Sex workers say 'defunding Pornhub' puts their livelihoods at risk(bbc.com)
bbc.com
Sex workers say 'defunding Pornhub' puts their livelihoods at risk
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-55551300
174 comments
This is an important question in terms of all work.
But even without being able to answer it, restricting sex workers' choices via deplatforming and criminalisation invariably makes them less safe, so I'd argue that we should stop doing that anyway.
Letting them actually report exploitation to the police would be a start (and no, swedish model bullshit doesn't achieve that, if you criminalise any part of the transaction they realistically can't take full advantage of the existing protections under law).
But even without being able to answer it, restricting sex workers' choices via deplatforming and criminalisation invariably makes them less safe, so I'd argue that we should stop doing that anyway.
Letting them actually report exploitation to the police would be a start (and no, swedish model bullshit doesn't achieve that, if you criminalise any part of the transaction they realistically can't take full advantage of the existing protections under law).
Completely agree with both you and gp.
IMHO, the "right" way to fix these issues is to make sure people have a choice.
Many girls get into sex work because it's either sex or starve. We need to (as a society), give these people a third alternative. Ideally, this would result in only people who WANT to be sex workers to go down that path (pretty much like only people who WANT to be CEOs are CEOs).
IMHO, the "right" way to fix these issues is to make sure people have a choice.
Many girls get into sex work because it's either sex or starve. We need to (as a society), give these people a third alternative. Ideally, this would result in only people who WANT to be sex workers to go down that path (pretty much like only people who WANT to be CEOs are CEOs).
I could not agree more.
Same way you ensure any other person isn’t being exploited. Society provides resources allowing the person to have the opportunity to not be leveraged into exploitation as their only option.
Yeah, not so much. North American developed countries aren't shining examples of labor protection champions. I'd refer to parts of Europe [1] and New Zealand [2] on how to protect sex workers in a more substantial way.
[1] https://www.nswp.org/sites/nswp.org/files/Declaration_bookle...
[2] https://www.nzpc.org.nz/The-New-Zealand-Model
[1] https://www.nswp.org/sites/nswp.org/files/Declaration_bookle...
[2] https://www.nzpc.org.nz/The-New-Zealand-Model
Well that and the labor protections we do provide end up primarily benefiting businesses and unions over the individual workers themselves.
Same here in Europe. I don't believe it's possible to have unions (or governments) that work for the individual.
It's possible but the majority of stakeholders need to be actively engaged in managing that entity. Otherwise it will be taken oven by the bad actors trying to primarily benefit themselves.
Yeah, but that ceases to work once that entity is too large. I personally think the limit is around 50 or so, but I don't see the need for union in a 50-head company.
I've literally never seen a functioning union anywhere I went (I live in Europe). Everyone I met in my life, in a bar, etc is angry at their unions.
I've literally never seen a functioning union anywhere I went (I live in Europe). Everyone I met in my life, in a bar, etc is angry at their unions.
> I personally think the limit is around 50
Incidentally, I personally think the limit for communist societies is around 50 people or so.
Incidentally, I personally think the limit for communist societies is around 50 people or so.
Agreed! My experience from (adult) summer camps etc is that after 50 or so it becomes impossible to know what's everyone up to, and distrust starts rooting.
Another issue is that people have unrealistic idea about what can and should be done in a day/week/month. They don't care about their own work nearly that much, and will forgive themselves a lot, but will expect others to upheld that unrealistic standard.
Another issue is that people have unrealistic idea about what can and should be done in a day/week/month. They don't care about their own work nearly that much, and will forgive themselves a lot, but will expect others to upheld that unrealistic standard.
Definitely not the same "in Europe". Maybe in some of it (after all the two biggest countries in Europe is Russia and Ukraine). In Scandinavia unions work really well for the most part - at least extremely well compared to the US. It is one of the biggest reasons for the Scandinavian model.
I'd say "most of it", you're right that there are two countries where it seems to work at least a little - at great costs though, I have many Scandinavian colleagues (working in hi-tech fields) that left their country because of overregulation.
There's a survivorship bias here. Of course you are going to meet the people who left the country.
On the flip side, as a native Scandinavian I have many colleagues from outside of Scandinavia that moved here because of many of the things unions have accomplished - 25 days of paid vacation, a culture of working your 8 hours a day and not more than that, and a child care system that allows you to spend more time with your kids.
On the flip side, as a native Scandinavian I have many colleagues from outside of Scandinavia that moved here because of many of the things unions have accomplished - 25 days of paid vacation, a culture of working your 8 hours a day and not more than that, and a child care system that allows you to spend more time with your kids.
Sex workers are vastly exploited in Europe too, sadly.
Not all of them are, but it does not seem like the issue has been solved.
Not all of them are, but it does not seem like the issue has been solved.
I agree, but I think you inverted it.
"Exploitable people are pushed into sex work" is closer to being true than "sex workers are exploited," only because almost no one starts out as a sex worker if they have better opportunities.
"Exploitable people are pushed into sex work" is closer to being true than "sex workers are exploited," only because almost no one starts out as a sex worker if they have better opportunities.
As a NZer this is something I feel like we got very right. It has always just felt like an incredibly sensible and mature approach. It's a lot safer for everyone and it's not a big deal. The sky didn't fall down and the country didn't go astray. It all just got safer for everyone and things continued as normal.
How does this work on the internet where there are a 100+ separate countries involved?
>Same way you ensure any other person isn’t being exploited.
"It's estimated that internationally there are between 20 million and 40 million people in modern slavery today."
"Human trafficking earns global profits of roughly $150 billion a year for traffickers, $99 billion of which comes from commercial sexual exploitation"
"Estimates suggest that about 50,000 people are trafficked into the US each year, most often from Mexico and the Philippines. "
>Society provides resources allowing the person to have the opportunity to not be leveraged into exploitation as their only option.
"In 2018, over half (51.6%) of the criminal human trafficking cases active in the US were sex trafficking cases involving only children"
https://www.dosomething.org/us/facts/11-facts-about-human-tr....
"It's estimated that internationally there are between 20 million and 40 million people in modern slavery today."
"Human trafficking earns global profits of roughly $150 billion a year for traffickers, $99 billion of which comes from commercial sexual exploitation"
"Estimates suggest that about 50,000 people are trafficked into the US each year, most often from Mexico and the Philippines. "
>Society provides resources allowing the person to have the opportunity to not be leveraged into exploitation as their only option.
"In 2018, over half (51.6%) of the criminal human trafficking cases active in the US were sex trafficking cases involving only children"
https://www.dosomething.org/us/facts/11-facts-about-human-tr....
The easier for them to press charges when mistreated, the more control they have over places and customers, the safer they are.
E.g. abilities like hiring bodygourds, platforms that allow them to vet customers etc.
E.g. abilities like hiring bodygourds, platforms that allow them to vet customers etc.
