Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kimmykim
WOOOOHOOOOO! Dean, I love ya, but honey, CCBill is a processor, not the fucking internet police.
If a site has legal content they've paid for, and it meets the card association requirements for processing, that is what they are here to monitor.
Just because some jerkoff markets his crappy site the same way that 90% of the sites out there are marketed, does not make CCBill the bad guy. Nor does it make them responsible for what people are marketing beyond the two things I mentioned in the last paragraph.
It is NOT, and SHOULD NOT be a processors job to police sites for marketing efforts. If the site in question sucks so badly then I'm sure they get lots of chargebacks and will do themselves in without anyone else playing mommy or daddy to them. That's the nature of the chargeback penalties game.
|
You're right, they're not the internet police. But they are the police of the sites they bill for. For instance, they approve the sites to make sure they deliver what is promised. In this case, they are billing for something that isn't being delivered. This is what they supposedly protect people against. I think it's a mistake to support sites that abuse the surfers because these are the sites that hurt the entire industry. Or are you taking this stance because these are the types of sites you run? ::2cents