[pdeuchler]

I think a lot of this is coming down to how you're framing it. Most people, some of the commenters on this thread aside, would think you're being generally reasonable given the current environment of the financial services industry. However you're really just asking to get yelled at when you say things like: "We want to avoid taking editorial or moral stances regarding the businesses built on Stripe."

This statement is absurd, all businesses make these decisions whether they want to or not, and being the errand boy for The Powers That Be does not absolve you of these decisions. The continual framing going down that post is something of "We always do the right thing, except when we can't or we don't want to." Which isn't a great way to win people over.

If you were just explicit from the get go that as a financial services company you have to CYA first, and then try to do the right thing second nobody would blame you for that. Most reasonable people who will be doing actual business with Stripe have dealt with processors/merchants before and know what goes on with these deals, it's all about hedging risk.

But when you phrase it like you're trying to do the right thing and CYA is just an incidental inconvenience pressed on you by some big corp who's really the bad guy here... well, that's just disingenuous and people know it.

Beyond that people are aware that Stripe is growing, and growing fast. Large companies have inconsistencies with this sort of stuff, PayPal is a prime example. And while I've had amazing experiences as a lone developer with my own projects I've also had some not-so-great experiences with Stripe in my professional life (obviously I don't speak for my employer or any prior ones). Again, this makes sense, a lone developer is a lot less risky than someone who's already funneling funny looking money through your system, but trying to whitewash this clear fact as if you were in fact "doing the right thing" the whole time makes people frustrated and reduces people's ability to predict Stripe's actions. And nobody wants to deal with an unpredictable payment provider.

I realize that a decent amount of the article here talks about risk and how it's hedged, but you continually phrase things like the OMGYes case study as if your hands were tied in some non-moralistic decision, which again rings disingenuous. Same with the "Businesses that pose a brand risk" bullet point.

Last but not least, you guys squirreled away the most important piece of information in this article to a small paragraph. "Contact us first if you're at all worried" should be bolded in 60pt font at the very top. Asking people to do that and being very explicit and upfront about your CYA policy before trying to explain the nuances would go very far with how people interpret the message, even if there's nothing explicitly wrong with how it's done now.

[collision]

> "We want to avoid taking editorial or moral stances regarding the businesses built on Stripe."

This really is true. All companies will have to apply some criteria -- there are businesses that AWS or mail companies reject. In our case, we would like to avoid editorial and moral stances as much as we can. And as the post hopefully makes clear, we still have a ways to go.

> If you were just explicit from the get go that as a financial services company you have to CYA first, and then try to do the right thing second nobody would blame you for that.

We would actually like to be a bit more progressive than that -- rather than supinely CYAing all the time, we want to (and frequently do) take risks and push back on behalf of businesses we believe in. The latter half of the post was intended to lay out some examples of that. But the distinction you're drawing makes sense and I'll look at editing the post with it in mind. Thanks for the feedback.

Separately, I would be very interested to hear about your suboptimal experiences if you'd be willing to share them over email or the phone.

[pdeuchler]

Not quite sure I'd be allowed to talk about that stuff anymore, although depending on the records you guys keep my name will probably pop up in some calls/emails if you searched for it.

And look, I entirely get what you're saying, and I know you guys probably mean it, but again, you're missing the perspective of people who have a distinct impression of the financial services industry and who _know_ what happens when you go down this road with PayPal, Braintree, et. al. They don't necessarily care if you guys are making a best effort on a case by case basis if you're still hampered by contractual obligations to play by someone else's game. And when you try to make these moral stands but almost immediately point out where you were contractually obligated to compromise said stands it doesn't give people confidence in the moral stands and makes it look like grandstanding (holy run on batman). This is where the disconnect and (seeming) disingenuousness arises.

This is also why I emphasized that you guys should really just tell people to contact support first, because that clears all confusion and miscommunication without having to make moral pronouncements and before you guys are put in a position that forces you to compromise these bright lines.

Anyway, I really support what you guys are doing and don't want to seem overly critical but I wanted to communicate a disconnect that seemed to get lost in translation.

[makomk]

Funny thing is, even PayPal allow sex toys and a lot of sex toy sellers accept PayPal. Have done for quite a while if I remember correctly. I guess from their perspective it must not be that high risk

[developer2]

Have you ever worked with the kind of company that supports the merchant accounts for businesses that legitimate processors avoid? They are run by the shadiest people in the tech services industry. They only manage to accept credit cards for scum clients because they themselves are scum willing to do anything to make a dollar. They always operate overseas in countries with dubious legal systems, tucked away from the first world.

Stripe operates in the first world. They're not going to deal with clients that have 10%+ monthly chargeback rates.

[misterbowfinger]

It sounds like you would've preferred that they don't post anything at all. Even if the post was edited to how you're describing, people would say, "Well they should be more progressive than that!"

Personally, I think it was great that they articulated why they do what they have to do, and the measures they're taking to improve.

Although I agree with the statement about:

> "We want to avoid taking editorial or moral stances regarding the businesses built on Stripe."

The entire post, and John, basically indicated that they do want to take a more progressive moral stance. Their stance being that they want to fight for servicing certain businesses on Stripe.

[pc]

> The entire post, and John, basically indicated that they do want to take a more progressive moral stance. Their stance being that they want to fight for servicing certain businesses on Stripe.

Yes, we're going to remove the first sentence from the post -- you're right that it's, strictly speaking, inaccurate in the sense that we do want to take a stance in favor of certain kinds of businesses.