Why do people think this? Since when do giant corporations care about morals?
As usual, everything is about money. You can be sure that part of the interest in a paypal acquisition is paypal's consumer wallet product which allows them to extend into lines of business that are currently constrained by Stripe's model.
There are many bank and bank-adjacent companies who contractually enforce morals standards. It doesn't matter if the underlying reason for the morality is profit maximization, the effect is the same.
You seem to care more about the aesthetics of the sentence than the meaning behind it. We know that a company is not a person. It doesn't have a consciousness. It doesn't have a singular morality to work with. It borrows the decision making of its employees and contractors. We know that the "morality" of a bank or credit card company is really just a layer of abstraction for a group of decisions it makes to avoid bad press/sentiment/oversight/regulation. But if you analyze why people have morality, it's not that different; there are LOTS of things people would do that they currently don't if there was no underlying consequence.
> You seem to care more about the aesthetics of the sentence than the meaning behind it.
Excuse me for interpreting the comment as written, but either way, the comment only makes sense if you believe that Stripe is going to take over paypal and shutoff profitable lines of businesses based on moral principles - otherwise, what's the problem?
If you actually understand that this is all about money, then it's obvious that this is not going to happen.
As written Stripe has "morality police" - do you think that is a real thing?
We all know it's a risk thing; we all know it's a money thing.
And from experience I think it will happen. It will match Stripes current behavior pattern - regardless if their motive is money or morals. In fact, I think it will happen because it's obvious it is about money.
So your prediction is that Stripe will throw away billions for no reason. I'll take the bet that you're totally wrong.
It's not about morals, it's about regulatory heat and risk. Cannabis in the US remains illegal on the federal level, and the chargeback rates on adult services are through the roof.
It's not only about morals.
No, chargeback rates are not the only reason banking companies like Mastercard are dubious about adult content. In 2021 they added contractual terms to ensure that adult content uses age verification, has the consent of the participants, and to remove illegal content before it is published at soon after it is reported.
But also, the financial industry has a history of discriminating against their customers based in moral reasons (or at minimum bowing to regulatory pressure which stemmed from upstream morality decisions).[1]
[1] https://www.vice.com/en/article/pa8xy9/is-the-doj-forcing-ba...
Or, because as you say it's money (I agree) the Stripe will put their "morals" in place - with the financial result they reduce risk, get less chargebacks and lower costs - then pass the savings on to the C-suite.
Morals, generously interpretation of the usage, was just to indicate that Stripe has a more narrow risk window.
Only an idiot would think it was about actual human-grade morals or ethics. Let alone that there were actual morality police.
Yes, hence the value of an acquisition that has found a way to service these lines of business very profitably.
The tone of your original comment suggests you believe they're going to take over and start shutting off morally unacceptable money printers.
I'm sure that PayPal does serve them (first hand knowledge). I'm sure that Stripe selectively restricts them (first hand knowledge).
I do believe that Stripe will execute they same Stripe pattern in the merged company which will reduce choices in the market for businesses.
> I'm sure that PayPal does serve them (first hand knowledge). I'm sure that Stripe selectively restricts them (first hand knowledge).
Correct. But do you understand why that is? What is the theory of mind you have that makes you believe Stripe would come in and shutting off paying customers?
> I do believe that Stripe will execute they same Stripe pattern in the merged company which will reduce choices in the market for businesses.
Why would they do that? This doesn't make any sense unless you actually think morals are involved.
Stripe only accepts the ones where there is cross-over and relationships between high-level employees and investors.
They restrict the ones that are smaller and independent.
I think that Stripe will shut off paying customers BECAUSE I HAVE SEEN THEM DO IT. That is what first hand knowledge is.
The thing that really doesn't make sense is that Stripe selectively applies their written terms of service and policies. Do you understand that?
> I think that Stripe will shut off paying customers BECAUSE I HAVE SEEN THEM DO IT. That is what first hand knowledge is.
You are overindexing on your anecdotal experience to draw conclusions that make no sense. Paypal earns roughly 6x the net revenue of Stripe while processing a similar volume of transactions. Paypal has obviously figured out how to service these businesses profitably, yet for some reason you think Stripe would throw away billions for no reason.
Make that logic make sense.
It's pretty easy, you get hit with a surcharge on your other transaction volume if you allow something that V/MC don't want you to allow, and if you keep doing it you could get cut off which effectively makes you irrelevant to many of your customers.
As others have said, it's about perceived brand risk (V/MC allowed X terrible transaction to take place) and regulatory risk.