Visa, Mastercard suspend payments for ad purchases on PornHub, MindGeek(cnbc.com)
cnbc.com
Visa, Mastercard suspend payments for ad purchases on PornHub, MindGeek
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/04/visa-suspends-card-payments-for-ad-purchases-on-pornhub-and-mindgeek-amid-controversy.html
243 comments
I have two completely different takes on this.
On one hand, if a business generating almost $500M in revenue per year[1] is doing something illegal, it shouldn't be allowed to operate. Simple as that. If it is allowed to operate, then it should have access to the same payment methods as any other business.
On another hand, if I belonged to a group of people who believe that such companies shouldn't exist[2] and had no way of getting them banned completely, that's exactly what I would try to do: force their biggest business partners to cut ties with them.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MindGeek
[2] https://exoduscry.com/
On one hand, if a business generating almost $500M in revenue per year[1] is doing something illegal, it shouldn't be allowed to operate. Simple as that. If it is allowed to operate, then it should have access to the same payment methods as any other business.
On another hand, if I belonged to a group of people who believe that such companies shouldn't exist[2] and had no way of getting them banned completely, that's exactly what I would try to do: force their biggest business partners to cut ties with them.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MindGeek
[2] https://exoduscry.com/
> On one hand, if a business generating almost $500M in revenue per year[1] is doing something illegal, it shouldn't be allowed to operate. Simple as that. If it is allowed to operate, then it should have access to the same payment methods as any other business
I suspect if all businesses were held to this standard perfectly, there would be no businesses operating that generated $500M in revenue per year. Every business at that scale is doing something illegal somewhere. Not saying I agree with the state of things, but it seems businesses have decided occasional penalties for getting caught things illegal in jurisdictions that are capable of compelling them to pay the fine, are part of doing business.
I suspect if all businesses were held to this standard perfectly, there would be no businesses operating that generated $500M in revenue per year. Every business at that scale is doing something illegal somewhere. Not saying I agree with the state of things, but it seems businesses have decided occasional penalties for getting caught things illegal in jurisdictions that are capable of compelling them to pay the fine, are part of doing business.
> I suspect if all businesses were held to this standard perfectly, there would be no businesses operating that generated $500M in revenue per year.
If this standard were held perfectly and everyone knew it would be applied to them, businesses wanting to generate more revenue would adapt accordingly. Obviously violators of this standard exist today _because_ this standard is not enforced (i.e. laws without any "teeth" are not sufficiently motivating).
If this standard were held perfectly and everyone knew it would be applied to them, businesses wanting to generate more revenue would adapt accordingly. Obviously violators of this standard exist today _because_ this standard is not enforced (i.e. laws without any "teeth" are not sufficiently motivating).
If this standard was applied perfectly, every company under the threshold would be trying to shut its large competitors down with moles to sabotage them with a single documented illegal act.
If this standard was applied perfectly, large competitors would actually follow the laws... just like large businesses do today with laws that are actually enforced (MUCH more so than small businesses especially)... and why do you think they wouldn't be the ones trying to sabotage the upstart competitors? That's historically much more likely (although I'm sure it would in fact happen in both directions).
Moreover, is that bad? Is punishing people when they do something illegal bad?
Moreover, is that bad? Is punishing people when they do something illegal bad?
What did Visa do that was illegal?
“ If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.”
I find it quite odd that payment providers are being singled out. They aren’t going after the cloud provider, or the other services helping this company run their operations.
> if I belonged to a group of people who believe that such companies shouldn’t exist..
This seems to be the only plausible explanation. Going after them by exploiting a legal technicality (hacking the law). I don’t know if I feel any better about this approach, than I do about the original allegation.
Perhaps, it’s the part of me seeking some order in this world, holding out for a more pure form of justice. An ideal that doesn’t exist in reality.
> if I belonged to a group of people who believe that such companies shouldn’t exist..
This seems to be the only plausible explanation. Going after them by exploiting a legal technicality (hacking the law). I don’t know if I feel any better about this approach, than I do about the original allegation.
Perhaps, it’s the part of me seeking some order in this world, holding out for a more pure form of justice. An ideal that doesn’t exist in reality.
> a business generating almost $500M in revenue per year[1] is doing something illegal
But this is like going after McDonald's because some drug dealers use their parking lots to conduct business.
But this is like going after McDonald's because some drug dealers use their parking lots to conduct business.
More like going after McDonald's/Visa because their franchisees/PornHub are letting people deal drugs/child porn in the building/website (because it brings paying customers/ad revenue into their place of business) and McDonald's/Visa knew about it...
(I don't necessarily agree with the allegation, but that is the allegation.)
(I don't necessarily agree with the allegation, but that is the allegation.)
No, this is different because in your example you can't show McDonald's has an increase in revenue due to those drug dealers selling in their parking lots.
Well, it has, because since you drove all the way to McDonald's to buy your drugs you might eat there as well.
And if they're taking drugs, they're probably hungrier than they would be if they didn't.
There's no clear way to show McDonald's encourages the use of its parking lot for drug dealings in order to generate foot traffic to their restaurants. What you're saying is conjecture. It may be true, but not relevant legally as McDonald's essentially has plausible deniability until they address it with any written, internal or external, policy.
Is Visa encouraging crimes Pornhub is alleged to have committed?
I personally disagree, but the answer to this question is the crux of the case. Visa is allegedly a co-conspirator because by choosing to providing a platform, Visa also benefits from the traffic generated by CSAM on Pornhub. Visa doesn't directly encourage or control what is uploaded to Pornhub, and no one is suggesting it does in a legal context either. But, Visa knowingly choose to continue working with Mindgeek properties after a NYT op-ed came out highlighting the CSAM available on the platform. There's no "alleged" with respect to Pornhub, it did host CSAM and it did make money from advertisements, and according to the case filing, also had internal software to tag and promote CSAM algorithmically. Visa profited by providing a merchant platform to the advertising arm of Mindgeek despite knowing CSAM existed.
I don't agree with the overall precedent that would be set, but it's hard to argue when Visa chose to stop working with certain parts of Mindgeek showing they knew CSAM existed. Visa made itself a moderator of content by deciding who it does and doesn't work with based on the kind of content they serve and that decision exposed them up to the consequences of Mindgeek's actions.
Payment processors are in a difficult position but I believe they should be treated like a utility, similar to electricity. If net neutrality was solidified in the US, Visa could potentially argue that it treats all data in a similar way and then the lack of moderation and Pornhub/Mindgeek alone would be at fault. But by by choosing what should and shouldn't be allowed on the platform of its customers, Visa becomes a responsible for when its customers break the law using its platform.
I don't agree with the overall precedent that would be set, but it's hard to argue when Visa chose to stop working with certain parts of Mindgeek showing they knew CSAM existed. Visa made itself a moderator of content by deciding who it does and doesn't work with based on the kind of content they serve and that decision exposed them up to the consequences of Mindgeek's actions.
Payment processors are in a difficult position but I believe they should be treated like a utility, similar to electricity. If net neutrality was solidified in the US, Visa could potentially argue that it treats all data in a similar way and then the lack of moderation and Pornhub/Mindgeek alone would be at fault. But by by choosing what should and shouldn't be allowed on the platform of its customers, Visa becomes a responsible for when its customers break the law using its platform.
Is pornhub actively sourcing child porn?
If, say, 20% of parking lots has used for drug activities, McDonald’s would get a problem.
I'm going to go out on a limb and claim that 100% of McDonalds parking lots have been used for drug activity. At least once a week. 20% of them, probably once per day. And McDonalds is aware of this.
I think a payment processor has some – but not much – responsibility for the transactions they enable.
But you're right in that if a thing is illegal, it should be targeted directly and not by making private companies responsible for defining and enforcing "law".
But you're right in that if a thing is illegal, it should be targeted directly and not by making private companies responsible for defining and enforcing "law".
Do you think there could be situations where they should deny processing payments over moral/political/ideological objections?
It is one thing to choose to deny payment processing of your own free will, and entirely another to be extorted by the courts into doing so. If Pornhub is acting illegally, it should be shut down. If it isn't, neither payment processors nor anyone else should face legal jeopardy for doing business with a legally operating company.
I would were I to manage a payment company.
I'd want to, but not at the expense of people's freedoms, same as how I wouldn't censor things I didn't like if I were a bookseller or an ISP. If I thought they were involved in something illegal I'd turn the info over to the cops to investigate (I'm not HSBC!), but I'd just have to accept that people are going to do things I don't care for. There are plenty of companies I don't do business with now because I can't support them or what they stand for, but I have that luxury because I don't run a company that is (for some reason) allowed to insert itself in between people's private lawful transactions. I've got no business dictating what other people can or can't spend their money on.
Yes, that's what anybody would try. And it's up to the government to cut that crap up and punish the people that are harassing innocent third parties due to a personal crusade.
Absent punishment, everybody will just drag all bystanders (from around any scene, there is somebody that disagrees with anything) into a court.
Absent punishment, everybody will just drag all bystanders (from around any scene, there is somebody that disagrees with anything) into a court.
> the people that are harassing innocent third parties due to a personal crusade.