Interesting question, because I would be tempted to say "use the same safeguards as any other labor", but there are definite grey areas there. I suppose a union is the best way to go about it, but I don't know how that helps independents, side gigs, or people just trying to break into the industry..?
sex work should be legalized and regulated, just like marijuana. sex work and porn has been a reality since the beginning of time, and making it "illegal" and letting it fester in dark corners is unhealthy. without proper education, acceptance, and oversight, it encourages predatory behavior and other mental health issues like porn addiction.
you don't have to think "porn is good" or "prostitution is good" to acknowledge that it is something that a large % of men consume and protect workers and consumers. we know that alcohol and drugs are bad, but they're legal and regulators do try to educate and protect the public. why not have the same for sex work?
you don't have to think "porn is good" or "prostitution is good" to acknowledge that it is something that a large % of men consume and protect workers and consumers. we know that alcohol and drugs are bad, but they're legal and regulators do try to educate and protect the public. why not have the same for sex work?
> you don't have to think "porn is good" or "prostitution is good" to acknowledge that it is something that a large % of men consume and protect workers and consumers.
Exactly. Law making isn't about philosophical discussions of good vs evil. It should be about "what's the best way to improve life for people in the real world".
Exactly. Law making isn't about philosophical discussions of good vs evil. It should be about "what's the best way to improve life for people in the real world".
Sex workers prefer decrim to regulation because regulation ends up creating a white market dominated by a few anti-competitive players and a vast black market with all the existing problems.
Source?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DZfUzxZ2VU
Both the video for interviews and the bibliography links in the description.
Both the video for interviews and the bibliography links in the description.
Surely you’re joking. Is this person a sex worker? Or do they have any qualifications to speak on the subject of sex work? Because it seems like a channel dedicated to alt-right/far-right talking points and I don’t consider a Steve Bannon superfan to be an authoritative speaker on the topic of what sex workers want when it comes to their safety.
> Surely you’re joking.
100% serious.
> Is this person a sex worker?
He's a philosopher with an acting day job.
Did you miss where I said "the video for interviews"? The video contains an interview with a sex worker and many short comments by people working in various parts of the sex industry.
> Or do they have any qualifications to speak on the subject of sex work?
He has a degree in philosophy, which is why he mainly discusses the logical implications of various topics. For actual opinions on sex work, he interviews people with first hand knowledge. I also mentioned the presence of a bibliography in the video description.
> seems like a channel dedicated to alt-right/far-right talking points
Where did you get that idea? Philosophy Tube is very strongly on the left. The most popular video on the channel is a very good introduction to antifa.
> a Steve Bannon superfan
LOL - The 2nd most popular video on the channel[1] - which I recommend watching - focuses on explaining how Steve Bannon lies, and a warning about how Bannon's rhetoric will eventually lead people into fascism.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wO6uD3c2qMo
100% serious.
> Is this person a sex worker?
He's a philosopher with an acting day job.
Did you miss where I said "the video for interviews"? The video contains an interview with a sex worker and many short comments by people working in various parts of the sex industry.
> Or do they have any qualifications to speak on the subject of sex work?
He has a degree in philosophy, which is why he mainly discusses the logical implications of various topics. For actual opinions on sex work, he interviews people with first hand knowledge. I also mentioned the presence of a bibliography in the video description.
> seems like a channel dedicated to alt-right/far-right talking points
Where did you get that idea? Philosophy Tube is very strongly on the left. The most popular video on the channel is a very good introduction to antifa.
> a Steve Bannon superfan
LOL - The 2nd most popular video on the channel[1] - which I recommend watching - focuses on explaining how Steve Bannon lies, and a warning about how Bannon's rhetoric will eventually lead people into fascism.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wO6uD3c2qMo
Philosophy Tube is a left wing Youtube channel, what are you talking about?
The porn that has existed since the dawn of time (I guess cave paintings) is qualitatively different from PornHub content. Arguably even there is even a qualitative difference from the situation even 15 years ago. Then, very few 10-year-olds would have had access to unlimited amounts of high definition hardcore porn; now probably the majority in developed countries can.
200 years ago, those 10 year olds would have seen their parents at it pretty regularly. 2000 years ago, they'd have seen everyone in the tribe with their partners.
Are you sure about that? Your claim is that folks during the Enlightenment just regularly wanted into their parents having sex. And moreover you're equating porn to walking in your parents.
And you're saying people in ancient Rome saw everyone in their "tribe" going at it? You do realize that humans weren't cavemen 2000 years ago, right? Ancient Rome/China/etc. had prostitutes and brothels 2000 years ago.
And you're saying people in ancient Rome saw everyone in their "tribe" going at it? You do realize that humans weren't cavemen 2000 years ago, right? Ancient Rome/China/etc. had prostitutes and brothels 2000 years ago.
Folks during the enlightenment were mostly illiterate peasants. Try keeping your sex life a secret when you, your brother, your wives, your parents and 6 kids/orphans all share 1 hut with a single room.
Back in Rome, life was again one room, all share 1 bed etc for most people. Add to that a few examples from their public activity: The poisoner Locusta (the world's first serial killer supposedly) was executed by being raped to death by a specially trained giraffe. Half their pottery is people being killed, the other half is sex scenes. Seriously. You think kids there didn't know what sex looked like?
I don't know why people are shocked by this. It was the Victorians that brought in both the idea of privacy and the idea that sex was sinful and people should hide it.
If you're going to argue for more restrictions on porn, you need to argue from first principles and evidence. You can't harken back to an imaginary time when no one knew where babies came from until the priest told them on their wedding night...
Back in Rome, life was again one room, all share 1 bed etc for most people. Add to that a few examples from their public activity: The poisoner Locusta (the world's first serial killer supposedly) was executed by being raped to death by a specially trained giraffe. Half their pottery is people being killed, the other half is sex scenes. Seriously. You think kids there didn't know what sex looked like?
I don't know why people are shocked by this. It was the Victorians that brought in both the idea of privacy and the idea that sex was sinful and people should hide it.
If you're going to argue for more restrictions on porn, you need to argue from first principles and evidence. You can't harken back to an imaginary time when no one knew where babies came from until the priest told them on their wedding night...
Most families had someone who could read during the enlightenment. It is a simple and useful skill. They probably were not as good as modern people, but the evidence is reading was not as uncommon as we think.
Christans have always had the idea of sexual privacy, something they inherited from the Jews. We have plenty of writing from early Christians that make it clear that they objected to how open the Romans were.
The Victorians might have invented the idea that sex is sinful, but no religion surrives long if there are no children, so I'm not sure how common that belief was. (The shakers of course did have that belief and did well for a few years. I'm not aware of other groups with such beliefs, though I'd be surprised if they were alone)
Christans have always had the idea of sexual privacy, something they inherited from the Jews. We have plenty of writing from early Christians that make it clear that they objected to how open the Romans were.
The Victorians might have invented the idea that sex is sinful, but no religion surrives long if there are no children, so I'm not sure how common that belief was. (The shakers of course did have that belief and did well for a few years. I'm not aware of other groups with such beliefs, though I'd be surprised if they were alone)
"Christans have always had the idea of sexual privacy, something they inherited from the Jews. We have plenty of writing from early Christians that make it clear that they objected to how open the Romans were."
I would like to add more to this. With the fall of Roman Empire, the early Dark and Middle Ages changed perspectives on nudity because of paganism. Most ruins and statues were seen as symbols of idolatry. This view slowly changed with the Renaissance period, as the Catholic Church embraced perspective that man is the image of God. Many famous sculptures and paintings were made in this period.
