[some_random]

I tend to be extremely critical of government regulation, but I think it really could be a tool here. It's important to preserve the ability of payment processors to block fraudulent purchases and they are legally required to block illegal purchases, but surely there is some way to write "you can't block purchases based on perceived reputational risks" into law, right?

[terminalshort]

It would be very easy to write a law that banned payment processors from refusing service without showing financial justification (e.g. high chargeback rate). But why would the government do that? They like to have power to lean on companies to hurt people where they can't do it directly due to the constitution.

[gs17]

> e.g. high chargeback rate

Even this is sort of bullshit. Chargeback fees are paid by merchants and there are already high-risk merchant accounts with higher fees and cash reserve requirements as a solution.

[some_random]

It goes beyond this though, at some point you need to go from "this account is high-risk" to "this account is probably running stolen credit cards".

[gs17]

But in Steam's case, it feels more likely fraud would be attached to CS weapons or something than random porn games.

[some_random]

In principle they absolutely could, but are they though? I don't know of any examples of this actually happening.

[hackingonempty]

Utilities and common carriers are examples. Porn and Cannabis businesses have no trouble getting electric, water, and telephone services.

In the USA at least, you can even steal electricity and be convicted of the crime and they still have to provide you with service, they just put your meter up on the pole.

[jazzyjackson]

I think a 'purchase' ie a bank transfer like Zelle or even a paypal non-refundable 'gift' isn't likely to be blocked, it's just Visa and Mastercard that don't want to deal with offering fraud protection for vendors that see an extremely high number of chargebacks. So if you want to pay, pay by some method that doesn't offer money back in case of fraud.

I've also been prevented from sending money by e-check because my bank was concerned the form of payment was too suspicious, so I ETF'd money from another account instead. I don't think the law can force a 3rd party to facilitate a purchase.