Hacker News Reader

Comment by disillusioned | Hacker News Reader

Cascading payments might be the real answer, and shuffling higher risk charges to non-Stripe providers, but in my experience, Stripe can get pretty moralizing pretty quickly.

We built an adult ecommerce site (purely toys for purchase, no porn) and because other adult toy sites had been successful on Stripe, Stripe assured us this wouldn't be a problem.

Six months and several million dollars processed later, Stripe informs us we're going to be deplatformed because Wells Fargo (their banking partner) had reviewed our account (apparently because of its volume) and determined we violated their standards because of the nature of the toys.

We did a bit of back and forth where Stripe suggested we alter the colors available (seriously) to assuage Wells Fargo's puritanical concerns, and Stripe insisted it wasn't _their_ moralizing, but rather Wells Fargo (paragons of fucking virtue as they are), but we weren't willing to compromise on the nature of our product or have our product's options or colors dictated to us by one of the most corrupt banks on the planet.

We ended up deplatforming and moving to a high-risk processor who was willing to match our competitive Stripe rate. That processor sucks and their fraud protections are weak and their interface is garbage, but they're not telling us how to run our business.

Was mostly disappointed that we went through an arduous review process with Stripe beforehand and received assurances we'd be fine since our chargeback rate is insanely low and we ship actual physical product and have no nudity on our site, but alas.

View on HN

This is an incredibly frustrating read. I know, I know there are far worse things in the world but fucking Wells Fargo dictating to people when they evict homeowners who have no relationship with Wells Fargo, commit wholesale wire fraud, destroy people's credit and then turn around and lecture a honest business.

This is why banking is a rent-seeking and though we need the financial industry they are ghoulish vampires sucking the lifeblood out of everything they touch.

/rant

This was my exact rant. Even more galling was that Wells Fargo was virtue signaling about something that... had no optics to them. Literally no one knows who our payment processor was, but if you even got as far as "Stripe," a _vanishingly small_ number of people know that Wells Fargo is their banking partner for US transactions.

This isn't to suggest that WF should run their merchant processing business with no one watching for fraudulent or wantonly scam transactions, but to step in out of nowhere because the volume of actual real charges for real customers for real products was too high and you were busy clutching your pearls over what was being sold is just insane. As if it could somehow splash back on to Wells Fargo and, what, further sully their reputation?

"Sure they may ruin people's lives and spawn fake accounts to hit numbers and silence anyone who speaks up and evict people incorrectly but at least they don't process transactions for flesh colored fantasy sex toys. That, sir, would be a bridge too far."

I think you're misinterpreting the scale of Wellsfargo. The CEO probably doesn't even know what onlyfans is, and they manage almost 2 trillion dollars.

The CEO knows their business model; it's to scratch out every last penny they can, however they can, just to fulfill some quarterly earnings report. Almost every public company is now a growth company, so it doesn't matter how much they already profit–what matters is that they profit more in the next 90 days. He/She doesn't need/care to know about onlyfans–they simply care about hitting their targets.

...so why would they want to leave money on the table by forcing Stripe to ditch a clearly profitable client company?

Reputational risk. Some journalist gets wind of an ad on Youtube that's playing for a neo-Nazi video, it gets written up as "$COMPANY is supporting Nazis!" despite the fact that it's largely out of the control of $COMPANY, several companies collectively freak out and pull advertising money, and everyone goes hunting for where their pipelines might lead to similar pearl-clutching associations and PR disasters.

But that doesn't explain the documented unethical - if not illegal - conduct of Wells Fargo overall. Otherwise they'd be more like the Disney Co.

I think you are underestimating the scale of operation choke point.

> we need the financial industry

Do we, though? I don't know whether the answer is distributed blockchains, or the Department of the Treasury creating an API for USD, or both; but the current banking system seems to me like the legacy code of feudal landed aristocrats. (I will never stop being disappointed that we didn't let the financial system crash in 2009.)

> Do we, though?

Why, yes? Isn't it blatantly obvious? What exactly leads you to believe we don't?

> I don't know whether the answer is distributed blockchains, or the Department of the Treasury creating an API for USD, or both;

I'm dumbfounded how someone even comes close to believe that any one of these ideas comes even close to provide the service that financial institutions provide. Either you have a very specific and very niche usecase in mind, or maybe you have absolutely no idea about the services that financial institutions provide to society.

