I don't know, but I would assume this is because payment processors uniformly refuse to handle payments for a number of legitimate customers, such as sex workers. Which is yet another reason we need something like a common carrier law for merchant services.https://twitter.com/inputmag/status/1428421204055052296 …
-
-
I assume, but don't know, that these lists arise because payment processors want to limit the damages they may be liable for in businesses that are "legally entangled" (like pornography, gambling, etc.) So it is not necessarily the case that they are being puritanical.
Show this thread -
Therefore, a "common carrier, limited liability" law that gives payment processors legal immunity from resulting damages in exchange for requiring them to offer equal access to business types would be a step in the right direction.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Wait what?!? "...cryptocurrency mining equipment..." So if your web store sells GPUs, Stripe will refuse to handle your transactions?
-
I hadn't looked into it before but yeah, I got a lot less positive about Stripe once I read their "non-puritan businesses" list.
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.