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

91–100 of 272 posts

Re: Against the censorship of adult content by payment processors

#91

Post by coldpie »

danaris wrote: post #89
coldpie wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> THIS. Why is this PoV even controversial? Because it is stating that the government should control private behavior, which bumps into free speech and freedom of association issues. That gets pretty controversial. There are other solutions to the stated problem: > Given their market dominance, they should absolutely not have any right to refuse service. The fix is to address the precondition in that statement: their…

The companies in question are monopolies . If you can't get your payments processed by Visa and Mastercard, you are effectively debanked. We collectively agreed long ago that monopolies do not get to enjoy the same freedoms that other companies do.

> We collectively agreed long ago that monopolies do not get to enjoy the same freedoms that other companies do.

I think that's generally only the case for natural monopolies, such as power infrastructure, where breaking them up isn't really a feasible solution (ie we don't want 20 different power lines running to each house). I don't think payment processing meets that standard, we could easily break them up and re-introduce competition into the market.

Re: Against the censorship of adult content by payment processors

#92

Post by fenomas »

armada651 wrote: post #57
pas wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

how would a group hound the processors in the other direction? also, how are these "puritan" groups doing the hounding? I mean, are they threatening some kind of legal action? based on old (or not so old) obscenity laws? could the against hounding group do the same? on what legal basis? or is it enough to do the usual "securities fraud" angle? maybe what matters is how much money the hounding group credibly has to sp…

> also, how are these "puritan" groups doing the hounding? I mean, are they threatening some kind of legal action? based on old (or not so old) obscenity laws? They're not suing them in civil court, they're threatening to use the court of public perception against them. If they allow these payments the activism groups will set up a campaign titled something like "Visa facilitates incest and child abuse!" and "Masterc…

Also, it's worth reading the wiki page on the group behind this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melinda_Tankard_Reist#Collecti...

To me it doesn't look like this group is so powerful that they forced the payment processors to do stuff. It looks more like, this group campaigns tirelessly, year in, year out, against all kinds of miscellaneous stuff they dislike, and every so often they get a W somewhere because they're more persistent than groups pushing in the other direction.

Re: Against the censorship of adult content by payment processors

#93

Post by quest88 »

Goronmon wrote: post #81
potbelly83 wrote: post #77

I think a lot of people are missing the point. Most likely what's happening here is that the issuers (not Visa/MC) see a large number of chargebacks/fraud for adult content sites and have determined that it's much easier if they don't accept transactions from these sites.

Most likely what's happening here is that the issuers (not Visa/MC) see a large number of chargebacks/fraud for adult content sites and have determined that it's much easier if they don't accept transactions from these sites. That's definitely what I would claim if I wanted to take down content I didn't want. Who is going to prove them wrong?

Why would visa/mc want to decline money? They love making money.

Re: Against the censorship of adult content by payment processors

#94

Post by quest88 »

chrisoverzero wrote: post #87
potbelly83 wrote: post #77

I think a lot of people are missing the point. Most likely what's happening here is that the issuers (not Visa/MC) see a large number of chargebacks/fraud for adult content sites and have determined that it's much easier if they don't accept transactions from these sites.

What makes that "most likely," other than that you thought of it?

Occam's razor?

Re: Against the censorship of adult content by payment processors

#95

Post by Hizonner »

potbelly83 wrote: post #77

I think a lot of people are missing the point. Most likely what's happening here is that the issuers (not Visa/MC) see a large number of chargebacks/fraud for adult content sites and have determined that it's much easier if they don't accept transactions from these sites.

No, what's happening is that people like NCOSE and Collective Shout are putting pressure on the processors. They've loudly bragged about it. It's not the first time they've done it. And they've been known to enlist government actors to help with the pressure ("Operation Choke Point").

Every time this issue comes up, a bunch of people crawl out of the woodwork trying to prove how "wise" they are by mouthing this idea about chargebacks. And the processors are happy to keep their heads down and not dispute it, or even encourage it, since they really want the whole issue to just go away.

Chargebacks are not the issue here, and if you haven't paid any attention at all to what's actually going on, you're best advised not to make yourself look like a fool by talking about what you guess might "most likely" be happening.

Re: Against the censorship of adult content by payment processors

#96

Post by marcosdumay »

potbelly83 wrote: post #77

I think a lot of people are missing the point. Most likely what's happening here is that the issuers (not Visa/MC) see a large number of chargebacks/fraud for adult content sites and have determined that it's much easier if they don't accept transactions from these sites.

Isn't their official explanation that a religious group in Australia forced their hand?

Besides it not being a valid reason at all, they are not even trying to claim chargeback costs.

Re: Against the censorship of adult content by payment processors

#97

Post by Hizonner »

quest88 wrote: post #93
Goronmon wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most likely what's happening here is that the issuers (not Visa/MC) see a large number of chargebacks/fraud for adult content sites and have determined that it's much easier if they don't accept transactions from these sites. That's definitely what I would claim if I wanted to take down content I didn't want. Who is going to prove them wrong?

Why would visa/mc want to decline money? They love making money.

Because the money involved is peanuts, they don't want people running around trying to put them in the headlines as "enabling sexual exploitation", and a certain number of their internal people actually believe in the "cause".

Contrary to popular belief, corporations are composed of humans and do not reliably or mechanically follow only financial incentives. Nor are they always perfect in understanding their actual financial interests. Boycott threats are probably empty, but some people may not want to take the chance, or may have other motivations that cause them to overestimate that risk.

Re: Against the censorship of adult content by payment processors

#98

Post by Hizonner »

quest88 wrote: post #94
chrisoverzero wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes that "most likely," other than that you thought of it?

Occam's razor?

When you have advocacy groups going around in public saying "Look, we successfully pressured VISA/MC to do this", Occam's razor would suggest that that was true.

Re: Against the censorship of adult content by payment processors

#99

Post by charlieyu1 »

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?

Plenty of laws around the world have exemptions for small businesses so it is a moot point

Re: Against the censorship of adult content by payment processors

#100

Post by throw7 »

aqme28 wrote: post #75
willprice89 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

To some extent, no. In my opinion* you shouldn't get to say "I refuse to design websites for gay people." *: Not always the same as Sam Alito's

That's not usually the problem (it can be for some). It's really when your art/"identity" is being used to promote something you don't believe in. That happens across the whole religious and political spectrum... e.g. musicians that don't want their art used in certain contexts.

About the OP, government is the right place where we "fight it out" and try to sloppily design a system to move forward as one; these seemingly activist campaigns to "jawbone" private companies is absolutely a sign that something needs to be done at the government side. However, there are very entitled, rich interests behind the banking system, so yeah, there isn't one easy solution i think.

Post reply on HN