These artistic works then became censored because of the Council of Trent. The Catholic Church had to implement changes because of Protestant Reformation. This is why many classical works of art have fig leaves. Michelangelo had to come back to his Sistine Chapel painting to censor it, for example.
I would like to add more to this. With the fall of Roman Empire, the early Dark and Middle Ages changed perspectives on nudity because of paganism. Most ruins and statues were seen as symbols of idolatry. This view slowly changed with the Renaissance period, as the Catholic Church embraced perspective that man is the image of God. Many famous sculptures and paintings were made in this period.
These artistic works then became censored because of the Council of Trent. The Catholic Church had to implement changes because of Protestant Reformation. This is why many classical works of art have fig leaves. Michelangelo had to come back to his Sistine Chapel painting to censor it, for example.
I don't think this is true. "copulation normally conducted in privacy" is a human universal http://joelvelasco.net/teaching/2890/brownlisthumanuniversal...
It would really be ideal if some of these sex workers could get their own platform. Pornhub seems like it was frankly unresponsive on a lot of serious concerns until they were forced to deal with them by the panic articles that went around last month
And frankly it seems to me like it's still trivial to go on there and find what seems to me to be a lot of content that has dubious consent or related issues.
These performers would be better off with a platform that was highly moderated, something Pornhub and the sites similar to it don't seem to be able to (or want to) properly do.
And frankly it seems to me like it's still trivial to go on there and find what seems to me to be a lot of content that has dubious consent or related issues.
These performers would be better off with a platform that was highly moderated, something Pornhub and the sites similar to it don't seem to be able to (or want to) properly do.
It would really be ideal if some of these sex workers could get their own platform.
Then they'll go after the platform infrastructure (AWS), or any other fundamental aspect. Peer pressure.
We've been warning for ages: the Cancel Everyone game the NYT and others with very loud voices are playing is a dangerous one.
Then they'll go after the platform infrastructure (AWS), or any other fundamental aspect. Peer pressure.
We've been warning for ages: the Cancel Everyone game the NYT and others with very loud voices are playing is a dangerous one.
OnlyFans seems to be having no issues. I do find it funny how "this site is filled with a lot of rape and child porn" is being framed as "it's being cancelled for no reason." No, there is a reason and other sites with better policies aren't being targeted.
> I do find it funny how "this site is filled with a lot of rape and child porn" is being framed as "it's being cancelled for no reason."
It's because this is the wrong way to deal with that issue.
The fairly obviously correct way to do it is that you have law enforcement investigate instances of child pornography, arrest the creators for it, and then issue a court order to the hosting sites to remove the specific instances that they've found.
The content gets removed. The correct people to go jail. If there was a mistake, the site and the uploader have standing to challenge the order.
Who ever thought it was a good idea to turn websites into the police? It's not their job, they're bad at it, don't do that.
It's because this is the wrong way to deal with that issue.
The fairly obviously correct way to do it is that you have law enforcement investigate instances of child pornography, arrest the creators for it, and then issue a court order to the hosting sites to remove the specific instances that they've found.
The content gets removed. The correct people to go jail. If there was a mistake, the site and the uploader have standing to challenge the order.
Who ever thought it was a good idea to turn websites into the police? It's not their job, they're bad at it, don't do that.
According to the NY Times article, what you suggest is exactly what people have tried to do.
However, according to the article, it was really hard to get Pornhub to remove illegal videos. And since videos could be downloaded and uploaded by anyone, removed videos quickly showed up on the website again and again.
Sex abuse victims have been fighting for years to keep their videos off Pornhub, yet they show up again and again.
Pornhub is the only one making money from the videos, so I do think it's their job to keep rape videos off the site. The police can't spend all their time making sure no anonymous users reupload illegal videos again and again.
However, according to the article, it was really hard to get Pornhub to remove illegal videos. And since videos could be downloaded and uploaded by anyone, removed videos quickly showed up on the website again and again.
Sex abuse victims have been fighting for years to keep their videos off Pornhub, yet they show up again and again.
Pornhub is the only one making money from the videos, so I do think it's their job to keep rape videos off the site. The police can't spend all their time making sure no anonymous users reupload illegal videos again and again.
> However, according to the article, it was really hard to get Pornhub to remove illegal videos.
You're saying that if you go to them with a court order, they don't comply with it? So then have the court find them in contempt. This requires no involvement from Visa or Mastercard.
> And since videos could be downloaded and uploaded by anyone, removed videos quickly showed up on the website again and again.
How are they supposed to know it's the same video? Compare every video to every other one? The uploader would presumably just reencode the video or make whatever other changes to evade an automated system, and a manual system is infeasible. And no matter what Pornhub does, there are six quintillion porn hosting sites on the internet and it would just end up on a different one.
The correct answer is for the police to investigate who is continuing to upload them and impose penalties. Then no more uploads, no more video.
You're saying that if you go to them with a court order, they don't comply with it? So then have the court find them in contempt. This requires no involvement from Visa or Mastercard.
> And since videos could be downloaded and uploaded by anyone, removed videos quickly showed up on the website again and again.
How are they supposed to know it's the same video? Compare every video to every other one? The uploader would presumably just reencode the video or make whatever other changes to evade an automated system, and a manual system is infeasible. And no matter what Pornhub does, there are six quintillion porn hosting sites on the internet and it would just end up on a different one.
The correct answer is for the police to investigate who is continuing to upload them and impose penalties. Then no more uploads, no more video.
> You're saying that if you go to them with a court order, they don't comply with it?
No, I'm saying it's hard for sex abuse victims to get their videos off Pornhub.
> How are they supposed to know it's the same video?
If they can't even prevent re-uploads of known illegal videos, maybe they should never have allowed user uploads at all.
No, I'm saying it's hard for sex abuse victims to get their videos off Pornhub.
> How are they supposed to know it's the same video?
If they can't even prevent re-uploads of known illegal videos, maybe they should never have allowed user uploads at all.
> No, I'm saying it's hard for sex abuse victims to get their videos off Pornhub.
If they go to the police, who have the ability to get a court order, and they don't, isn't your issue with the police?
> If they can't even prevent re-uploads of known illegal videos
How do you propose that they know that it's the same video? Trivial checks like whether it's byte for byte identical are just as trivially bypassed by the uploader, e.g. by reencoding. Anything more complicated than that will fail to match with 100% accuracy, especially when the uploader is trying to cause that to happen. And then you would still have people complaining that the videos are there again.
This isn't a job for the platform. It's a job for the police.
If they go to the police, who have the ability to get a court order, and they don't, isn't your issue with the police?
> If they can't even prevent re-uploads of known illegal videos
How do you propose that they know that it's the same video? Trivial checks like whether it's byte for byte identical are just as trivially bypassed by the uploader, e.g. by reencoding. Anything more complicated than that will fail to match with 100% accuracy, especially when the uploader is trying to cause that to happen. And then you would still have people complaining that the videos are there again.
This isn't a job for the platform. It's a job for the police.
> How do you propose that they know that it's the same video?
I'm not making money from user uploaded videos of young girls, so I don't need to have an answer to that question.
> This isn't a job for the platform. It's a job for the police.
