you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]ManWithABanana 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (13 children)

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/gab-ceo-warns-visa-helping-bring-chinas-social-credit-score-america

It sounds like Visa is trying to comply with some kind of US law, and isn't explaining well what it is. I would like to know, actually.

[–][deleted]  (11 children)

[deleted]

    [–]ManWithABanana 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

    That's certainly possible. How do you know there's no law involved ?

    Visa/MC also refuse to do business with the marijuana industry. That's illegal federally but legal in many states. Because it's illegal federally it's against the US banking laws to process payments for marijuana businesses so they CANNOT process those payments. Thus marijuana businesses rely heavily on cash.

    If it happens for marijuana, I suspect it can/will happen for other reasons.

    [–]dart200 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    i've only paid for weed with my debit card the last year i've been buying. not credit though, but the wall is letting up a bit.

    [–]ManWithABanana 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

    Didn't know that. Thanks for the heads up.

    I dug up an article here https://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/marijuana-dispensaries-pay-with-credit-cards/ that perhaps explains what you're getting. Are you doing the ATM thing described in the article ?

    Some dispensaries have ATMs on-site, allowing you to get cash for a terminal fee.

    Other dispensaries feature cashless ATMs.

    With cashless ATMs, the customer requests, say, $60 from the machine. It spits out a voucher that can be used only at that dispensary. The customer hands the voucher to a clerk, who returns, for the purposes of this illustration, $52.50 worth of product. The customer also is charged taxes and a fee for using the ATM. Whatever is left, the clerk returns in change.

    [–]dart200 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    hmmm. i was looking at my bank statements and it may be that the particular dispensary i use misrepresented what they are. it came up as a veterinarian charge, lol.

    [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

    In the case of Visa and Mastercard though, how could they possible care about their brand and the possibility of some left-wing boycott? I can understand some companies being bombarded by abuse by campaign groups that target them and deciding to pull advertising etc, but these two in particular can just tell them all to fuck off.

    [–][deleted]  (3 children)

    [deleted]

      [–]AllStr8SexIsRape 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      They should be forced to serve us. If Christian cake bakers can be forced to serve gays, then credit card companies should not be allowed to deny service to conservatives. Ideological discrimination is discrimination. Either treat it as such or get rid of civil rights laws altogether.

      [–]rman 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      I don’t think it’s a left vs right thing - There’s only one thing that matters to every single one of these corps: $$$ - they are all two faced and play both sides tricking you into seeing it like this so that you misplace your anger to your fellow citizen that happens to disagree with your political thinking but I guarantee you when it comes down to the bottom line, these places only speak one language and it’s money, they don’t give two shits about community, justice, morals or ethics no matter the politics of it

      [–]rman 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      It’s virtue signaling - they don’t actually care - they just want to point to some minor action and say “see we did something” — if it was a big money maker to them to ignore some kind of injustice they would and do it gladly

      [–]Article10ECHR 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      There is no US law that obliges a payment processor to atop providing services because of the content of communications.

      In fact such a law would be unconstitutional.