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

31–40 of 272 posts

Re: Against the censorship of adult content by payment processors

#31

Post by jjav »

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.

Given their market dominance, they should absolutely not have any right to refuse service. At that level of scale, they need to be treated like common carriers, who must handle all communications/transactions.

Re: Against the censorship of adult content by payment processors

#32

Post by bfg_9k »

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 think you'll find that's already the case. MC/VISA would have an implicit underwriting by the US govt should they ever be in extreme strife. We've already seen this happen before, the UK govt bailed out RBS, largely because of things like being responsible for 1/3 of all transactions that happened in Europe at the time.

Various airlines were also bailed out over the COVID period. So I'd say that it already exists, except the public sees no benefit.

Re: Against the censorship of adult content by payment processors

#33

Post by TZubiri »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #7
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…

Broadly speaking I'd usually agree, except that Visa/Mastercard are a two-company oligopoly at this point, with effectively no meaningful competition. Yes, other payment mechanisms exist, but consider how much it limits the viability of an online business to not accept credit cards.

There's a gajillion currencies, banking systems, wallets, crypto, amex.

Widen your category definition and you'll see it.

Re: Against the censorship of adult content by payment processors

#34

Post by rachofsunshine »

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?

"Small" is doing a lot of work there.

Large entrenched companies have leverage small businesses do not, in the same way that a large moon orbits in a way a test particle of infinitesimal mass does not. We already recognize this with respect to monopoly law: you lose your right to do certain things to your competitors precisely when you're large enough that you could reasonably suppress them.

That is essentially what we are talking about here: a duopoly that is actively suppressing competition. My understanding is that the big-two payment processors don't just refuse to process certain payments, they also refuse to work with banks who work with payment processors who will. Assuming that I am correct in that understanding (I might not be, this is not my area of expertise), that would prevent (or at least hinders) someone from just saying "there is a market need here" and forming their own payment processor to fill that need. To me, that seems like a problem for the exact same reasons that monopolies are a problem, and regulating against monopolies is not particularly controversial.

Re: Against the censorship of adult content by payment processors

#35

Post by bfg_9k »

dedicate wrote: post #25

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.

100% agreed and I think many people are missing the forest from the trees on this issue.

This stuff always starts off with "think of the children" and then evolves into something else entirely.

How about when we have a game spewing rhetoric about religion being bad (the Assassin's Creed franchise being one example) - should card processors force steam to remove those too, to continue using their payments infrastructure?

Re: Against the censorship of adult content by payment processors

#36

Post by phyzix5761 »

bfg_9k wrote: post #32
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 think you'll find that's already the case. MC/VISA would have an implicit underwriting by the US govt should they ever be in extreme strife. We've already seen this happen before, the UK govt bailed out RBS, largely because of things like being responsible for 1/3 of all transactions that happened in Europe at the time. Various airlines were also bailed out over the COVID period. So I'd say that it already exists,…

I agree that governments shouldn't provide bailouts without receiving equity for that compensation. The idea that any company is too big to fail undermines the smaller competitors who are making better decisions and have a strategic advantage in surviving economic challenges.

Re: Against the censorship of adult content by payment processors

#38

Post by TZubiri »

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?

A small local ISP serving a small area would be a https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly

Usually it is agreed that sometimes the infra costs are high, so there cannot be two or more competitors, so they are granted a monopoly in exchange for fulfilling the duty to serve the community.

Re: Against the censorship of adult content by payment processors

#39

Post by bfg_9k »

phyzix5761 wrote: post #36
bfg_9k wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you'll find that's already the case. MC/VISA would have an implicit underwriting by the US govt should they ever be in extreme strife. We've already seen this happen before, the UK govt bailed out RBS, largely because of things like being responsible for 1/3 of all transactions that happened in Europe at the time. Various airlines were also bailed out over the COVID period. So I'd say that it already exists,…

I agree that governments shouldn't provide bailouts without receiving equity for that compensation. The idea that any company is too big to fail undermines the smaller competitors who are making better decisions and have a strategic advantage in surviving economic challenges.

Absolutely. But on the flip side I can also recognise that frankly, governments are terrible at running things. I think a Singapore style model is best - a giant holding company like Temasek that is wholly government funded and owned, but companies owned by the holding company are still beholden to the free market forces, are the best way to go for things like payment processors, airlines, utilities, etc.

Re: Against the censorship of adult content by payment processors

#40

Post by its-summertime »

TZubiri wrote: post #33
JoshTriplett wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Broadly speaking I'd usually agree, except that Visa/Mastercard are a two-company oligopoly at this point, with effectively no meaningful competition. Yes, other payment mechanisms exist, but consider how much it limits the viability of an online business to not accept credit cards.

There's a gajillion currencies, banking systems, wallets, crypto, amex. Widen your category definition and you'll see it.

And how many are viable alternatives?
Post reply on HN