> Absent punishment, everybody will just drag all bystanders (from around any scene, there is somebody that disagrees with anything) into a court.
What a great description of the dysfunction of the US judicial system.
> Absent punishment, everybody will just drag all bystanders (from around any scene, there is somebody that disagrees with anything) into a court.
What a great description of the dysfunction of the US judicial system.
1) For years PH used to do the stuff that should totally, unequivocally never be allowed. Then they did a 180, some damage control and a spring cleaning. You can argue that what PH does now should be allowed, but then one of its victims lawyers up and brings up something from dark past in which PH is totally implicated. Now what?
2) Visa, like any other business, must be allowed to use own judgement when deciding whom it's dealing with. They are no saint, though, because they probably noticed that they were dealing with PH (given its size) long enough ago and ignored what was going on there.
2) Visa, like any other business, must be allowed to use own judgement when deciding whom it's dealing with. They are no saint, though, because they probably noticed that they were dealing with PH (given its size) long enough ago and ignored what was going on there.
But it isn't doing something illegal, their users do. They profit from it, but we are back to the problem that platform providers are responsible for user content. Now just if financial transactions are involved luckily.
Not a pornhub fan, but I believe there are far more exploitative companies out there.
Not a pornhub fan, but I believe there are far more exploitative companies out there.
If you belonged to a group of people who believe that such companies shouldn't exist, then you should lobby for it to be outlawed, not try to rule by (small!) minority.
So are the internet providers then, and the electricity companies.
Prime example of "think of the children" laws giving judges the power to legislate from the bench. The closer we try to achieve the fantasy of ultimate safety we destroy freedom in the process, and nobody was protected.
Meanwhile Netflix is hosting soft core child porn.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/net...
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/net...
That's an interesting take.
Would other companies that support pornhub/across in any way also be considered participants? Water supply/electricity/ internet providers/whoever sells them dildos/food
Would other companies that support pornhub/across in any way also be considered participants? Water supply/electricity/ internet providers/whoever sells them dildos/food
I think a more interesting analogy than water/electricity would be storage.
Selling child porn has a special place in the law in a way that "feeding suspected CP criminals" does not.
But storing is also special. Storing child porn is very illegal, so how far does that extend? Does AWS renting an EC2 instance to pornhub, knowing pornhub may store CP on it, mean AWS is complicit in storing child porn?
Does Western Digital selling an SSD to pornhub for their datacenter make WD complicit in storing child porn?
Does the data-center that leases them a server become complicit in storing and distributing CP?
Selling child porn has a special place in the law in a way that "feeding suspected CP criminals" does not.
But storing is also special. Storing child porn is very illegal, so how far does that extend? Does AWS renting an EC2 instance to pornhub, knowing pornhub may store CP on it, mean AWS is complicit in storing child porn?
Does Western Digital selling an SSD to pornhub for their datacenter make WD complicit in storing child porn?
Does the data-center that leases them a server become complicit in storing and distributing CP?
That analogy breaks down when the idea of encryption is considered. AWS has end to end encryption for customer data in motion, and optionally at rest. Pornhub is the only party that has absolute control and access of the data. The data centers are not at fault any more than the government is, for owning a road, when someone driving a tesla car in autopilot causes a crash.
In this analogy, Visa is in the same position as a power plant that provides electricity for Tesla cars.
I believe Visa should not be held legally accountable for the lack of action on Mindgeek/Pornhub in taking down and blocking reuploads of reported CSAM. However the issue is that Visa themselves have chosen to be a moderator of what content is allowed by its customers, regardless of the actual legality of the content. They do it indirectly by accepting and rejecting customers based on these guidelines that are not in line with what is or isn't allowed by law.
Based on a shallow reading of the court documents, Visa made essentially the same argument, that it stands an independent of the decisions of Mindgeek and those who uploaded the CSAM. The counter is the idea that Visa is at fault for giving Mindgeek/Pornhub/Uploaders of CSAM a platform to make money in the first place. That was a decision made by Visa. The fact that Visa already stopped being a payment processor for Pornhub/Mindgeek once in 2020 due to a NYT article about CSM shows that Visa was aware of and had control over how strictly Mindgeek/Pornhub polices the uploads for CSAM.
The case isn't about the existence of CSAM on Pornhub either, it's specifically calling out how Visa and Mindgeek has already profited from traffic generated by CSAM hosted on Pornhub.
In my analogy, it would be a power plant knowing the electricity they provide will be used in Tesla cars used by criminals to rob places. Tesla, in this example, knowingly selling cars that they know will be used for robberies and not doing anything about it. Tesla cars can't run without electricity, and the power plant makes money from selling the electricity to a group they know will use it up faster than the general driver.
Electricity and transportation is a regulated utility. I wonder if this case would not have a legal standing if net neutrality existed and a counter was made by Visa that it treats Mindgeek like any other media content provider and won't reject customers it provides services to, because it doesn't differentiate based on the specifics of the data. The website owners would still be responsible for host CSAM in that situation. Visa could potentially argue no joint understanding if net neutrality existed. Right now it's in contention because Visa has already shown it rejects and accepts customers based on their own rules about what kind of data is being served by its customers.
Visa's previous action to stop and then restart providing a platform to Mindgeek/Pornhub, after they removed unverified content, shows a clear understanding of what kind of media is served. By re-accepting them as a merchant, Visa opened itself up to being a beneficiary and conspirator in Pornhub making money from CSAM, by being the company that provides a way for Mindgeek to make money. Not from pornhub directly but by being a payment processor for the advertising arm of Mindgeek.
The specific issue is making money from CSAM, not the existence of CSAM.
In this analogy, Visa is in the same position as a power plant that provides electricity for Tesla cars.
I believe Visa should not be held legally accountable for the lack of action on Mindgeek/Pornhub in taking down and blocking reuploads of reported CSAM. However the issue is that Visa themselves have chosen to be a moderator of what content is allowed by its customers, regardless of the actual legality of the content. They do it indirectly by accepting and rejecting customers based on these guidelines that are not in line with what is or isn't allowed by law.
Based on a shallow reading of the court documents, Visa made essentially the same argument, that it stands an independent of the decisions of Mindgeek and those who uploaded the CSAM. The counter is the idea that Visa is at fault for giving Mindgeek/Pornhub/Uploaders of CSAM a platform to make money in the first place. That was a decision made by Visa. The fact that Visa already stopped being a payment processor for Pornhub/Mindgeek once in 2020 due to a NYT article about CSM shows that Visa was aware of and had control over how strictly Mindgeek/Pornhub polices the uploads for CSAM.
The case isn't about the existence of CSAM on Pornhub either, it's specifically calling out how Visa and Mindgeek has already profited from traffic generated by CSAM hosted on Pornhub.
In my analogy, it would be a power plant knowing the electricity they provide will be used in Tesla cars used by criminals to rob places. Tesla, in this example, knowingly selling cars that they know will be used for robberies and not doing anything about it. Tesla cars can't run without electricity, and the power plant makes money from selling the electricity to a group they know will use it up faster than the general driver.
Electricity and transportation is a regulated utility. I wonder if this case would not have a legal standing if net neutrality existed and a counter was made by Visa that it treats Mindgeek like any other media content provider and won't reject customers it provides services to, because it doesn't differentiate based on the specifics of the data. The website owners would still be responsible for host CSAM in that situation. Visa could potentially argue no joint understanding if net neutrality existed. Right now it's in contention because Visa has already shown it rejects and accepts customers based on their own rules about what kind of data is being served by its customers.
Visa's previous action to stop and then restart providing a platform to Mindgeek/Pornhub, after they removed unverified content, shows a clear understanding of what kind of media is served. By re-accepting them as a merchant, Visa opened itself up to being a beneficiary and conspirator in Pornhub making money from CSAM, by being the company that provides a way for Mindgeek to make money. Not from pornhub directly but by being a payment processor for the advertising arm of Mindgeek.
The specific issue is making money from CSAM, not the existence of CSAM.
> Electricity and transportation is a regulated utility.
Maybe it's time to regulate payment processors and turn them into utilities. That or create a national payment processor that does one thing and one thing only (process payments) under a transparent set of laws treating every traction equally.
I have no love for Visa or Mastercard. I'd rather not deal with them at all if I had an alternative that was just as convenient. It kind of crazy that with our modern tech and banking system we don't have that easy alternative and still have to keep these dinosaurs around just to easily pass numbers back and forth between banks.
Maybe it's time to regulate payment processors and turn them into utilities. That or create a national payment processor that does one thing and one thing only (process payments) under a transparent set of laws treating every traction equally.
I have no love for Visa or Mastercard. I'd rather not deal with them at all if I had an alternative that was just as convenient. It kind of crazy that with our modern tech and banking system we don't have that easy alternative and still have to keep these dinosaurs around just to easily pass numbers back and forth between banks.
> The fact that Visa already stopped being a payment processor for Pornhub/Mindgeek once in 2020 due to a NYT article about CSM shows that Visa was aware of and had control over how strictly Mindgeek/Pornhub polices the uploads for CSAM.
Yes, which shows that when Visa was aware that Pornhub was (allegedly?) breaking the law, they stopped providing service to them. Only once Pornhub tightened their policies significantly (and removed all of their content from unverified users) did Visa resume...
