A good payment system should require explicit authorisation through your own bank. That's how for example the Dutch iDeal system works. I never use a credit card for a site that accepts iDeal, and the only reason I have a credit card at all, is that many foreign sites don't specifically cater to Dutch customers, and therefore haven't implemented iDeal. I wish they did, or that there was a similar international payment standard that went through banks rather than merchants.
This would basically make sure I would almost never spend any money online, because going through a bank authorization is annoying enough that I'd rather just go do something else. Forget microtransactions, I wouldn't even buy most games.
I do hate 2FA. I like it, but I hate using it. I've stopped posting on some forums/using services. I didn't actively quit them, but when the service had logged me out and it asked me for the 2FA code, I winced and went to go do something else. Over time this happened enough that at some point I just didn't visit the site anymore.
Personally, I find this system a lot less painful than having to type in my credit card number. And it's a lot safer.
Not enough! My account activation is incomplete until I link my privacy.com account to my Facebook account!!! I thought this is so funny in the context of this privacy/Facebook spying thread.
Quote from my privacy.com account page: "Sometimes, the information provided at signup isn’t enough to verify someone’s identity, and activate their Privacy account. Connecting your Facebook account is a quick and easy way to provide extra identity verification. Okay"
P.S. I am now feeling uneasy about the whole thing. I have changed my bank login password and I am trying to cancel/delete the privacy.com account -- but there is no such option in the website menus.
If you're in (certain parts of) Europe, Revolut will offer you one-time use virtual debit cards if you're on one of their paid plans. However, I have no personal experience with them. Being limited to one transaction each makes them a lot less interesting in my opinion, since I can't set up my subscriptions through different cards.
The service that privacy.com offers is different in that it allows you to control very precisely what kind of charges are allowed on any of your virtual cards (and allows you to have more than five). If I used a particular card only for Spotify, I could put a $10/month limit on it, for example. This is more akin to the one-time card offering, but it's not quite the same since it doesn't support recurring payments.
On that note: if anyone is aware of a service like privacy.com available to users in mainland Europe, I'd be very interested to hear about it.
There is a cost to using credit cards. One of the main reasons to use them is this protection against bad actors, and punishment of those actors by fines.
...why is this ethical?
My web banking platform has options for almost everything, but not much credit card related. Do I contact my bank, or do I go straight to VISA?
I have never needed a chargeback, but I had a peek at MasterCard's policy just now and it looks like you need to contact the issuing bank. I would assume it works the same for other four-party schemes such as Visa.
After providing such a payment token there should be no proof and dispute involved, just a single click in a web interface "I refuse to pay for that and I revoke the token". The user of the token should make sure I am happy so he can continue to charge the token.
This is in sharp contrast with user initiated payments for a fixed amount, that should be carefully secured, require strong authentication and should almost never be reversible, unless actual fraud can be proven by the payer.
The problem with cards on the internet and their high abuse and chargeback rates, for which we all pay, is that they conflate these fundamentally different use cases into a single set of static numbers.