No, it's not. It's the platforms job to ensure they don't distribute unlawful content. You don't want the police involved, since all they can really do is seize the domain and block the website altogether. (And that's exactly what they do for file sharing websites)
I'm not making money from user uploaded videos of young girls, so I don't need to have an answer to that question.
> This isn't a job for the platform. It's a job for the police.
No, it's not. It's the platforms job to ensure they don't distribute unlawful content. You don't want the police involved, since all they can really do is seize the domain and block the website altogether. (And that's exactly what they do for file sharing websites)
If it takes a court order to get pornhub to remove content they have failed.
Most legal systems have concepts of being an accomplice, criminal negligence, constructive possession and so on. So it seems reasonable that a website which help crimes be committed or hosts illegal content on its servers should have some liability or requirements on taking reasonable preventive measures. Especially if the website is made aware that such crimes are being committed.
> Most legal systems have concepts of being an accomplice, criminal negligence, constructive possession and so on. So it seems reasonable that a website which help crimes be committed or hosts illegal content on its servers should have some liability or requirements on taking reasonable preventive measures.
That doesn't follow at all. If you get on a Greyhound bus with the intent to get to a place to commit a sex crime, Greyhound would "help crimes be committed" by carrying you to your destination, but they're not the police and it's not their job to investigate you before allowing you to travel.
> Especially if the website is made aware that such crimes are being committed.
There are two different versions of "made aware" here.
One is that a court has decided that something is illegal and ordered them to take it down. I have a hard time believing that they don't comply with that.
Two is that somebody claims that something is illegal, but the website is neither judge nor jury and has no competence to adjudicate the claim. In this case it's not at all unreasonable to refer you to the actual court system, which will bring you back to number one.
The fact is that all of these alternatives are designed to be an end run around the constitutional protection of speech, by foisting the messy process of determining what's illegal onto a platform that can claim it isn't subject to the First Amendment, instead of a government body that is. Even though it's a government penalty being imposed for not removing what is, in practice, a body of works some of which are lawful speech.
That doesn't follow at all. If you get on a Greyhound bus with the intent to get to a place to commit a sex crime, Greyhound would "help crimes be committed" by carrying you to your destination, but they're not the police and it's not their job to investigate you before allowing you to travel.
> Especially if the website is made aware that such crimes are being committed.
There are two different versions of "made aware" here.
One is that a court has decided that something is illegal and ordered them to take it down. I have a hard time believing that they don't comply with that.
Two is that somebody claims that something is illegal, but the website is neither judge nor jury and has no competence to adjudicate the claim. In this case it's not at all unreasonable to refer you to the actual court system, which will bring you back to number one.
The fact is that all of these alternatives are designed to be an end run around the constitutional protection of speech, by foisting the messy process of determining what's illegal onto a platform that can claim it isn't subject to the First Amendment, instead of a government body that is. Even though it's a government penalty being imposed for not removing what is, in practice, a body of works some of which are lawful speech.
Pornhub was targeted not because of the content, but because it was by far the 800-lb gorilla in the room. Facebook has far more numerous instances of cheese pizza being thrown around but Facebook is a far more sympathetic entity than something with the name "Pornhub". The people who went after Pornhub were looking for any angle that would be palatable to the Left in a bid to remove adult material from the US landscape. There is a reason that they changed their name from Morality In Media to something else.
There was a documentary earlier this year about how many underaged people were selling on Onlyfans.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/article/5e7dad06-c48d-4509-b3...
But there's a dark side: the documentary found evidence of the age verification process being circumvented, meaning under-18s were able to illegally sell explicit content of themselves on the site.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/article/5e7dad06-c48d-4509-b3...
But there's a dark side: the documentary found evidence of the age verification process being circumvented, meaning under-18s were able to illegally sell explicit content of themselves on the site.
16 year olds circumventing age verification to sell explicit content of themselves is a problem, but at least they are doing it voluntarily.
Surely if a 16 year old can circumvent age verification then any criminal can. I understand nothing is perfect, my point was to show that any user generated platform faces the potential of illegal content being hosted.
Not only "It's filled with rape and child porn" but "It's filled with rape and child porn and revenge porn that pornhub tacitly tolerates by ignoring removal requests"
OnlyFans allows them to sell their content directly (not the same as it's up to them to solve the discoverability problem)
In a perfect world, you'd have something like Patreon or OnlyFans that runs like a utility out of a non profit org (such that Signal, Let's Encrypt, Wikipedia, and similar platforms operate as 501(c)(3) non profits). Removing the profit motive removes a lot of room for bad behavior on the part of the platform.
Verify the creator, provide a way to get payments to them without you acting as the intermediary, charge reasonable fees for your tech stack to organize and distribute digital content, and keep a paper trail when regulators, legislators, and law enforcement knock.
I want to really stress as a financial infra and payments system armchair enthusiast and scholar that crypto payments don't fix this. The law just comes for you if you try to subvert the law with crypto. You have to drive home the point (lobbying, marketing) that consenting adults adhering to the law should not be in fear when exchanging value in a transactional business and should not have their payments intercepted.
Verify the creator, provide a way to get payments to them without you acting as the intermediary, charge reasonable fees for your tech stack to organize and distribute digital content, and keep a paper trail when regulators, legislators, and law enforcement knock.
I want to really stress as a financial infra and payments system armchair enthusiast and scholar that crypto payments don't fix this. The law just comes for you if you try to subvert the law with crypto. You have to drive home the point (lobbying, marketing) that consenting adults adhering to the law should not be in fear when exchanging value in a transactional business and should not have their payments intercepted.
Even something like a public benefit corporation in a state with more strict reporting requirements could even fill the same niche, without dealing with the rigamarole of obtaining/maintaining 501(c)3 status. It'd be interesting to see how the corporate charter would be written.
The panic articles were primarily drawing on statistics provided by groups that want to eliminate sex work entirely.
Last thing I saw from sex workers rights groups was roughly "Pornhub are far from perfect, but moderation at scale is hard, and they're actually talking to us and trying to improve, which is far better than most other platforms."
So I suspect what would be ideal, honestly, would be "let the sex workers rights groups lead the way rather than panic articles placed by people who hate sex workers" - and that includes disregarding my opinion just as much as yours ;)
Last thing I saw from sex workers rights groups was roughly "Pornhub are far from perfect, but moderation at scale is hard, and they're actually talking to us and trying to improve, which is far better than most other platforms."
So I suspect what would be ideal, honestly, would be "let the sex workers rights groups lead the way rather than panic articles placed by people who hate sex workers" - and that includes disregarding my opinion just as much as yours ;)
I noticed that a lot of the porn actors sticking up for Pornhub were the ones putting out their own home-grown content, who essentially benefit from Pornhub as a publishing platform.
Rather than ones with pre-existing professionally published content who have seen their revenue and livelihoods decimated by the tacit acceptance of illegally pirated material that is essentially Pornhub’s business model.
Rather than ones with pre-existing professionally published content who have seen their revenue and livelihoods decimated by the tacit acceptance of illegally pirated material that is essentially Pornhub’s business model.
Similar to the recent actions by Twitter, Google, Apple and Amazon; Visa and Mastercard are private companies and can do whatever they want.
Anyone who has an issue with what Visa/MC did must also take issue with the others.
Anyone who has an issue with what Visa/MC did must also take issue with the others.
