I think this criticism is called for. The customer tried asking them nicely and it sounds like they did not try very hard to fix it -- which is an experience I can empathize with 100 times over. If you've ever dealt with companies, you know that they often have policies and procedures that intentionally screw customers and they only back off if it blows up publicly. Because they can. Our accountability mechanisms suck.

I don't think you - or many of the people commenting here - read through the thread. The customer personally sold a "cheap" van and accepted a credit card as a payment, which is super, super sketchy. Of course Stripe flagged it. They were smart to do so.

I read OP’s reply as a generic criticism about companies that scale beyond their ability to provide sufficient customer support, not a specific criticism of patio11. Silicon Valley is full of companies that scale beyond their competence and ability to operate properly: it’s practically a requirement of the “growth at all costs” mentality. I would argue that if you cannot handle dealing with customers without AI and automation with many false positives, then you have no business scaling further until you can. I don’t know if this is the particular case for Stripe since I’m not a customer, but we can all see this behavior across the industry.

That's an incredibly charitable interpretation in favour of Stripe. The aggrieved party has been emailing their support repeatedly only when this gained traction on both Reddit and Hackernews are they actually replying. How is this acceptable?

I don't see how you can assume bad faith on the user. Have you ever dealt with corporations? If so, you would know that they often lie and downplay things that make them look bad.

When so much money is at stake, the negativity is called for. Stripe is not neutral here. They have leverage and power over their merchants in these situations.

You're bringing negativity as well. Just applying it to the smaller, weaker party.