>>511285480 (OP)It goes like this:
>payment processors are publicly traded companies, which are legally required to maximize profits for shareholders>therefore payment processors would want to process as many transactions as possibleHowever:
>the law holds payment processors liable for illegal transactions>the law is different in different jurisdictions>it's next to impossible to determine, on a case by case basis, with a speed that would be acceptable for transactions, whether or not every single transaction is legal, especially when multiple jurisdictions are involved>even if it was, the card companies do NOT want to be liable for accidentally processing an illegal transaction they thought was legalTherefore:
>card companies err on the side of maximal censorship to protect themselvesThe whole thing with collective shout is effectively a red herring, though it has done a good job of shedding light on this matter. But as long as the law remains the way it is, no amount of petitioning or complaining will change things, because payment processors must legally protect themselves.
Thus the only way to fix the payment processors is to change the law:
>require them to process ALL transactions (they can flag ones they think are illegal but must still process them all)>do not hold them liable for processing any transactions, so long as they are processing ALL of themMake that change to the law and no amount of karen screeching will be able to do this ever again. All of the people saying "they should process all transactions as long as they're legal" are making a critical mistake that effectively creates the exact situation we're already in. Payment processors have no business determining what is or isn't legal, and even if they did, they can't (it's too complicated), and even if they could, they wouldn't (they don't want the liability for making a mistake). So they must be compelled to process all transactions in exchange for liability protections.