> but the current banking system seems to me like the legacy code of feudal landed aristocrats.

This comment leads me to believe that you are confusing stuff that has no relation whatsoever. Your dislike of caricatures and ideological strawmen you associated with financial services has absolutely no relation with the services provided to society by the whole banking industry. Just because you don't like Scrooge McDuck that doesn't mean most of us don't depend on loans to, say, buy a house or a car or store our savings or pay for everyday stuff.

> or maybe you have absolutely no idea about the services that financial institutions provide to society.

Your posts are interesting, reasonable and founded in facts. That said, I think there's an underlying emotion in other posts: fed up with the discrepancy between the everyday slough to improve your life, but then read about the money games that are played between commercial banks, the central banks and government.

We don't need usury. I'm confident we could figure out how to make things work without it.

We know how it works without it - stagnation and the those currently at the top staying there due to lack of capital. Usury is a religious fundamentalist term divorced from the systemics and the reality of what works and what doesn't.

> those currently at the top staying there

And you're sure you're not describing the current day, but instead some hypothetical bad scenario if we had no financial sector? It seems to me that if we have this problem now and without a financial sector, that's not really related to them at all.

nice. also funny that some people here don't see a connection between their righteous indignation and companyX's policies that attempt to protect them from same :P

In much the same way that people will tell you there's not enough land in cities when their actual concern is that there aren't enough residences, we "need" the financial industry in the sense that other financial services are illegal, not in the sense that the financial industry is the only way to handle things. You may not like Wells Fargo, but they have a banking license.

We do. The scale of financialization of our lives, our society is pervasive, invisible and touches every aspect of our lives.

Our housing. Our utilities. Our communications. Our food. Everything is financed. There is debt financing these companies. Many of whom would not exist. As one of my professors told me - you see a building, I see a mortgage.

Most of our economy would vanish without credit. Take a look at Islamic economies where debt and credit is fairly circumscribe and you see they much much smaller economies (ex-petro-dollar financed economies).

Block chain is just a payment mechanism? It is not even that, yet. There is a LOT more to finance than moving money around. That is maybe generously speaking 5% of global finance. I would say say more like 1%.

Sigh.

An API for USD centrally controlled by the Treasury? Kiss your financial freedom goodbye. You gotta demand it be distributed blockchains or you'll be living in chains.

At least you'd have due process and couldn't be deplatformed for legal activity. Now you have neither.

The current system has zero privacy, so no change there.

Not seeing the downside.

Federally illegal activity like marijuana wouldn't benefit, but most things would.

At least you'd have due process and couldn't be deplatformed for legal activity.

The feds are very much into deplatforming people for legal activity, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point

Technically, any occurring "federally illegal" activity is just not successfully policed criminal activity. (States can't actually make something legal the federal government says is not legal. They can just decline to use their own resources to police it.)

Generally speaking, most people would consider "not usable in crime" to be a feature rather than a bug. ;)

I don’t think there is as quite widespread consensus that all federal crimes are legitimately crime as you seem to think.

Marijuana sales, for example, seem extremely popular.

Just because there’s a law in place at some remote level of jurisdiction doesn’t mean it’s just, or has popular support.

Widespread consensus doesn't determine what is and isn't a crime. The law does. Until the federal law changes, marijuana sales are a federal crime. Technically speaking, no state can actually "legalize" it.

You’re absolutely right, of course.

Widespread consensus heavily influences prosecutorial discretion though, which determines in practice what is or isn’t permitted by society.

The law is not a computer program, and it is applied entirely arbitrarily.

> I don’t think there is as quite widespread consensus that all federal crimes are legitimately crime as you seem to think.

Your comment makes no sense at all. For something to be a crime it has to be explicitly defined in law. Consensus has zero to do with it. Either there is a law, or there isn't. The whole point of rule of law is that you don't get to pick and choose which law applies to you in a given day of the week.

> The whole point of rule of law is that you don't get to pick and choose which law applies to you in a given day of the week.

If the law is not enforced, then it does not exist. The only real law is the one that you see day-to-day. So shooting black people is fine (in the US), and you can buy weed in shops (in a few places).

There are many marijuana shops in the United States, and many millions of customers of those shops who disagree with you.

