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 …
-
Show this thread
-
For example, here are all the businesses that cannot use Stripe. It includes many types of businesses that would be legal to operate in the US/elsewhere, but which nonetheless effectively can't because almost all payment processors use a list like this.https://stripe.com/restricted-businesses …
2 replies 3 retweets 25 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @cmuratori
Wait what?!? "...cryptocurrency mining equipment..." So if your web store sells GPUs, Stripe will refuse to handle your transactions?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @AlenL
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
And you know what's the worst - ambiguity and uncertainty. I'm sure they don't actually review this for every customer. They just keep this as a landmine that they can activate whenever they feel like it. They can cancel almost any business based on that list.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @AlenL @cmuratori
There should be a law that a service provider has to have clear rules and has to abide by them both ways. This gives them way too much power over a business that relies on them for transactions.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AlenL
My preference would be a law requiring payment processors to be "common carrier", personally. Currency was traditionally a government function - I'd love a "nondelegation" argument here :)
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
Fair enough. But why stop there? A utility cannot unilaterally decide to cut a single customer off. A cloud provider on the other hand... Imagine if a waterworks company shuts the pipe to a business on the grounds of "morality"?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
I mean I am fully in favor of all of this - I don't like the idea of non-fiduciary customer discrimination for utilities.
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.