221–230 of 272 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> as it’s legal and doesn’t harm anyone Porn harms everyone involved.
That’s a personal opinion not a fact with any merit. And as a personal opinion has no bearing on what an adult should be allowed to spend their money on.
In reality, the belief that porn is harmless has no evidentiary support.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's a part of the message I received from them: - $25.00 - Monthly fee for the merchant account. - $19.95 - Monthly fee for the Authorize.net payment gateway (API Connection to your website) - 3.95% - Keyed rate - $0.25 - per transaction fee - $1,450 - HIGH-RISK fee - 10% Rolling reserve It just seems unfair, as these fees are for "adult content" sites (i.e. nudity, etc.), which is not what I built.
Why not just go straight to authorize.net? Or your local bank can probably set you up with them... always worked for me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you run a restaurant and a known dine-and-dasher walks in, can you not refuse to serve them? If you're a consultant do you have no right to refuse a client? Even if you have other clients you'd rather work for, or that particular client is a bad fit for you, or any other reason? If you run a transport company, and you think someone is trying to get you to move illegal goods, or goods that you have moral qualms abo…
Known dine-and-dasher - no, I think you should be forced to serve them. You don't know if they're going to dine and dash you, you're not the police or the courts, punishing a dine and dasher. Your job is to serve food to those who pay you. If you've got a problem, make them pay for food first? Consultant - unless you've got a legitimate need to reject providing services to them, I tend to think the same, you should h…
The issue comes down to when you refuse to work with someone because of an immutable property - race, gender, age, etc - denying someone from coming into your restaurant because they’ve ripped you off is completely fine and I can’t see why it shouldn’t be. This smacks of “freedom of speech” when people get mad that a private platform told them they couldn’t say mean things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please don't do this here.
I know puns are considered the lowest form of humor, but I still appreciate the occasional bit of levity to lighten the mood in serious discussions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But say you're a concreter, you've worked with a client who's an absolute prick - doesn't do anything illegal exactly but he's a total stickler with your work, calls you all the time with stupid questions, tries to find problems everywhere to justify a discount (despite you having hypothetically done the job perfectly), pays as late as possible. Shouldn't you have the right to not take on another job for this guy?
None of this has anything to do with companies having rights. You as a person can choose to not to business with another person.
I agree with the premise of this post, but I'd like to see it made by someone else (and not only because this is on a furry blog.)Their argument is also poorly formed and poorly written. They start by defending their use of furry art and railing against potential backlash from HN. Then spend a lot of words talking about how Collective Shout isn't anti-LGBTQ, but could potentially become anti-LGBTQ, but even if it's n…
> two American companies should not be able to dictate the moral standards of censorship for the world. They have too much power and too little oversight. Let's start with that. To be fair, it's more than just two companies (and not all of them are US based). It's an ecosystem of companies with two major choke points. Groups like Collective Shout work because Visa and MasterCard have deeply conservative Terms & Condi…
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…
> The second thing I would do is intentionally stop processing payments on behalf of anyone I was uncomfortable with on a personal level Corporations do not have a "personal level"
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…
Monopolies and Duopolies suck even with regulation. If you want a state owned payment processor, pursue that goal. But you will end up in the same place, with reactionary leaders using the service to ban things that the voters disagree with, which sometimes will be porn in all likelihood.
>"private companies" as if that means something.
A private company can be competed with. You can legally pay these websites just not via those 2 most popular options. If something is actually censored, the state will use violence to prevent you accessing it. Theres a video kicking around the internet of NSW cops snatching a VHS tape from the hands of people trying to run a small banned film festival. Thats definitionally censorship. I know you want to take the anger people have at censorship, and transfer it away from the government to people you dont like, but its simply not censorship.
> Due to their power, their decisions affect people as if they are government decisions
The inertia of people who wont change their purchasing decisions to avoid those to options is the issue. Not their choice not to process payments.
Not sure if stuff like WERO will help. I talked to a social worker who works with sex workers, and apparently a major problem they have is that local banks refuse them as customers. Which is ridiculous. Why should a sex worker not be able to open a bank account?
Because whores must be punished . First day in the USA? And for those that need it: */s*
just use bitcoin. there is literally no downside. it is easier to implement than most payment providers that i know. moreover there are payment provider that work with bitcoin so you do not have to.
No protection against theft, insane energy consumption.
dont forget protection against theft inserts someone else to each transaction