Also, Prohibition.

The law is not some inviolate thing in a society. Many millions will happily ignore unjust laws if they feel they shouldn’t be laws. More alcohol was consumed during Prohibition in the US than before it was banned.

> At least you'd have due process and couldn't be deplatformed for legal activity. Now you have neither.

I don't understand your train of thought. I mean, you are arguing for a monopoly controlling a centralized service just because one of the many freely available payment platforms you personally choosed may have terms of service you might break?

How is that a solution?

It seems you are not arguing for a solution to the problem you framed. You're instead confusing wishful thinking with a solution to the problem. I mean, your suggestions don't even qualify as unintended consequences: they are only unrealistic and absurd expectations from a reform that has absolutely no relation to the problem.

There are already two APIs operated by the Fed (not the treasury) Fedwire and ACH.

The problem is the account. I do not want an account in the federal reserve or anywhere so closely coupled with the government. Nor do I want an account with a public ledger or any way distributed which doesn’t allow for transaction reversals (theft) which rules out blockchain.

Actual banks are necessary.

I often see US citizens being very wary of the government. Would you care to explain why is that so?

In cases such as this one it strikes me as really odd: I would say that as citizens you have much more leverage over the government's actions than over whatever bank does (including handing over your data to the government). Thus, how is it better to have an account in some random bank than in the federal reserve (or whatever)?

Simple fear of authoritarian government oppression. It was also decided in the very early days of our government that a national government bank wasn't constitutional.

With Snowden's revelations of things we mostly already knew, we can see that we don't really have much leverage over government abuse of power to collect and misuse data. The government is already doing broad data collections from private companies using secret courts... it would be a whole lot worse if the government already possessed the data.

With private banks, I can choose which one I use. There is at least some motivation for that bank to be on my side, and I don't have to wait for an election cycle and hope that my issue fits in with my side on other issues and that side gets >50% after 2 or 4 years ... my bank does something I don't like and I can switch today.

I don't trust my government to do a good job doing anything, or for anything my government does to not be vulnerable to political destruction (just look at the post office).

The concern is pretty strange since they already have that information thanks to banking regulations. There is nothing more to lose by doing it directly.

They do not.

Banks are required to report transactions above $10k, my bank knows when I go out to buy too many gas station snacks at 2am, my government does not.

It would be cool to also have an API for USD.

Where there is a lot of money on the table to be had, there will be psychopaths.

Now this is actual cancel culture.

This is what capitalism looks like. The ones with the capital are the ones with power. Housing, health care, and even small businesses all live and die by the decisions of the people/institutions with capital. The average American celebrates capitalism, while at the same being forced to slave away for basics of human life to just barely scrape by.

Thank you for sharing your experience. It absolutely disgusts me the power that payment processors have over businesses. The sooner that industry is dismantled and made agnostic the better. I remember watching some BDSM website's documentary where they talked about how their payment processor dictated the kind of content they were allowed to make. It boggles my mind that people are okay with that.

I also find it surprising the amount of back bending people will do to say that payment processors are only doing it because the transactions are high risk. Your story, the thousands of other public stories, and the payment processors themselves have made it absolutely clear that it isn't about the transaction risk. It's them imposing their religious beliefs upon others.

With sex being such a huge part of our lives, why aren't we bending out backs to _help_ the sex industry thrive, instead of defending corrupt oligopolies?

>> _help_ the sex industry thrive

There are dark sides. It is not the friendly industry oft portrayed. It is an industry that thrives on the young and naive. It is regulated because it needs to be. Most common complaint heard by lawyers in the field: "I did the shoot, the movie is on the website, but I haven't been paid." Followed worryingly by: "They said I had to because I had signed a contract."

The advice I give to anyone going to work on their first porn shoot: Bring a friend. Someone older, with a car, who will be on the set with you at all times.

Yes, conventional porn is a dark place. In my study of the problem, this fact underscores the importance of the Snapchat/Onlyfans revolution rather than taking away from it.

Prohibition creates problems. It doesn't solve them. Prohibiting anyone from using conventional payment infrastructure simply pushes them into the arms of the (sometimes abusive) people who have the resources to work around the system. In this scenario, an individual can't work around the system. The nameless/faceless owners of the large porn groups can.

