Hacker News Reader

Comment by cempaka | Hacker News Reader

Isn't it the case that you still have to have a relationship with a bank to have an account to transfer into or out of via FedNow in the first place? In that case I don't think this would change the picture at all. It's not the intention to help the unbanked pariahs, that's for sure.

View on HN

There are still almost 5k banks in the US. Unlike Zelle, if this opens to all of them, all you need is one bank.

I presume the system uses bank account and routing numbers? So besides concerns with sharing that information with the public, concerned citizens will figure out who they bank with, and will most likely be able to easily pressure the bank to drop them.

Certain things should be difficult to accomplish in a functional society anyways, and administering a profitable hate group is one of those things. If not bankrupted by their lack of credit card access, they'll eventually run into legal troubles from the damage they cause to innocent people.

I'm sure British loyalists circa 1776 would have agreed with you.

Nonsense comparison. We're talking about business partnerships. If everyone with a shred of decency turns your organization away, that's a great litmus test for its existence. Worry about the next revolution being banked when that becomes a real concern, not over an online troll farm that tries to convince vulnerable people to end their lives.

Just like how Ellen Degeneres was deplatformed in 1997 for being undecent. Great point!

Ellen is of course always top of mind for me.

There's not much in there anyway

>concerned citizens will figure out who they bank with, and will most likely be able to easily pressure the bank to drop them

This should be difficult to accomplish in a functional society.

> they'll eventually run into legal troubles from the damage they cause to innocent people

Which is how this sort of thing ought to be handled, in stark contrast to "Chrystia Freeland sends an email to the heads of major banks to get troublemakers debanked with zero transparency or due process."

Like the person I was responding to said, there are thousands of banks. If not a single one wants to do business with this organization, that's not a first amendment issue and you don't need to lose sleep over it. Being so unpopular that nobody with a shred of decency will do business with them is not a rights issue.

maybe. maybe not. it's definitely not this simple. those thousands of banks likely share back office software, many fraud prevention vendors, background check provider.

and yes, sure kiwi farms can simply accept checks or whatever. it doesn't change the simple truth, that there are many things the current economic system doesn't provide despite extant demand and profit opportunity. transactions cost are too damn high.

> maybe. maybe not. it's definitely not this simple. those thousands of banks likely share back office software, many fraud prevention vendors, background check provider.

My attorney also advises a local credit union, and has shared some insight in the past with me on the complexity of agreements they have with vendors. I don't think it's a realistic concern that X vendor denouncing Y hate group would cascade down into a bank being forced to drop them. Agreements are just so complex and the financial incentive wouldn't be there to justify such a high risk demand. It's all too hypothetical to worry about.

> and yes, sure kiwi farms can simply accept checks or whatever. it doesn't change the simple truth, that there are many things the current economic system doesn't provide despite extant demand and profit opportunity. transactions cost are too damn high.

Absolutely. Cash still exists. Marijuana shops near me are able to operate profitably without credit card processing. It's also great that online payments in the US banking system are finally being improved.

Every one of those thousands of banks is dependent on remaining in the government's good graces. Canada doesn't have thousands of banks (a setup we'll almost certainly move closer to as the regional banks face ongoing problems), but in the case where an official at Freeland's level said, "jump," they all said "how high?" It's very similar to how censorship, including of many true propositions, was enforced on social media during the COVID/vaccines hysteria. In that case people are also arguing it's "not a first amendment issue" and not having unqualified success in the courts. But your notion that any of this comes as a result of grassroots popular demands is largely a fantasy.

they're not a "hate group," they're a "collecting embarrassing info on creeps" group. of course the creeps aren't happy about that, and frame it as "hate."

Nobody on KF is innocent. You talk like someone who has a thread about them

One low quality bank?

Bank gets bailed out? That's a dire sign for the fundamental value of the dollar to regular people if this is a regular practice.

Bank gets bought up? Well we don't really have 5k banks anymore do we?

> Bank gets bailed out? That's a dire sign for the fundamental value of the dollar to regular people if this is a regular practice.

"Our insurance system works" is not a bad sign for your financial system.

Yes, one doesn't have an account with a participating bank in order to receive and send payments via FedNow. It is same with Zelle; with Zelle, one sends money to an email or a phone number of an intended recipient. Both senders and receivers of Zelle need to registered with Zelle from their banking apps. USBank and Chase are notorious to close accounts who use Zelle heavily, because they see such activities as nefarious. Maybe, other banks use Zelle transaction history as another point to in order to debank people.

I don't want my banks to know who I send money to via Zelle; but they do. If banks are happy with customers writing checks to 'problematic' people, why they think that frequent Zelle activity as source of risk, as long as customers are not depositing or withdrawing cash/money orders.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com