> if Visa does not want to provide a service for any reason, why anyone should force them to?
Since Visa (and MasterCard) are such a big part of the flow of payments that leaving that decision to them is almost like letting organized crime charge protection money.
I guess you missed this part:
> banks in Sweden were caught in the act of arbitrarily
> discriminating against fully legal business owners that the
> banks claimed sold (according to the banks) “questionable
> products” like horror movies, movies with nudity, or sex toys;
> meanwhile, these same banks happily channeled stock in
> corporations under investigation of genocide. When pressed on
> the matter, the banks referred to vague rules from Visa and
> MasterCard
Imagine being a startup that competes with (say) Amazon in some fringe market (say porn, of which Amazon has plenty). You get shutdown (by Visa/MC proxied by your bank) for selling "questionable products" while Amazon happily can continue selling the same products, since they bring so much more profit to Visa/MasterCard. Is that fair?
Since Visa (and MasterCard) are such a big part of the flow of payments that leaving that decision to them is almost like letting organized crime charge protection money.
I guess you missed this part:
> banks in Sweden were caught in the act of arbitrarily > discriminating against fully legal business owners that the > banks claimed sold (according to the banks) “questionable > products” like horror movies, movies with nudity, or sex toys; > meanwhile, these same banks happily channeled stock in > corporations under investigation of genocide. When pressed on > the matter, the banks referred to vague rules from Visa and > MasterCard
Imagine being a startup that competes with (say) Amazon in some fringe market (say porn, of which Amazon has plenty). You get shutdown (by Visa/MC proxied by your bank) for selling "questionable products" while Amazon happily can continue selling the same products, since they bring so much more profit to Visa/MasterCard. Is that fair?