I suspect if there was clear rules for the government this would be cut and dry. The fact of the matter is it’s not and that’s why companies like Visa may restrict certain things. There is chargeback risk, risk from the underwriting bank, risk from a state government and risk from the federal government. This is not some free speech problem but rather an issue where a company is having to balance issues from many different parties and weigh the risk.
Great, then what we should do is just nationalize these companies like we should've done 30 years ago. Now it is a free speech problem, and we can solve it.
We'll all probably save a little bit of money too when we don't have to forfeit a portion of every transaction ever to someone's profit margins.
The only reason this isn't a free speech problem is because it's monopolized in the private sector. Well, if it's already centrally planned and controlled, then we can just put it in the public sector.
Now, we have some guarantee of rights. We can even use our voting powers to influence the payment processor. Because, right now, we essentially have this same exact scenario - except, it's opaque, we can't vote, and they're allowed to completely trample over the US constitution, because it doesn't apply to them.
What's the actual drawback here? I mean, it's not like things can get more consolidated. I understand not wanting to disturb a market, but there's no market to disturb.
We can also go the other direction and split Visa up. But that's bad in different ways.
I don't want 50 payment processors, you don't want that, and certainly Visa doesn't want that. So who wins? Nobody, it's all losers. If you think it's expensive now, just wait until you're paying for the integration and complexity costs of all those payment processors.
IMO, payment processors are public infrastructure. That's an opinion of course, but it's really hard to argue otherwise. It is to the benefit of everyone that we have good payment processors. We already pay for Visa via taxes - that's what that 2% charge on all transactions is.
Given that, we should treat it like a public asset.
It’s not. It’s a fairy tale solution that sounds good to you but has no shot in the real world. I like discussing real solutions even if I don’t agree with them.
This is simply an underwriting risk problem. Get the government to draw boundaries of what’s ok or not and it’s less of a problem.
They're already acting as a public good - so why can't we just make them a public good? That's not a rhetorical question.
We're already paying taxes for this public good. So why can't we pay actual taxes for this public good? Again, not rhetorical.
> Get the government to draw boundaries of what’s ok or not and it’s less of a problem.
Yes, we can do this. But we have already done this. It's our common laws and the US constitution.
If we want free speech, we don't need to go out here and write a super special law to target Visa. If they were just part of the public sector that would already apply to them - no new laws required.
You can't just say something is a fairy-tale because you're ideologically opposed to it. We already run many, many public services and do it successfully. It's not a fairy-tale, it's real life and we've been doing it for hundreds of years. Yes, even in the US.
Not to mention, we'd get a lot of extra benefits for free. Don't want your payment history leaked? Great, now the police require a search warrant to invade your privacy. Don't want to be debanked? Great, now we have more stringent discrimination protections. Want to pay less? Great, we don't have to turn a profit anymore.
You write a lot but you still have not gotten over the fact that what your solution is not a solution because there is simply no way for it to happen. Glad it sounds good in your head though.
And to be clear, no the US and Australia have not done a good job of drawing a clear line here. You must be new to the space, this has constantly been an issue for the Adult industry there are very few banks that will underwrite Adult content and there are blurred lines. From the perspective of Visa or Mastercard the risk from the public or the government is too great so they have to police it. It’s unfortunate but it’s also been a constant theme for at least two decades.
> You write a lot but you still have not gotten over the fact that what your solution is not a solution because there is simply no way for it to happen.
Okay but why isn't it possible? You can't just say thing and then pretend they're true.
You've had like 3 comments now to explain why you think it isn't possible and you've decided not to, presumably because you can't.
I think it's possible. We've done it before. I've already explained the benefits.
Okay, so what now? I have an argument, you don't. Feel free to provide one, or don't, I don't really care because I'm starting to think you're not acting in good faith.
You’re asking why it’s not possible like it’s some big mystery, but it’s not ideology. It’s basic political and economic reality. You’re proposing nationalizing a private financial network in a country that can’t even pass basic data privacy laws or agree on net neutrality.
Visa and Mastercard aren’t some low-friction government acquisition target. They’re entrenched public companies with deep lobbying arms, international dependencies, and systemic importance. This isn’t turning the post office into USPS. It’s unpicking decades of privatized infrastructure and assuming the government can suddenly become a nimble tech operator. That’s the fairy tale.
And yes, laws exist, but enforcement is uneven, regulators are captured, and the ambiguity around “obscenity,” “adult,” and “high-risk” content is exactly why these companies over-police. You keep asserting benefits of a public solution as if that’s evidence it could happen. It’s not. It just shows you’re imagining a world that doesn’t resemble the one we live in.
You’re free to dream. I’m just pointing out the bridge you’re missing between vision and implementation.
