Payment Processor Censorship (Visa / Mastercard / Stripe / PayPal etc) - Discuss Payment Processor/Gateways/Banks censoring people in this thread.

Null said:
The words "financial institutions" have a strict definition: banks and credit unions. Card networks are not financial institituions, they are financial services. This EO does not do anything. Financial institutions were already the only link in payment processing that actually has competition.
Click to expand...
This. If the EO had said "money service businesses" and/or "money transmitters" then it would have real teeth since it would take aim at payment processors directly. However, this would seem to apply to acquiring banks, whether the reputational risk was ascertained by the bank itself on its own standards or as a result of Visa/MC's own network policies, which is a good step in the right direction.
 
  • Disagree
  • Late
  • Dumb
Reactions: Uncle Sciz, Kiwi Yuga and WelperHelper99
Got what I voted for.jpg
Legit, this is the biggest thing for the internet in a long time. Right wing sites have never been able to take off due to de banking.
 
Hopefully it actually gets enforced and isn't another one of those "you're not supposed to do it, but nobody cares" sort of things. Joosh needs a W - the current situation KF is in has set an awful precedent.
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Markass the Worst
Creative Username said:
as long as shit like kosa doesn't permafuck us immediately after this small w
Click to expand...
So... right... I'm not gonna sit here and defend KOSA... but I took a look at it in my own time... and the KOSA currently in the legal process, which should not be confused with the KOSA from 2024 which was the abomination you think it is, seems to be a really quite feckless bill that reads like it's making a bill to investigate needing to make a bill with some unironically good shit in there like making platforms disclose when you're in an algorithm trip and spotting some sunshine on that.

Asking in all honesty, does anyone here have a line they want to cite for why it deserves being put up there with the Online Safety Act? I could have possibly missed something since I was glossing over it at the time, but it didn't look nearly as bad as the SCREEN Act or the Block BEARD Act, and there's a distinct possibility people may have gotten the '24 version of the bill confused with the one actually up for debate right now.

Not defending it obviously. It's still more red flags than a Chinese May Day parade since even if it's the legal equivalent to a meeting about making a meeting that's still action, but I do like it when my crises are properly compartmentalized so we know what fires need putting out first. Other sources have been... less than helpful clarifying this.
 
Can people stop doing the retarded devils advocate shadow boxing shit. It is annoying to read several pages of this:
"Well what if they call themselves payment assfaggots, the EO does not cover payment assfaggots."
It does not matter what they call themselves. No judge or jury in the land is going to judge that they are not classed as payment services. No matter if they have 600 Jewish lawyers in a court room.
Arguing edge cases and what ifs against this wording is stupid. There is no "out" for them, that would be considered in line with common law understanding and good faith interpretation.
 
  • Optimistic
  • Like
Reactions: HamburgerPatty, Markass the Worst and Runch
Whatever makes Null cope and seethe is the best policy. I hope Null and his fanboys starve due to their whineyness. First it was "we need a law to stop debanking," now it's "no heckin law is good enough for me, wah wah, because the truth is nulls grift relies on censorship." If Kiwifarms wasn't censored, people would see the site for what it really is: fat retards gossiping and doxing trannies, not freedom fighters oppressed by da troons, and then the annual e-begging fundraisers would fail, causing Josh "Null" Moon to die of starvation.
 
  • Dumb
  • Winner
  • Mad at the Internet
Reactions: NuII's Clitty💦, gagabobo1997, Chudborean and 27 others
Hulkster said:
First it was "we need a law to stop debanking," now it's "no heckin law is good enough for me, wah wah, because the truth is nulls grift relies on censorship." If Kiwifarms wasn't censored, people would see the site for what it really is: fat retards gossiping and doxing trannies, not freedom fighters oppressed by da troons, and then the annual e-begging fundraisers would fail, causing Josh "Null" Moon to die of starvation.
Click to expand...
Kiwifarms being controversial is inseparable from the way the site is run, for it to not be Kiwifarms would be unrecognizable. So yeah I guess this site would be lame if it were a completely different site.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fcret
I think people underestimate the power of this EO simply existing. The last thing these finance demons want is for anyone to actually pay attention to them. For this to be a big enough issue that it got Trump to issue an EO and for congress to seriously put forward legislation (even if it ultimately dies) means they've monumentally fucked up and they know it.

Rate me optimistic, but I don't think it's unlikely that we see a lot of 'voluntary' moves among the money people to undo a lot of debanking and PP discrimination just so they can get this issue off the radar of national politics.
 
  • Optimistic
  • Agree
Reactions: WelperHelper99, The Paranoid Organ and Markass the Worst
Fcret said:
I think people underestimate the power of this EO simply existing. The last thing these finance demons want is for anyone to actually pay attention to them. For this to be a big enough issue that it got Trump to issue an EO and for congress to seriously put forward legislation (even if it ultimately dies) means they've monumentally fucked up and they know it.

Rate me optimistic, but I don't think it's unlikely that we see a lot of 'voluntary' moves among the money people to undo a lot of debanking and PP discrimination just so they can get this issue off the radar of national politics.
Click to expand...
It could fall out that way them doing a
Haha my bad haha we wont do that anymore.
Just to get the heat off their back. After the widely publicised Steam censorship. They will back down. But in a way that does not make them lose face.
They will probably put out a statement with PR speak saying "our policy has changed" "We are committed to service" plus all the other corpo speak drivel.
 
Hello, I witnessed a family member of mine get surcharged 3% on a debit card transaction yesterday. This appears to be a violation of federal law and state law in all 50 states, which only allows surcharges to be applied to credit cards. This is a good sized merchant that has been around since the 60s, and charges a good sum for their services, and as such I have little sympathy for them. They are old enough and profitable enough to hire an attorney or an accountant or whatever to advise them financially, and instead they just taped a piece of paper to the front desk explaining that all card transactions will be charged 3%, and indeed their system did not detect my family member was paying with debit, and charged it anyway.

What is the most expedient way to report them to the authorities? It is offensive to see the burden these companies place on businesses be passed along to the customer, apparently in violation of federal law, and state law in all 50 states.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: Toolbox, Mortan Shekelstorm, Justa Grata Honoria and 3 others
For Scorn and Three Birds said:
It could fall out that way them doing a
Haha my bad haha we wont do that anymore.
Just to get the heat off their back. After the widely publicised Steam censorship. They will back down. But in a way that does not make them lose face.
They will probably put out a statement with PR speak saying "our policy has changed" "We are committed to service" plus all the other corpo speak drivel.
Click to expand...
they already did a retarded pr announcement like you're talking about and all it did was make people hate them twice as much
 
Creative Username said:
they already did a retarded pr announcement like you're talking about and all it did was make people hate them twice as much
Click to expand...
Yea, it did. It works in favour of our side.
Them PUBLICLY DENYING PAYMENTS. To individuals is the open and shut part of the case. Valve have said publicly in press statements that Visa denied the transactions. It is clear evidence disproving any argument of them just bein cute uwu payment facilitators.
The fuckers sealed their own fate by doing it so openly and to as big of a target as Valve.
The fact is nobody fucking cared when it was Null. or small fish conservative business. They do not have clout or in roads with people with power. That is just life, the powerful tread on the powerless. What changed is they got sloppy and hit a big fish with connections and mass media appeal. Not realising that the people who knew of what they were doing are now in positions of power.
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: The Paranoid Organ and Markass the Worst
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back