And it definitely is about the existence of it, actually; one of the allegations is specifically that Pornhub had child porn, failed to police it, and Visa knew both of those things.
Yes, which shows that when Visa was aware that Pornhub was (allegedly?) breaking the law, they stopped providing service to them. Only once Pornhub tightened their policies significantly (and removed all of their content from unverified users) did Visa resume...
And it definitely is about the existence of it, actually; one of the allegations is specifically that Pornhub had child porn, failed to police it, and Visa knew both of those things.
Payments are a pretty specific aspect of trafficking, and while it's feasible some of those other areas you mention could be problematic, Visa has to be much more worried than the caterer.
The argument specifically relies on the financial processing role:
> MindGeek is being sued for knowingly monetizing child porn. Visa’s act of continuing to recognize MindGeek as a merchant is directly linked to MindGeek’s criminal act, as Visa’s act served to keep open the means through which MindGeek completed its criminal act knowing that that criminal act was being committed. At this early stage of the proceedings, before Plaintiff has had any discovery from which to derive Visa’s state of mind, the Court can comfortably infer that Visa intended to help MindGeek monetize child porn from the very fact that Visa continued to provide MindGeek the means to do so and knew MindGeek was indeed doing so. Put yet another way, Visa is not alleged to have simply created an incentive to commit a crime, it is alleged to have knowingly provided the tool used to complete a crime.
> MindGeek is being sued for knowingly monetizing child porn. Visa’s act of continuing to recognize MindGeek as a merchant is directly linked to MindGeek’s criminal act, as Visa’s act served to keep open the means through which MindGeek completed its criminal act knowing that that criminal act was being committed. At this early stage of the proceedings, before Plaintiff has had any discovery from which to derive Visa’s state of mind, the Court can comfortably infer that Visa intended to help MindGeek monetize child porn from the very fact that Visa continued to provide MindGeek the means to do so and knew MindGeek was indeed doing so. Put yet another way, Visa is not alleged to have simply created an incentive to commit a crime, it is alleged to have knowingly provided the tool used to complete a crime.
Wouldn't a crime and court ruling need to occur before Visa is of "knowing" status?
These utilities likely have laws that shield them from liability for these things, otherwise every illegal grow-op would cause the power company to be criminally liable for having supplied power to the grower's house and that makes no sense.
In this case Visa knows full well what they are enabling, by allowing payments to be processed on PH, especially given the volume of transactions, there's no way they don't know what they are supporting.
In this case Visa knows full well what they are enabling, by allowing payments to be processed on PH, especially given the volume of transactions, there's no way they don't know what they are supporting.
This is a great decision to fight human sex trafficking and child pornography. Pornography is a giant societal scourge which funds a ton of human misery and social problems and anything we can do to make it harder for these businesses to operate is great news IMO.
Visa has not been found guilty of anything in this case yet. The court merely didn't fully grant their motion to dismiss.
That only establishes that Visa is actually being accused of something illegal, i.e. Pornhub allegedly knowingly profiting from child porn and Visa allegedly providing payment services to Pornhub while allegedly knowing that Pornhub was using those payment services to profit from child porn (allegedly) would make Visa a participant in the alleged crime, if those allegiations turn out to be true. Hence Visa is a defendant in the court case where the truth of the allegiations will then be debated.
That's why the document you linked uses the word "allegedly" so often.
That only establishes that Visa is actually being accused of something illegal, i.e. Pornhub allegedly knowingly profiting from child porn and Visa allegedly providing payment services to Pornhub while allegedly knowing that Pornhub was using those payment services to profit from child porn (allegedly) would make Visa a participant in the alleged crime, if those allegiations turn out to be true. Hence Visa is a defendant in the court case where the truth of the allegiations will then be debated.
That's why the document you linked uses the word "allegedly" so often.
These are the scenarios to keep in mind whenever people promote cashless societies. Every transaction that needs to go through a gatekeeper means there is a gate that might be closed on you.
Only cash is able to protect the ability to do private transactions withouth any possibility of external dependencies or interference.
Only cash is able to protect the ability to do private transactions withouth any possibility of external dependencies or interference.
The complexity in this situation comes from the fact that Visa rejected Pornhub as a merchant in 2020 due to the same issue, and after Pornhub removed millions of unverified videos, Visa resumed working with the advertising arm of them. Although never officially said, it is clear what the reasoning was for removing the content.
> As porn star Cherie DeVille explains, the story is, and has been, a lot weirder than that. Because Visa and Mastercard hold effective duopoly status all over the world — controlling 98% of credit transactions in the U.K., 80% in the E.U., and over 70% in the U.S. — no porn performer can afford to cross the rules for acceptable content the two companies have laid down. And those rules are beyond strange.
“Women are allowed to squirt, but we’re not allowed to urinate,” DeVille says. “We can’t insert our panties into our vaginas anymore, because that’s an object. I tried to use a carrot-shaped dildo. That’s a problem because that’s an object, too, but a phallic-shaped dildo is apparently okay.” She shakes her head in amazement. “The rules are completely nonsensical.”
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/meet-the-censored-cherie-devil...
“Women are allowed to squirt, but we’re not allowed to urinate,” DeVille says. “We can’t insert our panties into our vaginas anymore, because that’s an object. I tried to use a carrot-shaped dildo. That’s a problem because that’s an object, too, but a phallic-shaped dildo is apparently okay.” She shakes her head in amazement. “The rules are completely nonsensical.”
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/meet-the-censored-cherie-devil...
Relevant sub-thread from a previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24297406
"Fantastical" quote from the above:
> > Our banking partners recently notified us that they are no longer willing to support the sales of realistic sex toys. I understand that your products were designed to depict the body parts of mythological and fantastical creatures, and we have indicated this to our banking partners in an effort to advocate for continuing to support your business here on Stripe. As a result of these discussions, our banking partners have agreed that they are willing to continue supporting your business as long as you are not selling products that are colored such that they might be mistaken for human flesh.
"Fantastical" quote from the above:
> > Our banking partners recently notified us that they are no longer willing to support the sales of realistic sex toys. I understand that your products were designed to depict the body parts of mythological and fantastical creatures, and we have indicated this to our banking partners in an effort to advocate for continuing to support your business here on Stripe. As a result of these discussions, our banking partners have agreed that they are willing to continue supporting your business as long as you are not selling products that are colored such that they might be mistaken for human flesh.
That meeting must have looked like a Monty Python sketch
Forgive me, but I’m sat here wondering what “squirt” is in reference too. I don’t wish to google it. Diarrhoea related? So women can defacate but not urinate?
Look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_ejaculation
Note that both male and female ejaculation may be faked in a porn movie.
Note that both male and female ejaculation may be faked in a porn movie.
More to the point, squirting in porn is pretty much guaranteed to be urination, simply due to the volume and strength of ‘gushing’ involved.
Female ejaculation. There doesn't seem to be a consensus on if it is it's own fluid or just spontaneous urination.
My understanding is that the majority of the time it happens in porn, it's actually urination (but legally they might not be able to say that either)
The relevant law here is called SESTA-FOSTA. It forces companies to ensure they don't host content that facilitates sexual exploitation. This has impacted full-service workers (i.e., prostitutes). Before SESTA-FOSTA, they could put up ads on specialized websites, chat with the clients and then have them come to a room they had rented. This arrangement gave them basic security.
After SESTA-FOSTA, the pages hosting those ads folded, as they couldn't comply with the new rules. Many full-service workers are now walking the streets again and have to have sex in their clients' cars. It's obvious that this makes them much more vulnurable.
It even goes further: Banks will close your account if they think your business has something to do with "sex", even if what you do is legal. If they feel you might be a risk, they freeze your account.
This law has hurt many sex workers, often people already at the very bottom of society. On the other hand, it's unclear how many lives it saved from sexual exploitation.
Sex workers are vulnerable, and many women are being abused. But the way this law was enacted, I can't help but think that pushing sex work further into illegality was a desired side-effect.
Source: I know a couple of sex workers in NYC.
After SESTA-FOSTA, the pages hosting those ads folded, as they couldn't comply with the new rules. Many full-service workers are now walking the streets again and have to have sex in their clients' cars. It's obvious that this makes them much more vulnurable.
It even goes further: Banks will close your account if they think your business has something to do with "sex", even if what you do is legal. If they feel you might be a risk, they freeze your account.
This law has hurt many sex workers, often people already at the very bottom of society. On the other hand, it's unclear how many lives it saved from sexual exploitation.
Sex workers are vulnerable, and many women are being abused. But the way this law was enacted, I can't help but think that pushing sex work further into illegality was a desired side-effect.
Source: I know a couple of sex workers in NYC.
You're right about SESTA-FOSTA being terrible, but I don't think it's the relevant law here.
The relevant code here is 1591(a)(2).
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1591
The opinion of the court is that the defendents benefit monetarily from a commercial sex act involving someone below 18 years of age.
The relevant code here is 1591(a)(2).
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1591
The opinion of the court is that the defendents benefit monetarily from a commercial sex act involving someone below 18 years of age.