Visa and Mastercard should not do whatever they want, because they are just middlemen in transactions and all their decisions affect their paying customers, much more than themselves.
Visa/MC take the money of their customers, who use their cards, by promising to help them pay for anything they want.
Visa/MC do not have any right to decide unilaterally what their customers might want to buy (as long as no illegal goods are involved), without consulting their customers first.
Visa/MC take the money of their customers, who use their cards, by promising to help them pay for anything they want.
Visa/MC do not have any right to decide unilaterally what their customers might want to buy (as long as no illegal goods are involved), without consulting their customers first.
I'm only saying that what Visa/MC did is the same as what Twitter/Google/Apple/Amazon did. They all took private action against what they deemed as illegal acts without involving the state or any law enforcement.
I would much rather leave such things to the proper authorities instead of massive corporations that control so much without any accountability or transparency.
I would much rather leave such things to the proper authorities instead of massive corporations that control so much without any accountability or transparency.
As it stands right now they do have the right to do whatever they want. I guess you are proposing that this needs to be changed.
All large companies that have a quasi-monopoly, e.g. the large cable providers, ISPs, mobile phone companies, and so on, take frequently abusive decisions that affect negatively many of their customers.
In most cases the customers are forced to accept these unilateral decisions, because they do not have the power to attempt a legal battle with those companies, e.g. for modifying the fees or the data caps.
Nevertheless, even when we do not want or cannot fight such decisions, we should not say that they are private companies and they can do whatever they want.
Those companies are not independent to do whatever they want, they are in contractual relationships with their paying customers.
They may use their power to unilaterally change the contracts as they want to, but that does not mean that we must accept that might is right.
In most cases the customers are forced to accept these unilateral decisions, because they do not have the power to attempt a legal battle with those companies, e.g. for modifying the fees or the data caps.
Nevertheless, even when we do not want or cannot fight such decisions, we should not say that they are private companies and they can do whatever they want.
Those companies are not independent to do whatever they want, they are in contractual relationships with their paying customers.
They may use their power to unilaterally change the contracts as they want to, but that does not mean that we must accept that might is right.
I agree that they should not be able to do what they want. I’m just saying that they can. Which is something also think should be changed but it doesn’t change the reality of how it is currently.
Really they're utilities.
<I deleted my comment because people only want to argue.>
[delete]
>I found some of what it promoted disturbing to be honest.
But was it illegal?
But was it illegal?
>No, no it's not. Seriously, browse PornHub's recommended videos in incognito mode. Go through a few pages. Click into a few categories. Don't even do weird searches, just go through what it recommends. I found some of what it promoted disturbing to be honest.
Disturbing !== illegal.
Disturbing !== illegal.
> browse PornHub's recommended videos in incognito mode. Go through a few pages. Click into a few categories. Don't even do weird searches, just go through what it recommends.
Yeah, I totally never did that before at all.
Yeah, I totally never did that before at all.
I'm willing to revise my take on the "big tech takedown" when someone explains to me how a random member of the American public can pay a pornographic performer/model without using Visa/Mastercard and in less than 24 hours.
If there were no alternatives to Twitter, Android, iOS and AWS then I'd be as unhappy about that as I am about Visa/Mastercard's decision here.
However, it's my judgement that there are alternatives to these technology platforms to do what recently became less easy for some people to do. I don't believe there are any viable alternatives for payment processing.
Show me how I'm wrong.
If there were no alternatives to Twitter, Android, iOS and AWS then I'd be as unhappy about that as I am about Visa/Mastercard's decision here.
However, it's my judgement that there are alternatives to these technology platforms to do what recently became less easy for some people to do. I don't believe there are any viable alternatives for payment processing.
Show me how I'm wrong.
Android/iOS is a duopoly as pervasive as Visa/MasterCard. The ither examples only to a much lesser degree.
The comparison is not valid.
For example my phones use Android, but I do not have a Google account.
There exists no legal action that could be done by Google and that could influence anything that I am using my phone for.
On the other hand, if Visa and Mastercard would decide to not let me buy something, that would be very bad for me, because I buy almost nothing with cash and most things that interest me could not be bought with cash anyway, because they cannot be found in the shops from my close neighborhood.
So the monopoly of Visa and Mastercard really matters and it is very hard to circumvent. That of Apple and Google, much less so.
For example my phones use Android, but I do not have a Google account.
There exists no legal action that could be done by Google and that could influence anything that I am using my phone for.
On the other hand, if Visa and Mastercard would decide to not let me buy something, that would be very bad for me, because I buy almost nothing with cash and most things that interest me could not be bought with cash anyway, because they cannot be found in the shops from my close neighborhood.
So the monopoly of Visa and Mastercard really matters and it is very hard to circumvent. That of Apple and Google, much less so.
For a common person, Google/Apple cartel is about as much unavoidable as Visa/MC one. You are one of the very few exceptions - just as there are surely exceptional people who can do financial transactions that avoid Visa/MC.
Society is not math or computer science where existence of one counterexample makes things invalid. Society is a thing of ratios and percentages. If something is almost impossible for most people, we have to treat it as impossible even though it is possible for some - otherwise bad actors get away with terrible stuff on technicalities.
(I for example pay everything with cash or wires which are free and instantaneous in my country - I use card only once in a while to withdraw cash - but it does not invalidate Visa/MC duopoly any more than your special Android that only one in ten thousand people can use either)
Society is not math or computer science where existence of one counterexample makes things invalid. Society is a thing of ratios and percentages. If something is almost impossible for most people, we have to treat it as impossible even though it is possible for some - otherwise bad actors get away with terrible stuff on technicalities.
(I for example pay everything with cash or wires which are free and instantaneous in my country - I use card only once in a while to withdraw cash - but it does not invalidate Visa/MC duopoly any more than your special Android that only one in ten thousand people can use either)
I am an exception just in the sense that every time when I buy a new phone I reject many times the insistent suggestions of Android to open a Google account and to enable Google Services / Google Play, until Android gives up and bothers me no more.
I do not need extra apps from the Google Store, because all the phones that I buy do the things that I need, e.g. voice calls, SMS messages, Internet browsing, photo/video recording, document reading, etc., without needing to install anything else. Things like Google Maps can be accessed in the browser, there is no need for an app.
So it is not difficult to avoid Google.
To avoid Visa and MC, one would need exceptional connections, because most online shops do not accept other methods of payment and it would not be easy to convince them to create a special method for you.
I choose wire transfers whenever I can instead of credit cards. For payments within the country there are no fees, but for payments to other countries, the fees are larger than for credit cards and the vendors are less likely to have wire transfers as an alternative method of payment.
I do not need extra apps from the Google Store, because all the phones that I buy do the things that I need, e.g. voice calls, SMS messages, Internet browsing, photo/video recording, document reading, etc., without needing to install anything else. Things like Google Maps can be accessed in the browser, there is no need for an app.
So it is not difficult to avoid Google.
To avoid Visa and MC, one would need exceptional connections, because most online shops do not accept other methods of payment and it would not be easy to convince them to create a special method for you.
I choose wire transfers whenever I can instead of credit cards. For payments within the country there are no fees, but for payments to other countries, the fees are larger than for credit cards and the vendors are less likely to have wire transfers as an alternative method of payment.
