• The_Worst@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    159
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year 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@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      81
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

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

      • Rom@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        In many states, and federally, marijuana sales aren’t legal transactions, and that’s the point. I don’t think Mastercard is necessarily doing anything wrong here, they’re just covering their asses. This one is on our politicians who are still dragging their heels on legalizing marijuana.

        • Belgdore@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year 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.

          • Rom@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Mastercard is adhering to federal laws, not taking a moral stand. Credit card companies aren’t obligated to facilitate illegal transactions. If they were banning something whose sale was completely legal, there would be a argument to be made here, but that’s not what’s happening. They aren’t going to go after porn, liquor, gender affirming items, hormones, or contraceptives, unless some fascists ban them, at which point it’s not the credit card companies restricting you, it’s the fascists. Go after the fascists.

            • Belgdore@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year 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.

              • Rom@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                The fact that marijuana is still federally classified as a Schedule I drug. Why would you think credit card companies should allow cardholders to make illegal transactions using their credit cards? Do you think they’d be okay with people using their credit cards to purchase child pornography? Or hitmen? Trafficked persons? What about 100 kilos of cocaine? I’m aware marijuana isn’t as bad as any of those things, and it’s way past time for the laws to be updated, but the fact remains it’s still against the law to purchase it. To argue they have no obligation to make sure they aren’t facilitating in illegal actions is absurd. As far as I know they’ve never allowed illegal transactions to be made, so absolutely no precedent is being set here.

                • Belgdore@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year 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.

              • Rom@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                It’s not a defense of corporations to point out that the root cause of this problem is the laws, you illiterate baby. “Corporations follow existing laws if they protect their profits” isn’t a surprise to anyone with two brain cells to rub together. Fix the laws around marijuana and the rest of the issue solves itself.

          • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            14
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year 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…

  • conciselyverbose@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    56
    ·
    1 year 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
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    ·
    1 year 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
          ·
          1 year 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
            ·
            1 year 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
              ·
              1 year 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
            ·
            1 year 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@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year 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@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year 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
        ·
        1 year 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.

      • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year 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@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year 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
    ·
    1 year 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.

      • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year 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
      ·
      1 year 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
      ·
      1 year 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 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 year 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.

  • noredcandy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year 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.

    • Rom@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      This is exactly it, and everyone crowing about “credit card companies shouldn’t be able to restrict what you can buy” didn’t read the article. Mastercard doesn’t want to restrict people from buying things they are legally allowed to buy, because more Mastercard transactions = more money for them. But they have to follow the laws, and being complicit in illegal purchases puts them at risk for litigation.

      No point in getting mad at Mastercard for this. Get angry at our politicians who still haven’t legalized marijuana. If marijuana is legalized federally, and sales of marijuana are legalized federally, I guarantee you MC will lift this ban in a heartbeat so they can get a piece of that pie. Cannabis is a cash cow.

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

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

  • ArugulaZ@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

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

  • xeekei@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year 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
      ·
      1 year 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