Probably because Google or it's financial partners have compliance programs that require all money flows they enable go through the required regulatory channels.
If an affiliated party is breaking regulations, you can often get in trouble by continuing to be associated with them once you're aware, and ignorance isn't a valid defense.
It's unlikely that GitHub subjects themselves to legal risk by allowing developers to link to Patreon [1]. I think this issue has more to do with Google's priorities, than what is legally possible.
It's not a lawsuit that people are afraid of. It's potential action from financial regulators, who are famously inflexible and disinterested in being nice to open source software developers in genuine financial need.
Parties like Google and Apple are well aware of the potential consequences, and thus are similarly inflexible and disinterested in being nice to a fairly small group of use-cases that exposes them to an outsized amount of risk.
It's really, deeply unfortunate. It's incredibly painful for everyone who has to deal with this bureaucratic bullshit. Unfortunately, it being bullshit doesn't make it less real or less reasonable.
Unless you're casting literally any action ever as being subject to "potential action from financial regulators", which is theoretically true but simply asinine to discuss, this completely misses the point.
It is not a real concern for Google to have a hyperlink https://wireguard.com/donations buried inside an app distributed on the Google Play Store.
I don't believe your concern is legitimate. It's arse covering gone mad, sorry.
Rhetorical:
You can email me, my email is in my bio, and I will respond with a way that you can send me money. If dang reads this post and does not take it down, does that put HN at risk of AML action for potentially 'aiding the money flow'?
edit: actually, you can click through enough links on my bio and get directly to donation pages. now we're really fucked, right? who's gonna turn off the lights?
Your rhetorical is not equivalent. Google Play Store is a marketplace. Google facilitates transactions -- from users to app developers. Some transactions are free, but Google's financial partnerships might mandate that certain regulations apply to the entire Google Play Store ecosystem. I could be wrong, but I'd reckon this is a grey area and Google is opting to avoid the problem altogether (IMO a bad choice).
This website is different -- not just free -- there is no financial partnership in play (as far as I'm aware). But rules still apply. If you put a link in your profile taking donations for Syria, the operators of this site are obligated to comply with OFAC sanctions and I'd expect your profile to change pretty quickly.
In this case, I'm guessing Google is opting to choose the path of least resistance, and rather than perform due diligence and KYC for apps which solicit donations, they've chosen to just... not do that.
They've chosen to pre-emptively cover their arse against a risk less likely than an asteroid hitting Earth by just nuking the apps.
There's another thread on HN about this right now - I don't know how these people can like, exist, in this world, with every one of the hairs on their head individually combed into a perfect slick. Can you even eat breakfast without worrying about some tail risk?
Too much HN for today, methinks. I'm so glad that the normal people I interact with in the world aren't this wanky (I don't mean you or other posters here, but the bureautwats that actually implement this stuff)
Really? Because Chrome allows me to navigate to all manner of sketchy sites- should Google be dropping Chrome? I mean, it's about as specious of reasoning as claiming that financial regulators will go after Google over donation buttons in apps. At that point, the whole thing is so far removed that it feels like being worried over getting struck by lightning. Heck, Chrome will even autofill a saved card into a donation page for me. Does Google need to follow KYC for every Chrome user and every page they visit?
Sure, maybe the argument can be made, but come on. We all know this is so that Google can get their nice 30% cut, and cut off any alternate funding sources for Android apps. Otherwise, shady developers will just require a "donation" instead of a purchase. That is behavior that Google would be reasonable to police, but to claim that action from financial regulators is what's causing this is just silly.
So many services use KYC/AML stuff as a catch-all excuse because it's easy to claim 'tip-off' provisions and just flat out refuse with no further information.
It's just your bog standard wanky corporate dishonesty. Nothing new under the sun.
Google does not exercise significant control over what websites a user can visit with Chrome. They certainly don't maintain a whitelist. Some might opine that the Play store is perhaps a slightly different matter.
It may also be worth considering that actions can, at some times and in some situations, be taken by human beings for multiple reasons with multiple independent motivations. All of which are real, genuine reasons.
They maintain a blacklist though, called Google Safe Browsing. Perhaps Bitcoin sites should be added to that to prevent money laundering. Pornographers should be licensed, otherwise omitted from search results.
Too many adverse effects you say? Sorry, that's just the way it is, no use complaining.
If an affiliated party is breaking regulations, you can often get in trouble by continuing to be associated with them once you're aware, and ignorance isn't a valid defense.