Visa ‘Intended to Help’ Pornhub Monetize Child Porn, Judge Preliminarily Finds(variety.com)
variety.com
Visa ‘Intended to Help’ Pornhub Monetize Child Porn, Judge Preliminarily Finds
https://variety.com/2022/digital/news/pornhub-visa-child-pornography-court-ruling-1235330052/
13 comments
As the other comment pointed out the obvious, that Mindgeek allowed user generated content, specifically to monetize it, and didn't have proper safeguards in place to check it, then yes of course they facilitated it.
>as long as all participants are consenting human adults, who cares and why?
This brings up an interesting question - is porn a net positive or net negative for society?
>as long as all participants are consenting human adults, who cares and why?
This brings up an interesting question - is porn a net positive or net negative for society?
They certainly had monetised videos which they hadn't invested nearly enough effort into checking weren't of minors:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/04/opinion/sunday/pornhub-ra...
"not doing enough to combat" and actively deciding to monetise child porn aren't really the same thing.
"We're going to allow people to upload porn, and we're not going to check whether the people in videos titled 'thirteen' are adults." is actively deciding to monetise child porn.
We have no idea what they knew (did it even occur to them that CP would be blatantly labelled as such?), nor what they intended.
I think pornhub is doing about as much as a business can do to insure the content on their website is legal. The attachment of a child porn accusation seems overblown, and I can't quite put my finger on it... It's like a nuclear option against an opponent: If you really want to hurt a company, or person, accuse them of trafficking, child porn, etc.
I guess this offers an explanation for why payment processors ran like hell from porn.
Disclaimer: I worked for a payment processor that handled a large portion of adult site traffic.
Payment processors categorize porn sites as a high-risk businesses because of the higher likelihood of chargebacks from customers who spot such a transaction on their statement. The processing, upfront, and recurring fees are higher than normal merchants to factor in this risk, and one or more card networks have explicit rules on which content is acceptable for purchase (guided mostly by laws against bestiality and the scenarios in which urine and feces are presented).
Payment processors categorize porn sites as a high-risk businesses because of the higher likelihood of chargebacks from customers who spot such a transaction on their statement. The processing, upfront, and recurring fees are higher than normal merchants to factor in this risk, and one or more card networks have explicit rules on which content is acceptable for purchase (guided mostly by laws against bestiality and the scenarios in which urine and feces are presented).
I recall an article here criticizing the payment processors for having too much power by censoring content. The crowd here took the usual libertarian stance of this control being a bad idea. But it seems reasonable to also support the rights of companies to do whatever they want when it's to avoid and even small risk of criminal liability.
Isn't that on extremely flakey ground? Mindgeek is a legitimate business, they probably didn't "decide to monetize child porn" - they're based in Canada and that would mean jail time for a bunch of people from the company.
It's pretty sad that the whole legitimateporn industry, worldwide, is ruled based on what two US-based payment companies decide, and that is defined based on what they fear they might be sued for. It shouldn't be a free for all with child porn and bestiality and etc. but as long as all participants are consenting human adults, who cares and why?