[zhfliz]

at best you suspect it, you don't know it unless you're on the sending or receiving side of the transaction.

it shouldn't be my decision whether i want to allow the transaction, even if i wouldn't want to allow it. i'm not in a position to perform due legal process to determine whether you're indeed being paid for a hit job.

the provider should be in a neutral position.

[tchaffee]

I asked a specific question and you refuse to answer it because your entire premise is based on not being able to know if someone is engaging in unethical behavior. That's premise is seriously flawed.

The problem you're trying solve is caused by lack of competition and near monopoly players. The fix isn't to force those businesses to ignore ethics. The fix is hugely increasing the competition.

[kelnos]

> your entire premise is based on not being able to know if someone is engaging in unethical behavior. That's premise is seriously flawed.

No, it's not. It's literally the facts on the ground.

Additionally, it's telling that you used the term "unethical" rather than "unlawful". Whether or not a credit card works should have nothing to do with someone's arbitrary ethics.

[tchaffee]

> It's literally the facts on the ground.

It's literally not. Your claim is that I suspect the local butcher sells meat rather than knowing that they sell meat. If my vegan friend doesn't want to do their accounting, that should be within his basic human freedoms. He's not the only accountant in town and the butcher will surely find an accountant who enjoys eating meat.

> Whether or not a credit card works should have nothing to do with someone's arbitrary ethics.

It shouldn't be illegal for someone to start a vegan credit card that only allows purchases at businesses that don't kill animals. More choice is better and you want to make all payment processors follow a one-size-fits-all rule. That's the opposite of the direction we should be pursuing.

The real problem is the near monopoly control of the handful of payment processing giants that currently exist. Fix that problem and increase the competition and offer more choice and you no longer needs to force payment processors to be neutral. Forced neutrality in the end means the government decides. Which makes sense in a handful of cases, but not when markets can do a better job.

[zhfliz]

even though not explicitly, i have already answered your question.

you should pass the transaction, as you should be in a neutral position.

edit: to clarify, payment providers/processors nowadays are a core utility function in our society. imo this is not something you can consider a regular private business.

[tchaffee]

My basic human freedoms should include the right to not do business with a hate group for example. You want folks to give up that freedom because you got the problem wrong and you're applying the wrong fix.

[zhfliz]

you're free to decide who to do business with if you're not providing a core utility service.

would you like to no longer receive water or electricity at your home because your utility companies don't like you, despite (being willing to) paying the bills like any other citizen?

[tchaffee]

Due to limited infrastructure resourcess, water and utility companies are a near monopoly which is why they need these types of regulations. There is no physical limitations to the number of possible payment processors so the actual fix is more competition and more companies. No need for neutrality regulations when you have thousands of companies competing.

[stale2002]

Ok got it, so this means that your previously statement, where you said "My basic human freedoms should include the right to not do business with a hate group for example", is not true, or not your full opinion.

You actually think that there are certain situations where it is OK to force basic utilities to transact with everyone.

You just disagree where exactly the line is. But at the end of the day, yes you also agree that some companies should be forced to engage in certain transactions.