Another win for the extremist anti-porn group Exodus Cry. They are just using a small handful of cases slipping through the cracks to make it look like PH is doing nothing to moderate this content. Their end goal was never to protect children, their goal is to eliminate all pornography from the internet.
>> goal is to eliminate all pornography from the internet.
Funny story: Pre-9/11 the Bush administration was talking about cracking down on internet pornography. The Christian right was saying the same things they had about magazines in decades past. So some industry people got together and founded websites dedicated to the most horrible pornography possible, in full expectation that they would be attacked. They were going to be champions of the first amendment in the same was that Hustler magazine had been a generation previously. But then 9/11. The expected crackdown didn't materialize. Those websites are still around, having evolved into some of the biggest names in the biz.
Funny story: Pre-9/11 the Bush administration was talking about cracking down on internet pornography. The Christian right was saying the same things they had about magazines in decades past. So some industry people got together and founded websites dedicated to the most horrible pornography possible, in full expectation that they would be attacked. They were going to be champions of the first amendment in the same was that Hustler magazine had been a generation previously. But then 9/11. The expected crackdown didn't materialize. Those websites are still around, having evolved into some of the biggest names in the biz.
Right now a lot of socialist parties in Europe want to shut down porn and sex work under the name of feminism as well. As an example Spain where they are also in power. Thinking only about American Christians is short sighted, there's a lot of pressure from people who want nothing to do with Christianity but see the industry as exploitive and anti woman.
Maybe, but there is a fundamental difference between being anti-abuse and anti-smut.
source?
https://www.wired.com/2001/01/bush-to-porn-run-for-cover/
06-Jan, 2001.
"The conservative queen of syndicated outrage, who happens to be George W. Bush's pick to head the Department of Labor, has repeatedly warned of what she describes as the perils of sexually explicit material online and urged government action against it. If the Senate gives her the nod, Chavez will not have any day-to-day responsibilities dealing with online speech. But her nomination signals the approach that a Bush presidency is likely to take toward sexually explicit material online."
For the rest of the story, you will have to dig into the history of certain websites that I shall not link to here on HN.
06-Jan, 2001.
"The conservative queen of syndicated outrage, who happens to be George W. Bush's pick to head the Department of Labor, has repeatedly warned of what she describes as the perils of sexually explicit material online and urged government action against it. If the Senate gives her the nod, Chavez will not have any day-to-day responsibilities dealing with online speech. But her nomination signals the approach that a Bush presidency is likely to take toward sexually explicit material online."
For the rest of the story, you will have to dig into the history of certain websites that I shall not link to here on HN.
sashenka(6)
In 1910, Emma Goldman wrote "The Traffic in Women" about how the supposed efforts against sex traffic in the day had nothing to do with helping women, and were all done for other purposes.
112 years later nothing has changed from what she described - fundamentalist churches in supposed campaigns against sex trafficking, yellow journalists printing sensationalist stories - 112 years and nothing has changed whatsoever.
112 years later nothing has changed from what she described - fundamentalist churches in supposed campaigns against sex trafficking, yellow journalists printing sensationalist stories - 112 years and nothing has changed whatsoever.
Totally agree. SESTA-FOSTA is just the current instalment of this pattern.
I think this time it was a win for activist investment given Bill Ackman's investment and tweet thread https://twitter.com/billackman/status/1553510104200351746?s=...
> Their end goal was never to protect children, their goal is to eliminate all pornography from the internet.
That's never going to happen. All it would do is drive regular porn to the same corners of the internet where snuff films and child porn live, and nobody wants that as that drives more people to those areas.
That's never going to happen. All it would do is drive regular porn to the same corners of the internet where snuff films and child porn live, and nobody wants that as that drives more people to those areas.
They probably know they can’t realistically drive it off the net, so they are likely well aware that it would end up in those corners… and with my cynicism hat firmly on I think that the organised puritanical groups know this and are hoping they can then use the association with more unpleasant things in those corners of the internet to push even harder on their puritanical agendas.
I am very worried about where this is going.
We already have enough issues with puritanical people pushing their views on everyone else, but I always felt at least some mild level of safety that I could still mostly do what I want if I was in certain states/cities.
I do realize that Visa was in a really hard place at this point and they likely had to make this decision, so I don't exactly blame Visa here. But it worries me that it could even get to this point that Visa is somehow responsible and I see they are not trying to go over Discover.
We already have enough issues with puritanical people pushing their views on everyone else, but I always felt at least some mild level of safety that I could still mostly do what I want if I was in certain states/cities.
I do realize that Visa was in a really hard place at this point and they likely had to make this decision, so I don't exactly blame Visa here. But it worries me that it could even get to this point that Visa is somehow responsible and I see they are not trying to go over Discover.
I believe that recent crackdowns are worse for people in the long run. Lets assume that most sexually active people look at porn now and then, which I think is a safe assumption, and that teens learn about sex from watching porn.
These changes and age verification requirements have eliminated all the normal amateur sex scenes between regular consenting adults (On RedTube for example) and left the age-verified professional porn, which depicts unrealistic sex between adults who don't give a sh*t about each other, but have perfect bodies and big parts. Instead of showing wholesome normal sex, now all we get is porn shop slut/stud sex
These changes and age verification requirements have eliminated all the normal amateur sex scenes between regular consenting adults (On RedTube for example) and left the age-verified professional porn, which depicts unrealistic sex between adults who don't give a sh*t about each other, but have perfect bodies and big parts. Instead of showing wholesome normal sex, now all we get is porn shop slut/stud sex
Studio shot material is definitely a bit more exaggerated and more selective with their performers. However, I don't really have the impression that amateur shot stuff is "showing wholesome normal sex". Some studios do produce more realistic video but in my experience the amateur stuff is just worse lit and self shot. Still usually made by someone just trying to get a few quick bucks.
All I'm saying is that amateurs are going to have amateur sex so it's closer to the norm than pro sex and probably better for teens to watch and it's too bad that a lot of it will be gone, leaving mostly pro stuff.
I understand the motivation: let's reduce the trafficking of women and revenge porn, but I'm not sure we're going about it in a good way.
I understand the motivation: let's reduce the trafficking of women and revenge porn, but I'm not sure we're going about it in a good way.
I think the main problem with studio work is that it sets highly unrealistic expectations for what a woman’s body looks like. It’s professionally groomed and unnatural and girls cannot possibly meet the same standard on any given Tuesday. Neither can guys but I feel like the expectations for guys are generally much lower anyway.
Except for the large member, which I've heard intimidates the less endowed.
If I’ve remembered the relevant studies about average penis length correctly, self reported penis length averages to a value between one and two inches longer than clinically measured lengths average to depending on which studies you pick. Which is definitely indicative of that endowment anxiety as a widespread issue.
That's true, but I think it's also true of most movies and tv. Any group of people you see have been hand picked, cast, done up and very well lit.
I think the OPs point was that teenagers could start considering this the 'normal'. Personally I give them a little more credit. But it is a good point.
I don’t agree, based on at least my personal experience. My wife and I (40s) don’t engage in even a fraction of the acts I see commonly in porn. My bf (mid-20s) and I, on the other hand regularly do. He sees these acts as normal and expected. She definitely does not, and neither do I. Anecdotes aren’t data, to be sure, but my bf’s friend group has a similarly completely different view of what is “normal” with respect to sexual activity, and the same is true for others of similar age I’ve been involved with. I’m convinced porn definitely shapes the view of normal.
Interesting, but it doesn't sound like a 'problem' per se. As long as people don't do these things against their wishes. It's not a bad thing if people broaden their sexual horizons IMO (though some of the sexual acts in porn are a bit gratuitous). But I strongly believe what consenting adults do in the bedroom is their business and nobody else's.
And it does sound like it's definitely a subset of the more mainstream porn that he's practicing, after all the more extreme things often require more people.
Like the other poster I also wonder whether this is a result of influencing from porn or that porn is influenced by changing behaviour. After all, porn wouldn't be made if people didn't like it.
And it does sound like it's definitely a subset of the more mainstream porn that he's practicing, after all the more extreme things often require more people.
Like the other poster I also wonder whether this is a result of influencing from porn or that porn is influenced by changing behaviour. After all, porn wouldn't be made if people didn't like it.
Not saying you're necessarily wrong, but your observations are fully explainable by porn following trends; no causal direction can be established from them.
You have a point, but I don’t think I agree. The mid-20s group get the majority of their education about what to do for sex from porn as much as if not more than from their sex partners. They didn’t set the trends for porn that is watched today, unless they started influencing the market when they were pre-pubescent.
Yeah. It's hard to control what teens see and what their interpretation is. I don't know if there are really great examples of what healthy sex lives should be like. Everything is just extremely graphic and widely available.
The market gets what the market wants.
Unless you believe there's some sinister cabal out there conspiring to hurt 18-25 years with porn, you'll just have to accept what's out there is what people pay to see.
The big hardcore porn scenes aren't cheap they are deliberate and calculated.
> depicts unrealistic sex between adults
Doesn't depict the kind of sex you like to watch or partake in but "Middle America" isn't the only view point (no offence if your not American).
