[ball_of_lint]

Author makes a point badly, but there is an important point here.

It's really strange that we de-facto allow the few large credit card networks (Visa, Mastercard) to effectively impose their own particular views and values on what sorts of businesses can process payments. The stigma+roadblocks against these "high-risk categories" generally doesn't come from the processors (like Stripe, Adyen), but are actually driven by the networks themselves, in response to lobbying by groups such as Collective Shout. https://nabesaka.com/visa-mastercard-deciding-content-legali...

Whatever you think about NSFW media or gambling in particular, you _should_ worry that Visa and/or Mastercard could decide tomorrow that they don't want to process payments for you and cause you to lose your livelihood.

[scelerat]

It's not that credit card companies have some kind of moral bone to pick, it is that the legal, logistical and political morass of dealing with the variety of state and national laws, definitions of porn, protections of children and non-consenting performers, etc. are such that it is not worth it for them to pursue.

Similar issues exist for, e.g., companies and sites selling legal THC and THC products.

[ball_of_lint]

That might be part of it, but I don't think it's the only or primary motivation. But we don't really get to know.

They can and have used this power to effectively censor legal content. I don't think this sort of power is something that a private entity should hold. Being able to refuse service is fine for a random restaurant when there's 10 other options available, much less so for a duopoly that provides a key facet of modern life.

[bdangubic]

exactly, they would not give two shits about what your business does if they got immunity from any prosecution