Just because you avoid Google (and go far out of your way to do so) doesn't mean it's the same for billions of other people on the planet (and Google is far more than some apps on your phone). Likewise billions of people also use cash or other payment tech more often than Visa/MC and are not in the same situation as you.
This is why personal anecdotes are meaningless for these topics.
This is why personal anecdotes are meaningless for these topics.
Well, here's the thing.
If you agree that the required ability is "use my portable cell-connected computing device to exchange messages with others on their similar devices", then absolutely, I agree that there's a duopoly there (I'm ignoring the possibility to use alternative app stores on Android, because it doesn't seem particularly central).
But if you instead think the required ability is "be able to exchange messages with others in more or less realtime", then the duopoly in the portable cell-connected computing device world is of much less importance.
For years, because I don't have a cell phone, I was excluded from communications taking place via SMS (there were a few 1-way linux-accessible gateways, but they didn't really change anything there). But I didn't feel that my ability to communicate with others was really particularly impaired, and eventually Telegram (and others came along) that I could use from a desktop, and I was more or less back at parity for "real time communication with others".
So whether or not the android/ios duopoly matters in this sort of instance depends on precisely what functionality it is that you think people have a "right" to ...
If you agree that the required ability is "use my portable cell-connected computing device to exchange messages with others on their similar devices", then absolutely, I agree that there's a duopoly there (I'm ignoring the possibility to use alternative app stores on Android, because it doesn't seem particularly central).
But if you instead think the required ability is "be able to exchange messages with others in more or less realtime", then the duopoly in the portable cell-connected computing device world is of much less importance.
For years, because I don't have a cell phone, I was excluded from communications taking place via SMS (there were a few 1-way linux-accessible gateways, but they didn't really change anything there). But I didn't feel that my ability to communicate with others was really particularly impaired, and eventually Telegram (and others came along) that I could use from a desktop, and I was more or less back at parity for "real time communication with others".
So whether or not the android/ios duopoly matters in this sort of instance depends on precisely what functionality it is that you think people have a "right" to ...
can someone ELI5 why Visa/MasterCard is frequently called a duopoly? as someone who mostly uses my amex and discover cards for day-to-day purchases, I don't really understand this. four major processors (two being their own issuers) seems like a decent amount of competition and diversity of offerings.
1. If you look into Credit Card World Wide, Amex and Discover Cards aren't even viable outside US.
2. If you look at transaction, Amex and Discover may have higher processed transaction value of something like 15% in US. But if you look at transition volume, Visa / Master are 90%+.
3. Both are Credit Card only. Debit Card is where the majority are using for Payment.
3. Consider there are no other electronic / digital payment method that is as ubiquitous as Visa / Master payment network ( ignoring Asia ) and they are the baseline method for e-payment, as well as an extreme high level barrier of Entry. The two are considered as Duopoly.
2. If you look at transaction, Amex and Discover may have higher processed transaction value of something like 15% in US. But if you look at transition volume, Visa / Master are 90%+.
3. Both are Credit Card only. Debit Card is where the majority are using for Payment.
3. Consider there are no other electronic / digital payment method that is as ubiquitous as Visa / Master payment network ( ignoring Asia ) and they are the baseline method for e-payment, as well as an extreme high level barrier of Entry. The two are considered as Duopoly.
Visa and Mastercard combined represent 83% of the number of credit cards in circulation, and 100% of the number of debit cards in circulation.
That last one, too, is probably a big part of the reason for the classification. There are more Visa/MC debit cards out there than their are credit cards.
That last one, too, is probably a big part of the reason for the classification. There are more Visa/MC debit cards out there than their are credit cards.
I’m an Australian and as much as I want an Amex I’d have to change banks to get one, it’s quite rare over here and in a number I’d other countries from what I’ve been told by other people.
From what I have seen, most businesses explicitly refuse to accept it since it charges higher fees than visa and MasterCard
Only Visa/MasterCard matter outside USA.
Then the pornographic performers should just make their own payment network, no?
That's what everyone's been telling Parler since they started being removed from these platforms.
I also don't know how you can reconcile this comment with the fact that Gab and others were removed from Visa/MC networks, to much fanfare.
To be clear, I'm in favor of Parler going away, but I can't help but notice the double standards.
That's what everyone's been telling Parler since they started being removed from these platforms.
I also don't know how you can reconcile this comment with the fact that Gab and others were removed from Visa/MC networks, to much fanfare.
To be clear, I'm in favor of Parler going away, but I can't help but notice the double standards.
Nobody is suggesting to Parler that they build anything like the equivalent of a payment processing network.
They just need a hosting service. If they relied heavily on specific services provided by AWS, they would need to either recreate them or reengineer their code to do things differently.
These are on an entirely differently level of "just make your own" from "make your own payment network".
Unless, that is, there is no hosting service that will have them (and maybe no colo facility that will allow them presence). If so, then I would view the situations as essentially equivalent.
They just need a hosting service. If they relied heavily on specific services provided by AWS, they would need to either recreate them or reengineer their code to do things differently.
These are on an entirely differently level of "just make your own" from "make your own payment network".
Unless, that is, there is no hosting service that will have them (and maybe no colo facility that will allow them presence). If so, then I would view the situations as essentially equivalent.
When Gab was removed from MC/Visa, plenty of people were indeed saying "MC/Visa are private companies and have no obligation to serve Gab. If Gab wants to accept payments, they can build their own network or use cash/crypto".
So in order to build a controversial but legal social media system you must first build your own hosting company, own payment processor, own debit cards, and own ISP.
I think it’s fair to say you just can’t realistically run a website of the majority of tech corporations are against you.
I think it’s fair to say you just can’t realistically run a website of the majority of tech corporations are against you.
Wait, ignoring the freedom implications, why is it so necessary for Parler to rent compute in the first place? If the twitter clone analogy holds as true as I think it does they are just serving text snippets and the occasional image; that's well within the capabilities of a rack or two of servers sitting in an office closet somewhere.
> but I can't help but notice the double standards.
Yes! It's almost as if Nazis and terrorists are not the same thing as sex workers.
What a puzzling thing.
Yes! It's almost as if Nazis and terrorists are not the same thing as sex workers.
What a puzzling thing.
Are you aware of what "double standards" means? The fact that they are not the same thing is the point.
Furthermore, please review the HN guidelines for posting. Your comment is not substantive nor constructive.
Furthermore, please review the HN guidelines for posting. Your comment is not substantive nor constructive.
Use American Express or ACH or wire transfers or cash or Paypal/Venmo/Cashapp or bitcoin.
As to your other point, an alternative to Twitter was made. Then it was banned by Google and Apple from devices, and then Amazon from computing infrastructure. It's no longer about an alternative of the primary service but all through the stack and that is much more concerning.
As to your other point, an alternative to Twitter was made. Then it was banned by Google and Apple from devices, and then Amazon from computing infrastructure. It's no longer about an alternative of the primary service but all through the stack and that is much more concerning.
In the USA, domestic wire transfers typically US$20. ACH requires that the receiver provides you with their bank account and routing number, which while common in the EU, is extremely unusual and invasive in a US context.
You are right that PayPal/Venmo (same company) may be an alternative for now, although they generally end up applying the same restrictions as Visa/MC.
