HN Explorer

7 comments

[ 2.4 ms ] story [ 30.8 ms ] thread
Molitor5901
Unless it's de facto illegal, payment processors should be business agnostic. You can make arguments that it's their platform, their business, they can do whatever they want - but that goes for insurance companies and everyone else we want to act neutrally.
seanmcdirmid
The problem is that the payment processor is liable for money laundering and other suspicious transactions. They just can’t say that the customer’s business was not their business, there is no safe harbor for payment processors.
Molitor5901
I agree, but the money laundering would be a de facto criminal act. It would be a mistake, however, to give payment processors a version of Sec. 230. For any financial institution that could be calamitous. Maybe there should be a very minimal line of protection, much like we do with a lot of cybersecurity for banks - they self certify they are doing their best. It still goes back to the original concern: If a payment processor can block someone for a political view, or a business for a social view, what's not stopping them from blocking someone merely over a disagreement about speech - for anyone.
spicyusername
Hot take, but Steam, a platform used by millions of children, should not have adult games.
Bratmon
If the payment processors really cared about children, they would be banning companies that sell guns, not video games with boobs in them.