This situation creates an inherent power imbalance that incentivizes coercion.

In the Snapchat/Onlyfans model, coercion is eliminated by virtue of allowing people to express themselves, when they want and as they want in the privacy of their homes. They are the directors, gaffers, editors etc. and no one else can tell them what they can or can't do.

A decentralized system is better at taking power away from those objectively awful people than any regulation or personal tips or oversight could.

> It is an industry that thrives on the young and naive.

Some of it maybe. But not the toy selling business being discussed.

I’m fine with regulating the adult industry for safety and what not, I just think that credit card agencies are possibly one of the last parties I would pick to be the regulator, second only to religious institutions.

I would contest that if the industry wasn't demonized it wouldn't have a dark side.

Hollywood isn't daemonized, but I used to give basically the same advice. Industries that run on attractive young people, people looking at very short careers, tend towards evil. Ask any successful recording artist about their first record contracts. Taylor Swift is writing songs about that dark place.

Fair enough, I can see that. I think a good portion of the evil in those industries comes from sexism, but that's really tangential to the topic and I appreciate your point.

EDIT: I would like to expand my previous comment though. Whenever prostitution is legalized we see massive improvements in the lives of sex workers. It seems clear to me that further reducing the demonization of sex, sex workers, etc would lead to a better work place in those industries for similar reasons. There may be a baseline of evil, for the reasons you point out. I don't think that should stop us from working to at least reach that baseline, rather than just leaving the people and businesses that inhabit that crucial landscape to rot.

> I think a good portion of the evil in those industries comes from sexism

What do we mean by "sexism" here? You don't think it's enough that men would like to have sex with attractive women? Or is that fact itself sexism?

porn already works within a well-defined legal framework. There are model releases, people getting paid etc. So if a reputable porn company interacts with their models and their consumers, everything is well. However, there are still non-legal reasons that make it a special case - see the ancestor post about a bank wanting to dictate what a merchant can offer to their credit card customers, or the post about models being treated badly (not getting paid or having to do things that they didn't sign up for). In that case, there still seems to be a difference to non-porn modeling and acting in terms of standards and of recourse available. part of this is that there are more people paying for badly made porn than for badly made action movies

> With sex being such a huge part of our lives, why aren't we bending out backs to _help_ the sex industry thrive, instead of defending corrupt oligopolies?

Because the "sex industry" is a bunch of corrupt oligopolies?!

I mean, we're talking about a business that thrives on human trafficking and exploitation and preying on the weak and vulnerable and defenseless. We're talking about an industry whose business model depends on an endless supply of defenseless gullible victims that see their lives thrown into the furnace to keep it running for just another instance.

Was it so long ago that one of the biggest porn sites in the history of the internet was caught knowingly hosting and refusing to take down videos of abducted underage girls getting raped?

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/pornhub-petition-ra...

The banking industry is not innocent, but let's not pretend the sex industry is a paragon of virtue in comparison.

What? The above anecdote is literally about how the payment processor's bank is twisting their arm to deplatform OP's site.

I meant "payment processors" more generally, referring to the greater oligopoly of Visa, MasterCard, the major banks, etc.

It's little consolation for the vast sex industry that it isn't Stripe et al's fault that they are deplatformed.

Unfortunately exactly 0% of this story surprises me.

> That processor sucks and their fraud protections are weak and their interface is garbage

I have three guesses and they're all CCBill.

LOLZ I was waiting for someone to call them out. I haven't looked at their interface in decades, but last time I looked it was decades out of date. Payments is the most profitable niche in the porn industry.

I assure you it hasn't improved.

I don't really understand the motivation behind this puritanism. I get why respectable institutions don't want to touch things like selling weed or prostitution since that's not legal everywhere and they could get in trouble. But sex toys? Who cares? Like, that's not a rhetorical question, literally "who cares?"

Are people going to stop using Wells Fargo because they very indirectly help in the commerce of sex toys?

Sadly there are still US states where some sex toys are illegal (this is me rolling my eyes). https://www.mic.com/articles/131616/14-outdated-sex-laws-tha... is a pretty funny summary. Did I say funny? I meant tragic.

I would guess that yes, they are actually worried about certain religious groups no longer doing business with them because they "support" "immoral" practices.