American Express ... wow, it's been years since I did this but I think it involves actually going to an Amex brick-and-mortar location, and so wouldn't actually count.
Bitcoin is equivalent to paying in a different currency, which while possible, mostly breaks the terms of the comparison, since you could argue for using some other non-crypto-currency to avoid some or all of the limitations of Visa/MC.
Parler failed to meets the ToS set by its chosen platform (picked in all likelihood because its founder was ex-AWS). Had it either met the ToS by providing sufficient moderation, or picked a different hosting service, it would have had a different experience.
As I said in my opening comment, if there is really no alternative hosting service where Parler can allow people to openly discuss violence towards specific individuals, violence towards state actors and generally be as obnoxious and wrong as they feel like, then sure, I'd agree there's a problem.
You are right that PayPal/Venmo (same company) may be an alternative for now, although they generally end up applying the same restrictions as Visa/MC.
American Express ... wow, it's been years since I did this but I think it involves actually going to an Amex brick-and-mortar location, and so wouldn't actually count.
Bitcoin is equivalent to paying in a different currency, which while possible, mostly breaks the terms of the comparison, since you could argue for using some other non-crypto-currency to avoid some or all of the limitations of Visa/MC.
Parler failed to meets the ToS set by its chosen platform (picked in all likelihood because its founder was ex-AWS). Had it either met the ToS by providing sufficient moderation, or picked a different hosting service, it would have had a different experience.
As I said in my opening comment, if there is really no alternative hosting service where Parler can allow people to openly discuss violence towards specific individuals, violence towards state actors and generally be as obnoxious and wrong as they feel like, then sure, I'd agree there's a problem.
You're arbitrarily discounting alternatives to fit your narrative. If you think that ACH or Amex is less accessible then that's no different than other networks not having the same scale or distribution as Twitter and Apple. Why is it ok for some but not others when they all technically have alternatives?
Anyways my greater point is that illegal actions should be forwarded to the appropriate state department which can investigate and prosecute with appropriate authority and accountability. Private companies are setting a dangerous precedent, especially as they gain superior scale and then collude at multiple layers against the same organization.
Anyways my greater point is that illegal actions should be forwarded to the appropriate state department which can investigate and prosecute with appropriate authority and accountability. Private companies are setting a dangerous precedent, especially as they gain superior scale and then collude at multiple layers against the same organization.
ACH takes longer than 24 hours, so there's no goal post moving there.
As I indicated below, I think it is pretty hard to get paid via Amex if Visa/MC have blocked you (3rd party payment processors such as paypal will likely block you too).
I would agree about the "forward to the government" part if that was part of normal business to find the illegal actions. I read the Visa/MC - Pornhub thing as more as a case of of Visa/MC saying "look, we think its clear that there's illegal stuff happening on your platform; we're not going to play detective here; we don't want to run the risk of being complicit of processing payments for illegal stuff, so we're cutting you off." That is, it's a statement about their desire to (not) take legal risks. They are operating within a legal context where others may do what you are suggesting and then put them in legal jeopardy.
As I indicated below, I think it is pretty hard to get paid via Amex if Visa/MC have blocked you (3rd party payment processors such as paypal will likely block you too).
I would agree about the "forward to the government" part if that was part of normal business to find the illegal actions. I read the Visa/MC - Pornhub thing as more as a case of of Visa/MC saying "look, we think its clear that there's illegal stuff happening on your platform; we're not going to play detective here; we don't want to run the risk of being complicit of processing payments for illegal stuff, so we're cutting you off." That is, it's a statement about their desire to (not) take legal risks. They are operating within a legal context where others may do what you are suggesting and then put them in legal jeopardy.
They wouldn't be complicit. The legal structure allows companies to operate with protection from their users engaging in illegal activities until it's explicitly proven or otherwise ordered by the state.
The "we think it's clear" is the dangerous part, especially when applied outside of a few easy targets discussed here. MC/Visa have numerous examples of shutting down completely legitimate businesses, and so do Google and Apple usually with a weekly HN thread highlighting yet another startup/app unceremoniously wiped off the net. Either it's all a problem or none of it is. Do you disagree with this?
The "we think it's clear" is the dangerous part, especially when applied outside of a few easy targets discussed here. MC/Visa have numerous examples of shutting down completely legitimate businesses, and so do Google and Apple usually with a weekly HN thread highlighting yet another startup/app unceremoniously wiped off the net. Either it's all a problem or none of it is. Do you disagree with this?
I don't care (much) about apps. Part of that is because I'm old, part of it is because I don't use a cell phone, part of it is because I do most of what people do on their cell phones from ... uhm ... more traditional computing devices.
If I did care, then perhaps I'd see Google/Apple store bans etc. as more equivalent to Visa/MC payment processing bans.
As it stands, I don't.
If I did care, then perhaps I'd see Google/Apple store bans etc. as more equivalent to Visa/MC payment processing bans.
As it stands, I don't.
> bank account and routing number, which while common in the EU, is extremely unusual and invasive in a US context
So now you're moving the goalposts and saying that it being extremely unusual precludes it as an option? Of course any alternative to the Mastercard/VISA duopoly is going to be unusual. By definition, since they are dominant, any other way of payment will have to be outside the norm.
> American Express ... wow, it's been years since I did this but I think it involves actually going to an Amex brick-and-mortar location, and so wouldn't actually count.
It does not require going in person at all. You can get qualified for a card online and they'll ship it to you.
> Bitcoin is equivalent to paying in a different currency, which while possible, mostly breaks the terms of the comparison
Again, by construction of the question, alternative payment schemes will necessarily be different. The other players here are PayPal, Discover, and AMEX.
The alternatives for Parler (going to another hosting provider than AWS, alternate App Store on Android, and no app on iOS) are at least as unusual compared to the alternatives for payment. Just like your Discover card won't be accepted at most places, or Bitcoin or PayPal, most users are not going to accept a modern day service that doesn't have an app. Or even more egregiously, in Stormfront's case, users are absolutely not going to learn how to use Tor just to access a site. Parler isn't there yet, but it may well be soon if their domain registrar drops them. Or even Level3 or BGP providers.
So now you're moving the goalposts and saying that it being extremely unusual precludes it as an option? Of course any alternative to the Mastercard/VISA duopoly is going to be unusual. By definition, since they are dominant, any other way of payment will have to be outside the norm.
> American Express ... wow, it's been years since I did this but I think it involves actually going to an Amex brick-and-mortar location, and so wouldn't actually count.
It does not require going in person at all. You can get qualified for a card online and they'll ship it to you.
> Bitcoin is equivalent to paying in a different currency, which while possible, mostly breaks the terms of the comparison
Again, by construction of the question, alternative payment schemes will necessarily be different. The other players here are PayPal, Discover, and AMEX.
The alternatives for Parler (going to another hosting provider than AWS, alternate App Store on Android, and no app on iOS) are at least as unusual compared to the alternatives for payment. Just like your Discover card won't be accepted at most places, or Bitcoin or PayPal, most users are not going to accept a modern day service that doesn't have an app. Or even more egregiously, in Stormfront's case, users are absolutely not going to learn how to use Tor just to access a site. Parler isn't there yet, but it may well be soon if their domain registrar drops them. Or even Level3 or BGP providers.