There's plenty of bars / clubs / spaces / apps for "kinksters" and the more adventurous. "kink" came before porn and will exist long after it.
Its unfortunate hardcore porn rises to the homepage of these porn sites but its simple economics "ew that's gross, lemme just click it real quick" and there's the advertising space sold - its just "the algorithm" at it again.
Maybe you should make an account and let "the algorithm" do its thing.
Unless you believe there's some sinister cabal out there conspiring to hurt 18-25 years with porn, you'll just have to accept what's out there is what people pay to see.
The big hardcore porn scenes aren't cheap they are deliberate and calculated.
> depicts unrealistic sex between adults
Doesn't depict the kind of sex you like to watch or partake in but "Middle America" isn't the only view point (no offence if your not American).
There's plenty of bars / clubs / spaces / apps for "kinksters" and the more adventurous. "kink" came before porn and will exist long after it.
Its unfortunate hardcore porn rises to the homepage of these porn sites but its simple economics "ew that's gross, lemme just click it real quick" and there's the advertising space sold - its just "the algorithm" at it again.
Maybe you should make an account and let "the algorithm" do its thing.
The difference being mainly that these clubs, bars and magazines are all analog and, prior to the wide availability of porn on the internet, were not something the vast majority of people were exposed to. Kinks have existed since sex started. But that doesn’t mean they were (or are) “normal”. “Normal” isn’t meant to be derogatory as I use it: it’s just shorthand for what the 1-sigma group in the distribution considers “typical”
How are you defining kink here? The vast majority of my sexual partners had some kind of kink, even if just in a toned down level. I cannot remember many I had intimacy enough with that weren't into some behaviour or act considered "kinky".
I really don't know how you'd even define the "normal" sex behaviour, there is just so much variation.
I really don't know how you'd even define the "normal" sex behaviour, there is just so much variation.
I have never paid for porn because there is so much free stuff, so I can only speak to the free stuff. I'm talking about widely available free porn that is supported with advertising. I hear it's softer than the paid stuff.
> Unless you believe there's some sinister cabal out there conspiring to hurt 18-25 years with porn, you'll just have to accept what's out there is what people pay to see.
I don’t think porn companies are necessarily trying to harm people in the same way I don’t think social media companies, casinos, drug dealers, etc. are necessarily trying to harm people. They are trying to make money, and they don’t care too much if they cause harm in doing so.
I don’t think porn companies are necessarily trying to harm people in the same way I don’t think social media companies, casinos, drug dealers, etc. are necessarily trying to harm people. They are trying to make money, and they don’t care too much if they cause harm in doing so.
well the problem is censorship from Visa is distorting the market. i.e., many people like amateur porn but this makes amateur porn have a higher barrier.
This is an eternal contradiction in US attitudes towards porn. Porn was condemned by mainstream consensus in the 80s/90s for creating unrealistic and strange (plastic) bodily standards, but the companies that were closest to the mainstream and in every hotel PPV were Vivid and Wicked, who were the pinnacle of that slick plastic style. The farther you got away from them, the more natural people looked and behaved.
edit: even now, the places where extreme bodily exaggerations, distortions, and surgical interventions dominate are very vanilla and mainstream, like instagram and twitter, or even softcore/non-nude.
edit: even now, the places where extreme bodily exaggerations, distortions, and surgical interventions dominate are very vanilla and mainstream, like instagram and twitter, or even softcore/non-nude.
It's not even about porn. Nudist websites now also require real ID verification for their members. I can see this extended to fitness websites soon.
Do we really want private companies to be in the business of law enforcement?
No, but we also do not want private companies being in the business of facilitating illegal activity. We wouldn't expect UPS to deliver cocaine once they become aware that a particular customer is using UPS to ship drugs. Visa isn't obligated to investigate all of its customers, but once informed of wrongdoing it should take reasonable steps to distance itself.
Note that they're going after Visa over this. Not Mindgeek. That's because it never was about kiddie porn, it's about trying to block payment for porn in general. The case is highly deceptive, what actually happened:
Pornhub used to permit anonymous uploading by amateurs. Yes, plenty of amateur stuff was posted, but with such a system of course some stuff slipped through that shouldn't--copyright, revenge and kiddie porn. When the problem came to light Pornhub deleted all the stuff that didn't have a proven identity. (And the US standards for proof on porn are too high. They're fine for a big studio but impossible for amateurs and they preclude any attempt to keep identities secret.)
Only a sliver of the 80% of their database that got deleted was kiddie porn and note that not all kiddie porn is sexual abuse anyway--some of it is just teens being stupid.
Pornhub used to permit anonymous uploading by amateurs. Yes, plenty of amateur stuff was posted, but with such a system of course some stuff slipped through that shouldn't--copyright, revenge and kiddie porn. When the problem came to light Pornhub deleted all the stuff that didn't have a proven identity. (And the US standards for proof on porn are too high. They're fine for a big studio but impossible for amateurs and they preclude any attempt to keep identities secret.)
Only a sliver of the 80% of their database that got deleted was kiddie porn and note that not all kiddie porn is sexual abuse anyway--some of it is just teens being stupid.
>> all kiddie porn is sexual abuse anyway
Child, Pornography and Abuse ... each definition requires a multi-hour lecture at any law school. One can debate the definition of "child" for days without coming to any firm conclusion. But many states have very exacting laws, backed up by draconian punishments. It it perfectly reasonable for large corporations to take an equally harsh approach. The punishments for being "in possession" of such material are so dangerous that instantly deleting entire accounts/databases will be seen as reasonable business judgement. But I guess that is the point of such punishments. They are designed scare everyone into acting without hesitation.
Child, Pornography and Abuse ... each definition requires a multi-hour lecture at any law school. One can debate the definition of "child" for days without coming to any firm conclusion. But many states have very exacting laws, backed up by draconian punishments. It it perfectly reasonable for large corporations to take an equally harsh approach. The punishments for being "in possession" of such material are so dangerous that instantly deleting entire accounts/databases will be seen as reasonable business judgement. But I guess that is the point of such punishments. They are designed scare everyone into acting without hesitation.
Yeah, but that doesn't address my point--that not all kiddie porn is sexual abuse. Some of it is just teenagers being stupid filming themselves, no abuse involved.
When Pornhub deleted that much content the true (unspoken) reason was a diffrent one. Before Wirecard did make the moneytransfer for Pornub. But as we all now, Wirecard stopped to exist and sold some bussines parts. It was exactly the same time, when parts from Wirecard got sold again.
I'm pretty sure in the new contract was something like you can't have anonymous uploads at all.
I'm pretty sure in the new contract was something like you can't have anonymous uploads at all.
UPS is used to deliver illegal drugs. Visa is aware of this fact. Should they ban UPS?
Yes, they should ban UPS, Visa, all contracting companies that provided services to these two, and also the employees who worked for them. Just so that we are sure!
Yes. If a delivery company continues to do business with known drug dealers, refuses to stop once faced with reasonable evidence, then it is perfectly reasonable for Visa and everyone else to walk away.
UPS is used, rarely and without their consent, to illegally transmit drugs.
Pornhub is used, rarely and without their consent, to illegally transmit child pornography.
What sort of business are you in? I'm pretty sure that I can find a way that it facilitates some sort of illegal activity. Your HN profile says "Defense". Let's see now...
Pornhub is used, rarely and without their consent, to illegally transmit child pornography.
What sort of business are you in? I'm pretty sure that I can find a way that it facilitates some sort of illegal activity. Your HN profile says "Defense". Let's see now...
[deleted]
> refuses to stop once faced with reasonable evidence
That's implying that PH is doing nothing to stop it. There's a difference between there being a few handful of examples of cases slipping through the cracks, vs PH intentionally allowing it to happen.
It's like Youtube, there will always be false positives and false negatives in their automatic and manual moderation. Online moderation is a hard problem, not a single platform has got a bulletproof solution.
That's implying that PH is doing nothing to stop it. There's a difference between there being a few handful of examples of cases slipping through the cracks, vs PH intentionally allowing it to happen.
It's like Youtube, there will always be false positives and false negatives in their automatic and manual moderation. Online moderation is a hard problem, not a single platform has got a bulletproof solution.
"Reasonable evidence" according to whom?
There is no one definition. Each customer is free to use their own definition. If Visa doesn't like what a website is doing, Visa can walk away. If I don't agree with Visa's decision, I am free to walk away from Visa. I am also free to publicly criticize Visa. Each market actor is free to make their own decisions purely on their own interpretation of reasonableness.
> If Visa doesn't like what a website is doing, Visa can walk away
Right, which does massive damage to that website as Visa is part of a duopoly with a complete stranglehold on the market
> If I don't agree with Visa's decision, I am free to walk away from Visa
Ok, and if Mastercard follows suit, where do you go?
The problem with essential services - monetary transmission, in this case - being monopolized by private companies is that your trite claim that "each party can walk away" is actually quite clearly untrue for the consumer in each such situation. Market actors should be free to make their own decisions, but monopoly and cartel situations need regulation to prevent consumer harm, and it's clear what this is.
Right, which does massive damage to that website as Visa is part of a duopoly with a complete stranglehold on the market
> If I don't agree with Visa's decision, I am free to walk away from Visa
Ok, and if Mastercard follows suit, where do you go?