Alabama, Georgia, and Texas have laws restricting the sale and possession of sex toys.

Yep, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_obscenity_statute

Looks like its never been enforced though. Really though laws that are not enforced are a bad thing because some day they could selectively be enforced. Also because they are not enforced and hence not affecting anyone, no one cares to get rid of them.

"The Obscene Device Law is a Texas statute prohibiting the sale of sex toys. The law was introduced in 1973, and was last updated in 2003. While the law was never formally repealed, in 2008 a U.S. District Judge released a report declaring it to be "facially unconstitutional and unenforceable"."

> facially unconstitutional

Given the context I thought this was a humorous typo for 'farcically'. but it appears to refers to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facial_challenge

Seriously?

I'm genuinely mind blown by this.

What are the ownership restrictions? Is it blanket or just to certain categories or sizes of toys?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Obscenity_Enforcement_Act

> State Representative John Rogers of Birmingham has repeatedly introduced legislation to repeal the ban, but each bill has been defeated.

> Exemptions exist for "bona fide medical, scientific, educational, legislative, judicial or law enforcement purposes."

It looks like they're sold as educational devices or something equally absurd, fake pretext and all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_obscenity_statute

> In Burleson in 2004, Joanne Webb, a mother of three and a former schoolteacher, faced up to one year in prison for selling a vibrator to two undercover police officers posing as a married couple at a private party.

> In 2007, a lingerie shop in Lubbock was raided, and items "deemed to be illegal by the Texas Penal Code" were confiscated. The clerk on duty at the time was arrested and may have had to register as a sex offender.

What the fuck?

Texas one seems like it was ruled unenforceable in 2008.

You can have a blanket. It’s just that we need to know what happens under it.

> I get why respectable institutions don't want to touch things like selling weed or prostitution since that's not legal everywhere and they could get in trouble. But sex toys?

If that is the reason for the former, it's probably the reason for the latter too.

What I'm curious about is whether or not OnlyFans has bribed off Wells Fargo -- I mean it could be in a legal way for financial services that are non existent.

In other words, Stripe allows OnlyFans because Wells Fargo has been bought off on the side. Ergo, Wells Fargo doesn't complain anymore.

How much would that need to be with Wells Fargo? 10 million per year? 50 million? Does OnlyFans make enough to afford 100 million per year?

I read this on some legit news site a few days ago: apparently Bella Thorne, a formed Disney actress-turned-pornstar(?) joined OnlyFans and hit $1m in 24 hours.

I don't follow OnlyFans progress and I have no idea how many "content creators" they got and what is the "fanbase", but if a 20yo nobody with a nice body can take $1m in 24h (then I assume that is with 1-3-6-... months subscriptions)(so she won't bring in another $1m the next day as well). OnlyFans keeps 15-20-25%? And Stripe/WF share a 1-2%? And OnlyFans has 10-20 people of that "caliber" like Mrs Thorne? They won't complain for a long time.

I assume that the OP writing about millions, he/she means revenue, not Stripe/WF profits from the fees.

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/08/26/entertainment/bella-thorn...

Edit: I couldn't remember the site, I DuckDuckGo-ed and this piece of news appears in many sites, I chose CNN as I didn't recognize most other "celebrity news" sites.

lmao Bella Thorne is not a "20yo nobody". She had tens of millions of followers before joining OnlyFans.

I think "nobody" was relative here. I had never heard of her before this thread and looking at her career she isn't a nobody but she is very far from being an A-lister.

You should have seen the massive amount of Bella thorne posts online before her onlyfans. Tons of 4chan threads, reddit posts, and subreddits for her pics, etc. (Though, the same could be said for any celeb, she was definitely a "thing").

She was pretty risqué in her social media photos/videos before onlyfans and garnered quite a following online because of it. Most of her popularity online had nothing to do with her acting career at all.

She is also not a porn star. None of this content is nude. The running joke is that there are pap photos showing more skin than what people paid for here.

That's the hilarious part: now the same simps who spent a fortune hoping to see her nudes are upset:

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2020-08-28/...

"She is a nobody": in my book she IS a nobody. Her achievement in life is eating well, working out, having a nice looking body, being genetically (or surgically) blessed with a good appearance and shows off her body parts for money. I do not want any harm to come to her (go to hell, drop dead, get sick, etc.) I wish her a long and healthy life.

