>>106018115
>>106031322
I get where you're coming from with the comment. Yes, technically, they are a service provider, they are within their rights to do as they please with the service they provide as long as it is within the confines of the law. We as a people, however, need to stand up in the court of public opinion and say "I don't care if it follows every letter of the law, morally we are getting screwed over here because you want every last dollar for you and your shareholders even if that comes at the cost of undermining my rights as a consumer."
The system is set up to where we can't get rid of them without completely eradicating every currently available credit/debit card and forcing banks to pay millions to each design their own infrastructure for credit and debit cards which still needs to fall under federal regulations, something the processors have handled for decades. If they are going to be an integral and mandatory part of the system, they need to understand the consequences of their actions and the responsibilities they hold. It's the same with large supermarket chains. Now that the shareholders have come-a-beggin for their money, we're seeing margins on items hitting the 40-50% range when just a few years ago you'd be surprised to see anything in the store hit a margin over 30. This is because they know without them you'd have to grow your own crops and to do that you need different licenses, permits, soil quality, land surveys, etc. since most towns and cities don't have local alternatives to big chains, so they can do whatever they want.
We need to keep these people in check. An angry customer base or voter base can make things change very quickly. Just because it's legal doesn't make it okay.
