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 …
-
-
do processors actually need this legal immunity? I always figured they operated this way due to the fiscal reality that refunding chargebacks and fraudulent transactions due to stolen credit cards is just not profitable for that subset of 'risky businesses'.
-
Never having worked at a processor, I honestly have no idea. Trying briefly to look through them, it seems like maybe a few just have you sign contracts indemnifying them? I would love for payment processors to be more vocal about why they openly discriminate, so we could know.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Or we could undo the laws that motivate them to create these lists in the first place (assuming it is due to "legal entanglement")
-
I would be in favor of that, yes.
End of conversation
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.