I am sorry but this just doesn’t seem like it makes sense at all. One of those that makes one go “Hmm”. MasterCard may now blacklist MegaUpload.
Obviously, MasterCard felt some moral purpose to cut off WikiLeaks transactions. Visa and PayPal did the same. This sent those who wanted to donate to other services. Is this coercive political blacklisting such a great business idea? Granted these businesses have the right to deny anyone service but how should a consumer feel about it?
When MasterCard blacklisted WikiLeaks, they were hacked and shut down. Might your customers be a tad concern that you are repeating this invite? Hmm.
Regarding the hacking. I don’t condone it. How you or I feel about Wikileaks and MegaUpload is irrelevant to the points I am making.
The first blacklisting ended badly, it certainly didn’t help MasterCard or Visa. I wonder what that did to the company stock value?
I also have to wonder about how your share holders feel. This MegaUpload site claims to have 100 million registered users and 45 million unique daily visitors. That seems an awful lot of potential transactions being sent elsewhere.
Users of these sites obviously are willing to use other financial services. WikiLeaks is evidence of that. If your blacklist gets long enough are you not fostering the growth of competitors?
How can any one at MasterCard not see this ending any other way than bad?
I think they hit the Capital Hill Kool-Aid.