The problem with essential services - monetary transmission, in this case - being monopolized by private companies is that your trite claim that "each party can walk away" is actually quite clearly untrue for the consumer in each such situation. Market actors should be free to make their own decisions, but monopoly and cartel situations need regulation to prevent consumer harm, and it's clear what this is.
Cash? Paypal? Bitcoin? There may be no other equally-convenient form of card payment, but Visa doesn't have a stranglehold on financial transactions.
Visa does indeed have a near-stranglehold on financial transactions, and the reason is that US governments make it nearly impossible to set up a competing financial transaction processing system. It's generally regarded on HN that it would be legally impossible to create Paypal today, and I believe this is accurate.
There is a famous series of HN posts from some startup trying to get into this space (sorry, can't remember the details - maybe someone else can fill in). The horrorshow of getting "money transmitter licenses" and working through compliance issues in 50 different states (plus federal) made it impossible.
There is not a free market for transaction processing in this country. A small handful of companies are grandfathered into what is effectively a government enforced monopoly. So they need to be treated like the quasi-public utilities they are.
There is a famous series of HN posts from some startup trying to get into this space (sorry, can't remember the details - maybe someone else can fill in). The horrorshow of getting "money transmitter licenses" and working through compliance issues in 50 different states (plus federal) made it impossible.
There is not a free market for transaction processing in this country. A small handful of companies are grandfathered into what is effectively a government enforced monopoly. So they need to be treated like the quasi-public utilities they are.
> Cash?
This has to be intentionally obtuse, we're talking about online payment processors...
> Bitcoin?
So easy to use, so stable
> PayPal
Yes, you're right, in the US it's more of a tri-opoly than a duopoly - you'll note globally it's more of a duopoly. But that's pretty far from supporting claims like "Visa doesn't have a stranglehold on financial transactions". Visa and MasterCard usually move in some form of legal tandem from what I've seen, which returns us to the original point: arguing about idealistic "market" conditions in a captured, distinctly not-free market is foolish at best and intentionally misleading in this case.
This has to be intentionally obtuse, we're talking about online payment processors...
> Bitcoin?
So easy to use, so stable
> PayPal
Yes, you're right, in the US it's more of a tri-opoly than a duopoly - you'll note globally it's more of a duopoly. But that's pretty far from supporting claims like "Visa doesn't have a stranglehold on financial transactions". Visa and MasterCard usually move in some form of legal tandem from what I've seen, which returns us to the original point: arguing about idealistic "market" conditions in a captured, distinctly not-free market is foolish at best and intentionally misleading in this case.
At the end of the day PayPal, Stripe, Square, etc. are beholden to Visa and MasterCard and not really competitors.
Ok - I run a charity that makes is easier for illegal migrants to find housing and avoid deportation. This is illegal - should VISA cut me off?
I have absolutely zero doubt that there are many people in the USA who would agree that VISA should cut you off.
> ... makes is easier for illegal migrants to find housing and avoid deportation. This is illegal
Is that in fact illegal?
Is that in fact illegal?
People answered you yes on all counts, and I agree. It's the law and if we want it to be different then we need to change it. Why complicate it anymore than that. Instead, this is us using extra legal and potentially illegal means to enact what we argue is change but is just propagating more chaos and unfairness all around.
>> charity that makes is easier for illegal migrants to find housing
How is that illegal? Illegal immigrants may be in the country illegally, but that doesn't mean that everything they do while in the country is also illegal. We don't have outlawry anymore. Such concepts don't work in the modern world.
How is that illegal? Illegal immigrants may be in the country illegally, but that doesn't mean that everything they do while in the country is also illegal. We don't have outlawry anymore. Such concepts don't work in the modern world.
You're aiding them in breaking the law.
So should they be allowed to buy food? Should hospitals treat them? If a police officer stops them from being attacked, is that police officer helping them too? Is it a crime to invite an illegal immigrant over for dinner? As I said, we have abandoned outlawry. The crime is the illegal crossing of the boarder and/or the failure to leave when obligated. Everything else, one's day-to-day existence, are not separate crimes. Those days ended centuries ago.
Only if you're actively smuggling them into the country.
It's the difference between selling a bag of rice to a killer for hire, and selling a gun to a killer for hire.
It's the difference between selling a bag of rice to a killer for hire, and selling a gun to a killer for hire.
[deleted]
VISA can do what it wants but this is morally reprehensible. Not really a good example when you're doing something that's way worse than porn.
If a joke is so dumb you feel like you should set up a new greenbean account to post it, why not improve HN by not making the joke at all?
[deleted]
Yes...?
Ok - how about facilitating abortions in Texas? Selling imported insulin to diabetics?
Is that imported insulin un-patented and FDA approved?
nobody gives a shit about the ethics it's about the law
Yes and yes
Yes, plus you should be prosecuted for aiding and abetting. You make a mockery of the legal immigrants who have to painfully deal with the official system.
> We wouldn't expect UPS to deliver cocaine once they become aware that a particular customer is using UPS to ship drugs.
That's why you ship your drugs with the USPS. But this is more like mailing a check for drugs.
That's why you ship your drugs with the USPS. But this is more like mailing a check for drugs.
I don't want companies actively facilitating illegal activity but at the same time I don't want it to be on private entities to determine when someone is too criminal to do generic business with. If Mindgeeks ads are so criminal they shouldn't be allowed then the justice department needs to declare that directly, it shouldn't fall on payment processors to solve.
No, but if they could have state power they could.
Private companies after a certain size (which Visa certainly qualifies) have to be forced to be open and neutral - they'd expand their power to anything they can given the chance.
(Same goes for the government, but at least that you get to vote for).
Private companies after a certain size (which Visa certainly qualifies) have to be forced to be open and neutral - they'd expand their power to anything they can given the chance.
(Same goes for the government, but at least that you get to vote for).
> but at least that you get to vote for).
Unbridled optimism.
Unbridled optimism.
No, but we probably don't want them profiting off of child pornography either.
They're trying to prevent the law from being used against them. From the article:
A federal judge in California on Friday denied Visa’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit by a woman who accuses the payment processor of knowingly facilitating the distribution of child pornography on Pornhub and other sites operated by parent company MindGeek.
A federal judge in California on Friday denied Visa’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit by a woman who accuses the payment processor of knowingly facilitating the distribution of child pornography on Pornhub and other sites operated by parent company MindGeek.
The real costs here are not from the expected outcome of the lawsuit (which is unlikely to succeed), but from the discovery and other legal costs. When large companies are defendants/respondents in lawsuits like this, the costs of going to trial are astronomical.
I think Visa doesn't mind the law as much as the legal system.
I think Visa doesn't mind the law as much as the legal system.
Credit card companies have an incredible amount of influence: they're effectively gate-keepers for monetization on the web.
There's a long history of them blacklisting people and even using their influence to pressure companies from removing them.
There's a long history of them blacklisting people and even using their influence to pressure companies from removing them.
We want private companies to be in the business of rule enforcement, IMO.
Some want to prevent monopolies from having too much influence over commerce but it's far from the majority (based on all available evidence).
Some want to prevent monopolies from having too much influence over commerce but it's far from the majority (based on all available evidence).
Dropping a customer is not law enforcement. There are other credit card payment processors. This really only affects companies who purchase ads on PornHub. Those companies are usually very shady, run by people like Andrew Tate
> There are other credit card payment processors.
No other processors are allowed to take their payments either, it's on the Visa/MC network level.
No other processors are allowed to take their payments either, it's on the Visa/MC network level.
It's similar to DMCA takedowns. They aren't responsible for investigations.
I think the answer is that we love private companies in the business of law enforcement, because private companies are allowed to do things we pretty consistently tell the government not to do. The government will even blackmail or extort private companies into doing law enforcement, if they can find the leverage.
I don't personally care one whit about the fortunes of Pornhub but this sets a very bad precedent for the internet. The payment processing duopoly is a huge problem, they are able to dictate way too much of what is allowed to exist on the internet. Today it's illegal pornography that everybody agrees is terrible, but that's how it always starts. The safe targets, the stuff nobody objects to, to establish precedent. Once they have this power to censor it is extremely hard to walk it back.
I think legal porn (e. g. featuring consenting adults) is generally a-okay and shouldn't be illegal or banned... but I also don't need much convincing to believe MindGeek and Pornhub are bad actors. It simply isn't in their financial interest to protect people who need and deserve protecting, and so they didn't/don't. Anti-porn groups couldn't ask for more ideal enemies.
Yes, I know that the vast majority of the content they post is perfectly fine and legal. But enough of it isn't, and they are lax enough in checking, that they kinda deserve punishment at this point.
But I also don't think porn is going away. I hope whoever replaces them (looking at you, OnlyFans) is less scummy, so it is easier to defend them.
Yes, I know that the vast majority of the content they post is perfectly fine and legal. But enough of it isn't, and they are lax enough in checking, that they kinda deserve punishment at this point.
But I also don't think porn is going away. I hope whoever replaces them (looking at you, OnlyFans) is less scummy, so it is easier to defend them.
