infrastructure shouldn't the public take on the burden of funding and operation risk? Or are we saying we should force others to do what we want with their money?

I guess I was using the phrase to broadly mean a service that's intended to be available for use by the general public and with the service itself providing a means to an end without 'public ownership' being part of that (in the same vein as 'public' transport). Not sure if there's a more appropriate term here.

But, effectively, you want to tell other people what to do with their money without taking on any financial risk for those policies. The majority shareholders for Visa are retirement accounts and retail investors. Why does one segment of the public get to tell another segment of the public what to do with their money without putting any skin in the game?

Re: Against the censorship of adult content by payment processors

#30

Post by anal_reactor »

willprice89 wrote: post #21
anal_reactor wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Visa/Mastercard should have the right to refuse service. No. A company beyond certain size functions more akin to a government body providing public service, and should be treated as such. Imagine the only ISP in the area refusing to provide service because fuck you that's why. Or Microsoft banning you from using Windows ever again. Think about it for a second - if Apple made a policy "iPhones cannot be sold to bla…

I think the market would punish Apple sufficiently enough for something like that and government intervention wouldn't be required... What about a small, local ISP? Should they be able to refuse to provide service? At what size can/should the government step in a force companies to do things?

> I think the market would punish Apple sufficiently enough for something like that and government intervention wouldn't be required...

Ah yes. The invisible magic hand of free market that solves all problems. Except it doesn't. See Uber expanding its service where for a small fee you can avoid dealing with people from undesirable social class. Not exactly the same thing, but still the idea of free market promoting immoral solutions rather than eliminating them.

> At what size can/should the government step in a force companies to do things?

At a size when the society starts depending on your service for daily functioning. When it becomes essential. For example in my country it's an issue that you can't have a business without a bank account but sometimes banks just... refuse to make an account for you and your company won't function.

Post reply on HN