[g-b-r]

One problem with these things is that businesses have minimal visibility on the amount of users they lose.

On the opposite, if they see reports of many visitors not completing the captcha, they're likely to think "Wow so many bots!!! This defense nowadays is indispensable..!".

Sometimes you need to pass a captcha even to contact them (if you want to tell them that you can't pass their captcha).

[jbvlkt]

I wanted to give money to charity and they have whole form protected by recaptcha. So I would have to allow all my personal information and amount donated sent to google (and agree with google terms for data processing). I have contacted them but they did not understand why this is problem they just wanted to protect themself against bots. IMHO unless those things are not disallowed by antitrust laws we have lost.

[vanviegen]

We wouldn't want bots throwing money at us!

[sfilmeyer]

I suspect this is a real problem for charities, though. If those bots are using stolen credit cards, the "donations" are going to cost the charities money after they pay extra fees to the credit card processors. Nonprofits are sometimes used to test stolen credit cards before making more profitable fraudulent transactions, so there's a real risk of it costing them money if they get rid of the captcha but don't replace it with something sufficiently high quality, even after accounting for the occasional lost donation.

[g-b-r]

Why would they pay extra fees?

[sfilmeyer]

Merchants often pay a chargeback fee on top of refunding the main charge. Additionally, merchants with lots of fraud or other chargeback issues are likely to be dropped by payment processors or see their general fees with payment processors get more expensive.

[bar000n]

i say technofeudalism, not sure i know what i'm writing about though

[chadgpt2]

Luckily the marketplace of money will ensure that businesses who block their customers shrink and businesses who don't block their customers grow.