• The_Worst@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    161
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Payment providers should not be able to control what users are or are not allowed to purchase with their cards. It’s a downward spiral. Electronic payment is a necessity in nowadays life.

    • XEAL
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      82
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      11 months ago

      As long as it’s a legal transaction, the providers should STFU.

        • Belgdore
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          11 months ago

          Sets a precedent though, and implies that the card companies are responsible for what people buy. First it’s drugs, then it’s porn, liquor, gender affirming items and hormones, contraceptives, or whatever else the fascists don’t like. Companies won’t want to be fined by the fascist right once they start pushing to ban things.

            • Belgdore
              cake
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              What federal law are they adhering to? Mastercard isn’t buying the drugs they are denying a person access to the funds that that person already owns. Mastercard should be agnostic to what the person uses that money for.

              It sets a precedent that card companies are responsible for what their client’s purchase, and can reject transactions based on what their clients are purchasing, not how much money/credit they have.

              I can go after corporate shitheads and fascists especially when they are holding each other’s cocks.

                • Belgdore
                  cake
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Why should I care what a person is buying? So what if they are buying hitmen or 100 kilos of cocaine? If and when they get caught they will go to prison. It’s not Mastercard’s job to police the system.

          • PersnickityPenguin
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            14
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            You do realize that there are no banks in the United States that will allow marijuana related business to work with them either, right?

            It’s highly illegal under federal law. My business is done business with marijuana related businesses in the past, and they all have to operate with cash and hand only. It’s insane.

            Nothing like carrying a suitcase full of $250,000 in small sequential unmarked bills to the bank you know…

        • XEAL
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          Liability?

          • Bongles
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            11 months ago

            There isn’t as far as I know and there shouldn’t ever be.

  • conciselyverbose@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    56
    ·
    11 months ago

    Payment processors have a functional monopoly and should not be permitted to refuse or otherwise be punitive to any category of purchase.

  • N00dle@lemmy.world
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    ·
    11 months ago

    This is lame. Mastercard telling people what not to by is outrageous but not the first time they’ve done this.

        • JJROKCZ@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          That one was due to pornhub supposedly not doing any content management to make sure illegal content (child/bestiality/ revenge porn) wasn’t available. Once pornhub put in better security measures, the providers authorized transactions again.

          That’s little different from the providers revoking my businesses ability to accept credit cards if I’m found to not follow the standards required of me for SOX compliance

          • blazera@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            of course pornhub does content management. You’re not gonna find a more strictly managed porn site anywhere. They instituted unprecedented regulation, most of their content was wiped and they manually verify studios to be able to upload.

            and no, they did not authorize transactions again.

            • JJROKCZ@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              They weren’t doing much content management before all that though.

              And my bad, I thought they had, I haven’t checked because I’ve never been in their market to begin with

          • PupBiru@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            you’re not wrong, but also certain legal, consensual fetish porn is still blocked by the major payment providers. it’s the reason OF/JFF have some arbitrary restrictions

  • kool_newt
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    I think I’m going to make it a goal to stop using these companies. I think credit cards should be banned as predatory actually, or at least heavily restricted.

    • A Phlaming Phoenix
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      These aren’t credit cards, but debit cards. It’s access to money you have already earned, is in the bank, you own, and Mastercard is saying you can’t spend it on a particular thing. You get around this by doing an ATM cash withdrawal, but it’s still an extra step, and it’s still a megacorp restricting your access to something that the law does not.

      • fuzzzerd@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        Bold move to assume they’ll take cash. Many places gave up on cash during the pandemic and many of those haven’t gone back to taking cash.

        I used to hate the “convince” fee companies charged for using a credit card, but when it’s reframed as a cash discount, it’s not as aggravating.

        That said, plenty of places are electronic payment only these days. Scary times, given the payment processor monopoly and their ability to determine what you can and can’t buy.

      • kitonthenet@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        Usually (in my experience) the weed store just has an ATM in it, or the POS system is technically an ATM

      • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        It’s access to money you have already earned, is in the bank, you own, and Mastercard is saying you can’t spend it on a particular thing.

        Strictly speaking, they’re saying that they won’t facilitate the transaction themselves, presumably because they’re concerned about legal exposure from processing transactions for goods that are illegal under federal law. State law may not be restricting your access, but federal still is, at least on paper, even if it’s largely de facto unenforced.

        Mastercard makes money every time you swipe a card. They’re not going to cut off their own income unless they think the cost of not doing doing so is higher, such as legal exposure.

        I agree that I don’t love how much control a few private companies have over the financial system, but at least with this case, I think the real issue is Congress for not getting around to legalizing Marijuana.

      • kool_newt
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Sometimes I need weed but don’t want to get out of my car. It’s a real problem.

  • MdRuckus @lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    11 months ago

    Well, they can’t stop a cash withdrawal on your card to pay for it. So, it appears they still have to pay for it in a way.

  • HowMany
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Cannabis users should move to ban Mastercard.

  • Cybermass@lemmy.world
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    11 months ago

    That’s a very dumb business move, it might be illegal for then to do that in Canada

    • LordPassionFruit
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      11 months ago

      It should be illegal for a company to limit what you can purchase anywhere in the world.

      • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        Under the law, they literally have to limit transactions for illegal goods, otherwise they become complicit in that crime.

        The real stupidity is that Marijuana is still illegal under federal law.

    • Virkkunen@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      There’s nothing illegal about them blocking illegal purchases on their cards, of which the US federal government still considera marijuana illegal

    • orbitz@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      I only skimmed the article but it seemed US centric so I’d guess this is relevant to the US since it’s not legal federally there. I was worried for a moment since I use one for my orders in Canada. Though if for some reason does happen in Canada I’m sure there’ll still be some way to do online orders like with Interac or another company. Too much tax money collected for the Canadian government to just let an online revenue stream dry up from a credit lender.

  • uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    11 months ago

    This was a maneuver by VISA and MC in the Aughts when Wikileaks was publishing information embarrassing to the US Federal Government.

    Pharmacies and medical doctors have long been creative about preserving privacy. Dispensaries will go back to selling tea or candy or miscellaneous OTC pharmacological product which they’ve been doing since prohibition if not before.

  • ArugulaZ@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    11 months ago

    You’ll not stop me! I’ll just withdraw money from an ATM, and what I do with that is nacho business.

  • noredcandy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    From the article: “The federal government considers cannabis sales illegal, so these purchases are not allowed on our systems,” the spokesperson added.

    Seems like this isn’t a Mastercard thing, but a government thing. Marijuana is still illegal at the inter-state level unfortunately.

    • blazera@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      that hasnt been being enforced for a long time, so if something’s changed it’d help Mastercard’s PR quite a bit to point to a government order or something.

      Otherwise yeah it’s a mastercard thing

      • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        It’s still a non-trivial legal liability that any major company would prefer to not have.

        If you could spend $1 to eliminate a 1% chance that you’re going to be arrested, you’re probably gonna take it.

        • blazera@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          You think they’re gonna go arrest John Mastercard because someone bought recreational marijuana from a vendor in a legal state?

          • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            I think a risk-averse corporation may decide that it’s not worth bothering with.

            At any rate, it’s their own pockets they’re hurting.

            • blazera@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              no, payment processors blocking transactions for your business is definitely hurting more pockets than their own.

  • xeekei
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    11 months ago

    And over here in Sweden we’re 99% cash-less at the moment. I tried to warn as many as possible that we do not want to give up transactional independence.

    • kitonthenet@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      We’re about to get this with FedNow. It’s 4 cents rather than 0.5, but it’s better than debit card fees