Leaving porn aside....Bitcoin FTW
This is what Satoshi was talking about; "Commerce on the Internet has come to rely almost exclusively on financial institutions serving as trusted third parties to process electronic payments. While the system works well enough for most transactions, it still suffers from the inherent weaknesses of the trust based model[0]."
So I need to trust and rely on Visa, MasterCard and other credit card companies not to cut me off their network? And they can do it anytime because they might not like my business, my business model or my business practices. If business is legal and up and running just let it be.
[0] https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
This is what Satoshi was talking about; "Commerce on the Internet has come to rely almost exclusively on financial institutions serving as trusted third parties to process electronic payments. While the system works well enough for most transactions, it still suffers from the inherent weaknesses of the trust based model[0]."
So I need to trust and rely on Visa, MasterCard and other credit card companies not to cut me off their network? And they can do it anytime because they might not like my business, my business model or my business practices. If business is legal and up and running just let it be.
[0] https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
I've been thinking of what happened with the Canadian truckers. Irrespective of whether you believe their cause, the ability for the state (Canada) to freeze bank accounts is disturbing.
With the general use of centralized crypto exchange, we just swapped two masters (Visa/Mastercard) with another (Coinbase).
Of course with private wallets, we could technically avoid centralized exchanges, but the on/off ramps to crypto (fiat in/out) with the state KYC requirements, an authoritarian state could still go after the linked bank accounts.
Welcome suggestions on the way forward. Maybe decentralized exchanges?
With the general use of centralized crypto exchange, we just swapped two masters (Visa/Mastercard) with another (Coinbase).
Of course with private wallets, we could technically avoid centralized exchanges, but the on/off ramps to crypto (fiat in/out) with the state KYC requirements, an authoritarian state could still go after the linked bank accounts.
Welcome suggestions on the way forward. Maybe decentralized exchanges?
I recommend this podcast-miniseries "Hot Money: porn, power and profit" by the Financial Times:
https://www.ft.com/content/762e4648-06d7-4abd-8d1e-ccefb74b3...
It spends quite a bit of time explaining how the credit card companies became the de-facto regulators of porn on the Internet.
https://www.ft.com/content/762e4648-06d7-4abd-8d1e-ccefb74b3...
It spends quite a bit of time explaining how the credit card companies became the de-facto regulators of porn on the Internet.
These card companies have too much power. Companies engaged in the kava trade (vendors, kava bars, etc) have a very hard time with payments processors and banks due to the strict rules of Visa and Mastercard despite kava being a legal dietary supplement in the US.
Bill Ackman has been vocal on this issue and check out his Twitter for more commentary on this. He feels Visa's board is in big trouble here.
>> He feels Visa's board is in big trouble here.
Visa is too big to ever be in big trouble. They constantly have some class of customers that are "dangerous" to do business with. Once upon a time it was porn websites. Then it was VPNs. Then it was "filesharing" services. Eventually as these thing become normal and better-understood by the general public Visa relents. The only thing Visa really fears is some upstart payment system eating into their territory (paypal).
Visa is too big to ever be in big trouble. They constantly have some class of customers that are "dangerous" to do business with. Once upon a time it was porn websites. Then it was VPNs. Then it was "filesharing" services. Eventually as these thing become normal and better-understood by the general public Visa relents. The only thing Visa really fears is some upstart payment system eating into their territory (paypal).
IANAL but I believe the board can be held criminally liable in this situation, meaning they could serve jail time. I've, admittedly, only skimmed some articles, but I believe the issue is that PornHub (mindgeek) knowingly hosted child porn and even after Visa was made aware, continued to do business with them. I could be wrong though.
The danger too is a bit of the Streisand effect was ongoing. Footage that was taken down became more popular when re-uploaded. From the outside, it looked like Mindgeek was not implementing industry-standard protocols to prevent repeated uploads. And they were pulling "windfall" profits from those re-uploads. The situation looked too similar to the "Girls Gone Wild" and later fiascos involving non-professional pornographic content.
Central Bank currencies are starting to look better and better. At least then it is the government deciding. And that might be controlled by voters. Or violent revolutions.
How is that a better option? The people pushing these anti-porn movements by dragging payment processors to court also have massive influence within the government, they would simply forbid any use of their currency on unapproved items.
I think the trick here will ultimately be to add a layer of indirection. Mindgeek could launch a bazillion internet bodegas that sell gift certificates that happened to be redeemable at Pornhub and their other properties. They could operate their ad business over regular banking networks. Basically anything and everything ti make it more complicated for Visa and Mastercard to simply look up Mindgeek and block the account. It would also provide some relief to Visa/Mastercard since they could say truthfully that they don't do business with Mindgeek. You can also counter the bad propaganda by pointing out that Visa/Mastercard are still very active selling alcohol, tobacco, narcotics, gambling (half the US states allow you to buy lottery tickets with credit cards, all the casinos take credit cards), guns, and pretty much every other vice. Though I don't think their role in purchasing guns makes them accomplices to murder anymore then processing a payment for a porn site makes them an co-conspirator to anything related to that. But if they want to make the case that they are then that sets precedent they are co-conspirators for everything else as well.
why don't they just build their own payment processor :^)
Ironically, this move on the part of the payment processors will likely lead to adoption of alternative methods of payment for these sites... which will make it even harder to track down the truly illegal stuff.
That's how we got bitcoin. Wikileaks was dropped by Visa and other payment providers. Everyone then looked for an unblockable payment system, which moved bitcoin from a niche tool to the "cool" form of payment.
And it terrified the federal government.
By definition, if you don't do what VISA is doing, the regulatory state will declare you an illegal payment processor.
Like it or not, part of the baggage of doing that service is being an extension of the long arm of the law.
So "rolling your own" minus the regulatory baggage you don't like, isn't per se "making your own payment processor", but something else.
Bit of a Catch-22, but how it works. Everyone just tends to leave the quiet part unsaid.
Like it or not, part of the baggage of doing that service is being an extension of the long arm of the law.
So "rolling your own" minus the regulatory baggage you don't like, isn't per se "making your own payment processor", but something else.
Bit of a Catch-22, but how it works. Everyone just tends to leave the quiet part unsaid.
Pornhub is committing the crime here. Visa was just processing payments here - and isn't any more, since they stopped it. Why isn't everyone talking about pornhub and demanding them to ban that?
Pornhub essentially is already their own payment processor, as it looks like they are processing cryptocurrency payments from the customers.
Pornhub essentially is already their own payment processor, as it looks like they are processing cryptocurrency payments from the customers.
The state is saying Visa is committing the crime. The states media cheerleaders are squawking it to all that will listen.
If Visa loses, payment processors have little choice but to remove processing from sites that allow user generated content, including Reddit. They are legally responsible for all under-18 content, and as "Big Evil Corporations" they have no support from anyone in the community that matters.
The EU and UK is even worse in this regard, so no anonymous commercial social networks will ever be created again.
If Visa loses, payment processors have little choice but to remove processing from sites that allow user generated content, including Reddit. They are legally responsible for all under-18 content, and as "Big Evil Corporations" they have no support from anyone in the community that matters.
The EU and UK is even worse in this regard, so no anonymous commercial social networks will ever be created again.
I just don't know what that would look like. If they try to take VISA's place, banks might block transfers to them making it impossible for people to pay their tab. They could try switching to crypto but the value of those aren't really stable and somewhat risky in that sense. Onramps like Coinbase have to turn in or block users who are caught using the service to buy drugs or whatever and I don't see why they wouldn't block accounts known to be buying porn or monero too.
We need a federal law that indemnifies them from lawsuits as long as they drop a client after they have been convicted of a crime. That puts the onus on the plaintiff to prove that a customer has done wrong, and gives the bank/payment processor enough notice to remove that customer, rather than suing the bank/payment processor because someone might have done something wrong.
Well, that's tricky because then you have any number of corporations that could sell illegal content, and Visa would simply wait for a conviction which can take quite some time given how slow the legal system is.
Making it Visa's responsibility forces them to be proactive. We're dealing with a case of illegal porn involving underage victims so I think that makes sense. Mindgeek has taken steps to fix the problem but maybe Visa isn't convinced that they've done enough.
Making it Visa's responsibility forces them to be proactive. We're dealing with a case of illegal porn involving underage victims so I think that makes sense. Mindgeek has taken steps to fix the problem but maybe Visa isn't convinced that they've done enough.
But that's the whole problem! We go "underage victims!" and then stop thinking. We are focusing on the potential harm, without considering the actual harm. Our irrational fear of abuse is causing us to create abuse.
By allowing policies that crack down on the entire sexwork industry, more women, children, trans people, etc are hurt, than are hurt by the actual criminals making child porn or sex trafficking. When everything goes underground and there is no well-regulated marketplace, people get exploited and abused. There's hundreds of interviews with sexworkers who all talk about how their work is more dangerous now.
Pressuring Visa makes all porn go underground, which includes child porn and trafficking. That leads to more harm, because there's no visibility and no protection.
If we didn't pressure Visa, and instead had a flourishing open market that was monitored, regulated and policed, it would be easier to notice the illegal activity and move to stop it. A Department of Sexwork could work directly with Visa and content creators to develop sophisticated methods to identify and stop illegal activity.
