Readit NewsBut why should the payment processors be in court? They are just a 'road for money'. Normal roads nor toll road operators aren't going to be charged with a felony if a criminal uses their roads, why should that be different for payments processors?
Reply to self: One reason is of course they get paid per transaction, so if a criminal transaction takes place on their service, they make money off criminal activity.
> Payment processors as gatekeepers is absurd, even worse the entire system is completely opaque.
Yes... but if payment processors are going to be charged in criminal cases that involve the use of their systems for purchasing things that are illegal, then they have an interest in not being in that situation.
From earlier this year:
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-whistleblower-says-maste...
> Jan 24 (Reuters) - Mastercard and Visa failed to stop their payment networks from laundering proceeds from child sexual abuse material and sex trafficking on the popular website OnlyFans, according to allegations in a previously undisclosed whistleblower complaint filed with the U.S. Treasury’s financial crimes unit.
> The whistleblower, a senior compliance expert in the credit card and banking industries, said the two giant card companies knew their networks were being used to pay for illegal content on the porn-driven site since at least 2021, and accused them of “turning a blind eye to flows of illicit revenue.”
And from 2022:
https://corporate.visa.com/en/sites/visa-perspectives/compan...
> On Friday, July 29, a federal court issued a decision in ongoing litigation involving MindGeek, the owner of Pornhub and other websites. In this pre-trial decision, the court denied Visa’s motion to be removed from the case on a theory that Visa was complicit in MindGeek’s actions because Visa payment cards were used to pay for advertising on MindGeek sites, among other claims. We strongly disagree with this decision and are confident in our position.
Given this, it is a completely reasonable position for payment processors to decide not to touch anything that they can be brought into legal liability.
They'd likely prefer not being gatekeepers of money, but if they're going to be brought into a court and sued each time someone uses them to purchase something that may be illegal, they're going to take steps to not be brought into court.
But why should the payment processors be in court? They are just a 'road for money'. Normal roads nor toll road operators aren't going to be charged with a felony if a criminal uses their roads, why should that be different for payments processors?
Seems like solid advice indeed, I'm going to try and stick to these guidelines, too often meetings could have been an e-mail or bit of text and take too long.
ragebol commented on Android Earthquake Alerts: A global system for early warning research.google/blog/andr... · Posted by u/michaefe
ragebol commented on Ask HN: What software subscriptions are worth paying for? · Posted by u/helloworlddd
Obsidian Sync
ragebol commented on Show HN: Compass CNC – Open-source handheld CNC router compassrouter.com... · Posted by u/camchaney
A big difference between this and that is that this appears to determine relative positioning through multiple mouse-style optical sensors, rather than visually checking relative to patterned tape.
With a Raspi-cam and some Apriltags or some other fiducial markers, the visual reference could also be possible perhaps.
ragebol commented on What happens when housing prices go down? clmarohn.substack.com/p/w... · Posted by u/chmaynard
But not the rich, right?
The rich don’t need to cram more people in, everyone else does. True?
The rich sharing their homes with many other people would reduce demand as well I guess. But they don't because they can afford not to.
Some may argue that the rich help in the supply by building new houses, but that makes them even richer. If it doesn't, they don't bother (a point from this article).
ragebol commented on What happens when housing prices go down? clmarohn.substack.com/p/w... · Posted by u/chmaynard
There’s no such thing as “demand” in housing.
Only supply.
Housing has its own economics in which supply is the only solution ever put forward.
Not a single politician or economist ever says that most dreaded and awful word “demand”.
Property developers, politicians, economists, demographers, real estate agents, landlords all agree that supply supply supply will …….. errrr it will…… ummmmmm more supply will definitely……. something.
Demand can be affected by people living together, or encouraging that in some way.
Be it having roommates, elderly parents living in, staying with ones parents longer, communes. None of them popular long term I think. Hence: supply
Wonder what this'll cost though