Private kangaroo courts maybe, I'll take public democratic ownership of a payment processor than the current reality of private actors that decide to ruin you for having the wrong beliefs or selling the wrong goods.

▲

helicone 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

you're just replacing the reality of a private actor deciding to ruin you for having the wrong beliefs or selling the wrong goods with a public actor deciding to ruin you for having the wrong beliefs or selling the wrong goods.

half of the country disagrees with the other half on almost every issue. the first thing a party is going to do when elected is change the nationalized payment processor's policy to ban the other half of otherwise law-abiding companies and individuals to stop them from being able to do business.

at least now with stripe there's some lead time and it takes a few years after a major political shift to feel the effects, which makes it more stable.

a better solution is to change a different piece of legislation that currently allows Stripe to choose to do business with whoever it wants, which is what allows them to ruin you. if stripe were legally required to provide you with service unless your business were proven in court to be against the law, this problem would be solved without another bulky addition to the already bloated public sector.

▲

disgruntledphd2 5 days ago | parent [-]

> if stripe were legally required to provide you with service unless your business were proven in court to be against the law, this problem would be solved without another bulky addition to the already bloated public sector.

It's not Stripe though (they do of course have their own policies, but) mostly it's the downstream financial institutions. Stripe is an API over the existing financial ecosystem, which is both incredibly regulated and somehow still the wild west.

So, you'd actually need to change the law for all financial institutions/payment processors (really it's Visa and MC that are the issues most of the time), and even then it's not that simple.

Consider, this law passes and is implemented. What do Visa/MC/Stripe/Paypal do when they identify a fraudster. Do they need to go to court to stop having them as a client? Who holds liability for any fraudulent transactions between identification and the court case.

Like, I completely agree in principle given how central internet transactions have become to all of our lives, but there's a bunch of complexity that would need to be dealt with to avoid creating a whole host of new problems.

Steve Yegge talks about this: https://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2009/04/have-you-ever-legal...

(funnily enough, he gives a financial system example in this blog post, which I'd entirely forgotten).

	▲	helicone 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		Having read the article you linked, I can see your point on complexity and how it's much easier to discuss and debate than it is to actually spec it out and drive adoption. While I would love for these systems to be fair and righteous and all of that jazz, I soberly must recognize that I lack the resources and desire to do all or even any of that work myself, and therefore have no leg to stand on in holding others accountable for not doing so.

▲

throwaway48476 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I don't disagree. I'm merely pointing out that it's not just a matter of technical implementation.