But since it's harder to see abuse when everything is underground, politicians prefer it that way. If you don't notice the abuse happening, must not be happening; problem solved. No US politician will get voted out of office for banning sexwork, and Visa's bottom line won't get hurt either, even if it does result in more actual harm to people.
By allowing policies that crack down on the entire sexwork industry, more women, children, trans people, etc are hurt, than are hurt by the actual criminals making child porn or sex trafficking. When everything goes underground and there is no well-regulated marketplace, people get exploited and abused. There's hundreds of interviews with sexworkers who all talk about how their work is more dangerous now.
Pressuring Visa makes all porn go underground, which includes child porn and trafficking. That leads to more harm, because there's no visibility and no protection.
If we didn't pressure Visa, and instead had a flourishing open market that was monitored, regulated and policed, it would be easier to notice the illegal activity and move to stop it. A Department of Sexwork could work directly with Visa and content creators to develop sophisticated methods to identify and stop illegal activity.
But since it's harder to see abuse when everything is underground, politicians prefer it that way. If you don't notice the abuse happening, must not be happening; problem solved. No US politician will get voted out of office for banning sexwork, and Visa's bottom line won't get hurt either, even if it does result in more actual harm to people.
I don't think that's what's happening. Visa is still usable on many other porn sites. The difference is a lot of the content on Pornhub is/was user uploaded and the process for documenting the legality of the content was a lot more loose. Commercial sites have everything very well documented and they know exactly who is in their content. If anything, Visa is pushing out user generated content in favor of more organized, glossy operations.
If the only choice becomes to either make money or not, crypto may be the answer.
Yeah, many creators and pr0n companies will tone down their content. But we all know that consumption of pr0n doesn't lead to more vanilla tastes. The more "deviant" acts will find ways to make revenue outside the mainstream and then all it will take is a critical mass for some digital currency to mean something.
Yeah, many creators and pr0n companies will tone down their content. But we all know that consumption of pr0n doesn't lead to more vanilla tastes. The more "deviant" acts will find ways to make revenue outside the mainstream and then all it will take is a critical mass for some digital currency to mean something.
Sure, but what I'm saying is that for most people, they'll need to buy the crypto with USD. Any time you're interacting with the regular banking system, it's possible to ban accounts who are buying illegal, or even just unseemly content. The only way really around it is if people start buying crypto with cash irl. This is a lot of friction for people. It may simply be easier to buy professional content from studios that only work with legal performers.
I would call Visa a card network here. Sure, the card network processes payments, but there's other entities called payment processors.
The whole stack includes the merchant, the payment processor (think CyberCash, Authorize.net, PayPal, Stripe, Verifone, NCR, etc), the merchant bank, the card network, the issuing bank, and the customer.
If the card network won't deal with you, you've got to build your own card network and issue cards or convince customer banks to issue cards, and convince processors to process them and merchants to accept them etc. I don't know how many adverisers PH has, it might be easier to just ask them to write checks.
The whole stack includes the merchant, the payment processor (think CyberCash, Authorize.net, PayPal, Stripe, Verifone, NCR, etc), the merchant bank, the card network, the issuing bank, and the customer.
If the card network won't deal with you, you've got to build your own card network and issue cards or convince customer banks to issue cards, and convince processors to process them and merchants to accept them etc. I don't know how many adverisers PH has, it might be easier to just ask them to write checks.
seriously, if you were Visa what would you do ?
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-62372964
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-62372964
What a mess.
They started requiring age verification for the people in uploaded videos but maybe they should take it a step further and only accept content from approved accounts, like reputable studios that keep records.
They started requiring age verification for the people in uploaded videos but maybe they should take it a step further and only accept content from approved accounts, like reputable studios that keep records.
One of the reasons why pornhub is popular is that it lets individual users create a professional looking channel for themselves and has subscriptions which it takes a cut of. The approved accounts thing already exists and pornhub has already purged old/unverified content in the name of safety once, in December 2020. It removed removed around 10 million videos. Visa and Mastercard already went through this process with pornhub and other mindgeek-owned websites. https://www.theverge.com/2020/12/14/22173858/pornhub-videos-...
Yeah, I remember reading about that. Maybe visa needs better assurances that they aren't going to get nailed again by being their payment processor.
They already are: Google for 2257 records keeping requirements.
Visa only cares about money, just like every other megacorp. They will take as much money as they can for whatever they can, the only reason they're suspending payments is because they are facing legal liabilities. What other choice do they have?
A timely podcast about some of this is Hot Money: Who Rules Porn. Pushkin Industries and the Financial Times. Dives into some of the history of the industry, payment processors, and so on.
"Visa condemns sex trafficking, sexual exploitation, and child sexual abuse"
What a brave stance. It's nice to see a card network that cares about the children.
What a brave stance. It's nice to see a card network that cares about the children.
Do they care about the children or their reputation?
The Financial Times released an 8 episode podcast titled Hot Money on who controls the industry. The podcast isn't appropriate for everyone, but is a great listen.
The Financial Times released an 8 episode podcast titled Hot Money on who controls the industry. The podcast isn't appropriate for everyone, but is a great listen.
I think they were being sarcastic. At least I’d hope so. Not sure any company that large actually cares
"For the children," is often an excuse by organizations to do nefarious things, like the still ongoing and massively destructive drug war.
Pretty sure he was being sarcastic. Nobody uses the phrase "the children" unironically in current year.
It’s hilarious to me that ads for porn are just more porn
A fierce competition for the people who might actually pay.
Google does not allow anything that shows tits even if covered. And google gatekeeps advertising. But i remember decades ago, late night shows on TV which were almost soft porn had lots of ads, especially alcohol/cigarettes. We live in neovictorian times.
Wow, finally a legitimate use case for cryptocurrencies!
In all seriousness, this nonsense is exactly why I continue to support crypto to this day. Visa, Mastercard and some random court jurisdiction in some random country should not have a say in whom I transact with.
In all seriousness, this nonsense is exactly why I continue to support crypto to this day. Visa, Mastercard and some random court jurisdiction in some random country should not have a say in whom I transact with.
Awaiting for when they will suspend payments to facebook , where a lot more child porn is uploaded. I hope visa is forced to expand this on all adult websites and even further. Maybe some of the cryptocurrencies will finally do what they were designed to do
These companies need to be regulated like any other utility. But no one will because they're hoping to use private companies to at morality police in a way governments are not allowed to.
I find it hard to believe Visa and Mastercard were unaware of what MindGeek does. Why reach to a situation which can be a PR disaster and avoid these companies altogether?
It should be a law to require human approval before any porn content is posted. I mean for obvious hints of minor presence. They can require government id for account creation as well. Moreover, "Teen (18+)", "barely legal" and similar content should not be allowed.
You would think DRM would have been all about enforcing this instead of corporate greed.
You would think DRM would have been all about enforcing this instead of corporate greed.
Welcome to hear from. The damages of widespread available pornography and the child exploitation rings around them are outraging. These websites are a gateway into cam sites and shady kik group chats where adult men sext minors. This is my perspective, being a victim myself.
But I thought we don't need VISA anymore? We can just use the latest crypto /s
Well, cases like that make me think we actually DO need crypto. We do need an equivalent of digital cash, because what some CEOs or board members think and do shouldn't influence whether you can pay your rent or not. It's really as simple as that. If you can learn to drive a car and not kill a massive amount of people in the process, you can probably also learn how to operate a crypto wallet safely.
Another reason that we need a decentralised blockchain and a decentralised stable coin.
By definition, you can't have a coin be stable while at the same time not having a centralized instance that keep it "stable". Those are oxymorons. It's one, or the other.
We can't just repeat any buzzword without thinking about what exactly does it actually mean in practice.
We can't just repeat any buzzword without thinking about what exactly does it actually mean in practice.
Decentralised stablecoins, such as Dai, do exist, and the price of Dai does manage to maintain its peg pretty well. Not all decentralised stablecoins have done as well (most notably TerraUSD) though, it's definitely hard to design an algorithmic stablecoin that maintains its peg.
I think that commenter means it's logically impossible. In what sense is DAI "decentralized" if its value is set by the same centralized group that sets the value of a dollar?
Mind sharing where you got that definition from?
Though bitcoin volatility has been going down along the years, it might be quite stable after 10 years or so.
Section 230 rocks! I love watching an endless stream of porn with clearly unwitting female subjects. Visa needs to stay in their lane!
Basically, a court recently ruled that, since Visa is processing payments for ad purchases on Pornhub, Visa is a co-conspirator on all sex trafficking and child porn that Pornhub is involved with. Apparently Pornhub merely being alleged to have engaged in those activities is sufficient knowledge to constitute a "meeting of the minds" for Visa to become a participant in those activities.
(As you might imagine, I vehemently disagree with that ruling. But as it's the ruling that stands, it's the situation that Visa finds itself in, and were I in Visa's shoes, I'd do exactly the same thing they're doing now. They really don't want to be a part of this--and they really shouldn't be a part of this, and dumping Pornhub's ad purchases is the fastest route they can take to not be a part of this, as problematic as it is.)