The only "positive" thing in her towards contributing to a better humanity is the words of donating to charity (aka tax breaks).

Having sex in front of a camera is a profession, I get that, but she is still a nobody. A nobody with money. But still a nobody (in my book). I am not forcing anyone to have the same criteria of what I consider as "decent human being" that I have developed as my silly(?) standards.

Nothing negative for her, but definitely nothing positive for her either. Just a zero.

It’s been said before, but Bella Thorne isn’t a nobody. She has already existing fans she’s simply transferring to the platform.

I love how Wells Fargo, which was nabbed for a massive wide ranging scam / fraud, gets to be all sanctimonious about ethics or standards.

That is the function of puritanism. Consider it as a product:

Want to look or feel virtuous even though you are a horrible selfish person? Are you not openly having sex with more than one person? With prudity you are qualified! It works by reducing virtue into who you have sex with there by freeing you to commit crimes while considering yourself righteous and decent! Order today!

We had a client that is a big strip club in the area that started selling t-shirts with the name of the club...Stripe banned it just a few months after launch.

>where Stripe suggested we alter the colors available

What? Like flesh colored was ok but definitely not green ones or something?

The inverse of this. Here's their exact, hilarious wording:

>Our banking partners recently notified us that they are no longer willing to support the sales of realistic sex toys. I understand that your products were designed to depict the body parts of mythological and fantastical creatures, and we have indicated this to our banking partners in an effort to advocate for continuing to support your business here on Stripe. As a result of these discussions, our banking partners have agreed that they are willing to continue supporting your business as long as you are not selling products that are colored such that they might be mistaken for human flesh.

I have no skin in this game, but I have to wonder who is making these decisions and what their thought process is.

What is the threat model, exactly? What eventuality is the bank seeking to avoid?

Are there edge-case regulatory issues at play? Are there moral-consumer groups out there that run public pressure campaigns against banks that transact on adult toys that look too realistic? Is a corporate lawyer somewhere worried about photos of a realistic-looking appendage used explicitly being tied back to the bank -- but if it's painted green they can plausibly argue "hey it's definitely not real, look it's green!"?

This just feels like such a spectacularly arbitrary line that I'm fascinated by the thought process.

"I have no skin in this game"

I know exactly how this happens because I have to deal with this all the time. Here's my guess:

The boss ten years ago now dead said if it looks like a penis and is the right color of a penis then we can't sell it. Therefore, you gotta change the color. - Wells Fargo, probably.

What I find weird is the thought process of:

- pretend to fuck a human? No. Don't want to encourage that.

- Fuck a unicorn/dragon/Dionysus? Sure, why not...

Who is conservative enough to want to discourage the one thing literally required for humanity to survive; and yet is OK with mythical creatures?!?

Usually there's overlap in those "designs" with the....appendages of common animals (even if not explicitly labeled as such).

Someone on a moralizing crusade would probably label the company as supporting bestiality.

What is the threat model, exactly? What eventuality is the bank seeking to avoid?

The threat is that someone in compliance or legal doesn’t have enough real work to do so has to do “something” to keep their cushy job.

You should tell them to judge mythological sex toys not by the color of their skin, but by the context of their character.

Wow, this is hysterical! A bank saying no to honest money because it’s sex toys, not even that, because it’s sex toys looking like human genitalia, — no not even that, because the toys are skin colored!

I wonder if this would ever happen in Europe. I somehow feel that we’re more... open to these things. Do you know about Klarna?

I don't know about Europe in general, but my brick and mortar bank (one of the major banking chain in France with an agency in pretty much any city of over 5000 people) was perfectly fine with adult things being sold using one their group's online platform as long as I was ok with their elevated rates. I've seen lately that they're also responsible for payment processing on dorcel.com (the french porn group, adult content and toys).

Dalenys ( https://www.dalenys.com/ ) -> natixis belgium -> natixis -> bpce group ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupe_BPCE )

I've had awkward talk with them (mostly around the fact that I should not point out their parent group brand much near the adult content), but never in a million years would they tell me what color a dildo should be.

Interesting question. I checked out Klarna and Adyen which seems to be the most popular in Europe right now.

Adyen lists "Adult entertainment, websites & content (such as)" as not allowed. https://www.adyen.com/dam/jcr:47f292a9-c9e2-4a69-8592-2e15ff...

Klarna lists "Adult, sexual or pornographic products and services, including live web cam" as not allowed. https://cdn.klarna.com/1.0/shared/content/policy/ethic/en_gb...

Both of them expand it more to cover everything possible around adult content and the like.

... And yet ... https://www.lovehoney.co.uk/help/about-klarna/ ...

Whether they fly under "novelty items" or not, idk.

My guess is that the list of restricted things just means that you should talk to them first.

Strange, I would never have thought banks would have such moral hangups.

> because it’s sex toys looking like human genitalia

Well, I think it might be the opposite of that:

> I understand that your products were designed to depict the body parts of mythological and fantastical creatures

If you would read the next few words of my comment you would see that this is correctly reflected.

>it’s sex toys looking like human genitalia

Not that it matters, but reading the comment you replied to, it sounds like they are not shaped like human genitalia...

> I understand that your products were designed to depict the body parts of mythological and fantastical creatures, and we have indicated this to our banking partners in an effort to advocate for continuing to support your business here on Stripe.

I'm crying. This is so ridiculous it crossed the line from appalling into hilarious.

You haven't sued over this which is a shame. Think of the comical email threads that would've been unearthed during the discovery process!

Wells-Fargo deserve to go bankrupt, but I believe the problem is the non-uniform nature of the law around sex toys.

Texas, for example, still has an idiotic law on the books that possession of more than 6 dildoes is illegal.

Because of that, many online sex toy shops simply will not ship anything to Texas.

The law has been struck down in US Federal court, but there have been convictions in state courts despite that.

Talking about the raid on Forbidden Fruit in Austin, TX (Caution: NSFW): https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/15365042198306...

Thanks for sharing, that article is well worth the read.

...the confiscated items were paraded in front of a Grand Jury tasked with determining whether they were obscene...

So dragon and unicorn dildos are OK, but human ones aren’t? WTF?

That actually makes sense (in a bizarre way) - fantasy vs. reality I guess...

I kind of get it. A similar rule applies to violence: killing a dragon is OK for kids, killing another human isn’t.

But when I think of people pretending to have sex with dragons ... that’s kinda messed up.

I guess “acceptability” is like pornography... you known it when you see it.

Offer toys in all black perhaps? :)

Or maybe Stripe changed their minds about having you guys as customers and made up a reason for you to leave.

I'm going to suggest that it's `whose flesh` colouring that they are most likely offended by.

I'd guess the opposite, from the story.

That’s ridiculous, sorry to hear that. I think there’s hope with decentralized payment systems (whatever/whichever they end up being, be it crypto, or some other mechanism) where digital payments can occur without the needed approval of any centralized vendor.

Sadly mass adoption is a bit more distant.

> Stripe insisted it wasn't _their_ moralizing, but rather Wells Fargo (paragons of fucking virtue as they are),

very few people or orgs have principles. What they say are principles turn out to be just a blob of preferences that change with the direction of the wind.

And quite frankly, Stripe is big enough these days to push back hard against Wells Fargo, if they really wanted to. Wells Fargo definitely does not want to lose the Stripe account. As most things in life there is shared responsibility there.

Apparently now the rules are no adult things, or anything moderately related to adult content now,

Real pain because Stripe are one of the better providers to integrate with :(

Out of curiosity...what merchant processor do you use now? Have they imposed a rolling reserve, and if so, how much and how long is it?

We need all platform providers, such as payment utilities, to stop bringing their personal morals and politics to the table. If not, we need to regulate them or build government provided equivalents that don’t have the same vulnerabilities or split them up on anti trust grounds.

I'm not sure it's a given that "government provided equivalents" would be less political (or culturally slow-moving, as it were) than the situation now. I also had not considered that the banking sector is lightly regulated. Are you suggesting a re-envisioning of the banking sector as a sort of public utility?

Can I ask who this high-risk processor is?

so sad that wirecard went down, then you could have had a clean german fintech... oh wait.

Seriously? Colors? What colors were beyond the pale (pun intended) for them?

Looks like we need a Stripe for high risk industry ?

This is the best thing I've read all week.

Username checks out...

Wow.

Thanks for sharing

Reply on news.ycombinator.com