>So now you're moving the goalposts and saying that it being extremely unusual precludes it as an option
Well, what I should have said was "ACH rarely completes inside 24 hours to a new account", which doesn't move the goalposts.
>(Amex) It does not require going in person at all. You can get qualified for a card online and they'll ship it to you.
Not sure this has anything to do with the ability to pay a 3rd party. They would need to have an Amex merchant account or an equivalent proxy via an intermediate payment processor, and my impression is that when Visa/MC drops you, the 3rd party will too, even if Amex didn't.
> users are absolutely not going to learn how to use Tor just to access a site
Parler had no privacy (and from what I read, very lax security), so I don't think that a Tor-accessed site is a part of the replacement for what they had. They just a hosting site that can run some moderately but not extraordinarily complex backend stack.
The "lack of app" question goes back to a comment I made here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25719115
Well, what I should have said was "ACH rarely completes inside 24 hours to a new account", which doesn't move the goalposts.
>(Amex) It does not require going in person at all. You can get qualified for a card online and they'll ship it to you.
Not sure this has anything to do with the ability to pay a 3rd party. They would need to have an Amex merchant account or an equivalent proxy via an intermediate payment processor, and my impression is that when Visa/MC drops you, the 3rd party will too, even if Amex didn't.
> users are absolutely not going to learn how to use Tor just to access a site
Parler had no privacy (and from what I read, very lax security), so I don't think that a Tor-accessed site is a part of the replacement for what they had. They just a hosting site that can run some moderately but not extraordinarily complex backend stack.
The "lack of app" question goes back to a comment I made here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25719115
There aren't really alternatives to Android/iOS. But I would say they need regulation too.
Payment is critical infrastructure. It's crazy that most of the world is subject to this duopoly.
Payment is critical infrastructure. It's crazy that most of the world is subject to this duopoly.
> Anyone who has an issue with this must also take issue with the others.
Yeah .... no. For a variety of reasons. But for one, it's impossible to do business online if you're not in the good graces of major payment providers (assuming you want to get paid). It might be hard(er) to advertise your business if Twitter bans you, but that's in no way comparable to how essential Visa/MC are to any business.
Providers of critical infrastructure (payments, search, appstores, probably a few other things), when they're big enough to be a monopoly/duopoly, could really use more oversight. If you piss off Google/Apple, your business can be ruined, and you'll have virtually no recourse -- as evidenced by the frequent "google/apple killed my app" threads on HN.
Yeah .... no. For a variety of reasons. But for one, it's impossible to do business online if you're not in the good graces of major payment providers (assuming you want to get paid). It might be hard(er) to advertise your business if Twitter bans you, but that's in no way comparable to how essential Visa/MC are to any business.
Providers of critical infrastructure (payments, search, appstores, probably a few other things), when they're big enough to be a monopoly/duopoly, could really use more oversight. If you piss off Google/Apple, your business can be ruined, and you'll have virtually no recourse -- as evidenced by the frequent "google/apple killed my app" threads on HN.
None of this is considered critical infrastructure today, that's the point. What's important to you is entirely subjective and these are private companies that can apply their terms however they see fit. Visa/MC can easily say that ACH and cash payments exist as an alternative.
If you feel that monopolistic powers by major tech companies need more oversight then that should apply equally. I don't see why communications networks are any less important than payment networks.
If you feel that monopolistic powers by major tech companies need more oversight then that should apply equally. I don't see why communications networks are any less important than payment networks.
Visa/MC are really critical infrastructure, because for many people they are the main means of payment or even the only one.
In most cases they are the only existing means for making remote payments. I would have much preferred a world in which the remote payments would not have been done by credit cards, but by wire transfers (with much lower fees than the current fees for wire transfers), but we do not live in such a world.
I am not sure about what weird conditions might be written in the small print of the contracts for credit cards, but certainly when Visa/MC advertise their services, they claim that you should pay for their cards in order to buy anything that you want, they do not invite you to pay them in order to let you buy only what they like.
So I do not believe that it is correct to say that VISA/MC are private companies that can do anything they like.
They have also obligations towards the customers who use their cards and they cannot decide unilaterally to ban some sellers, unless those are selling something illegal, which is not the case with Pornhub (after they took down what was said to be illegal content).
I do not think that making a referendum among Visa/MC customers about whether to ban some vendor or another would be the most appropriate solution, but certainly unilateral decisions taken just by the Visa/MC management are an abuse.
While I have never used Pornhub, so I have no opinion about how correct were their actions, I have paid in the past for a few other sites with erotic content and I would not like to discover one day that Visa or MC has again decided to block such a site without any valid reason.
In most cases they are the only existing means for making remote payments. I would have much preferred a world in which the remote payments would not have been done by credit cards, but by wire transfers (with much lower fees than the current fees for wire transfers), but we do not live in such a world.
I am not sure about what weird conditions might be written in the small print of the contracts for credit cards, but certainly when Visa/MC advertise their services, they claim that you should pay for their cards in order to buy anything that you want, they do not invite you to pay them in order to let you buy only what they like.
So I do not believe that it is correct to say that VISA/MC are private companies that can do anything they like.
They have also obligations towards the customers who use their cards and they cannot decide unilaterally to ban some sellers, unless those are selling something illegal, which is not the case with Pornhub (after they took down what was said to be illegal content).
I do not think that making a referendum among Visa/MC customers about whether to ban some vendor or another would be the most appropriate solution, but certainly unilateral decisions taken just by the Visa/MC management are an abuse.
While I have never used Pornhub, so I have no opinion about how correct were their actions, I have paid in the past for a few other sites with erotic content and I would not like to discover one day that Visa or MC has again decided to block such a site without any valid reason.
There are plenty of alternatives though, they don't own anything to porn industry. They just don't want to associate themselves with these people and it's their right to do so.
This is a bizarre comment. The complaint isn't that Pornhub, Visa, or Mastercard lack the right to do what they are doing. People are explaining reasons why it is a bad decision and those reasons aren't relevant to Twitter, Google, Apple, and Amazon. There is nothing contradictory about someone who believes these companies have the right to kick people off their platform while also thinking that these companies can make mistakes regarding who they kick off.
The point is that if you have an issue with companies taking private action over state prosecution then that should apply to all decisions.
Whether you consider an individual decision to be a mistake is entirely subjective and irrelevant.
Whether you consider an individual decision to be a mistake is entirely subjective and irrelevant.
>The point is that if you have an issue with companies taking private action over state prosecution then that should apply to all decisions.
Why? I can agree that someone has a right while also disagreeing with how they exercise that right. I have no idea why you are labeling the specifics irrelevant.
Why? I can agree that someone has a right while also disagreeing with how they exercise that right. I have no idea why you are labeling the specifics irrelevant.
I'm getting slightly fatigued with this point of view ("X is a private company and can do what it wants").
If a company reaches a certain size and has a quasi-monopolistic position so that other people or companies depend on it, it starts to have some degree of responsibility towards society that's beyond value maximization for shareholders.
If a company reaches a certain size and has a quasi-monopolistic position so that other people or companies depend on it, it starts to have some degree of responsibility towards society that's beyond value maximization for shareholders.
I think the comment you are replying to is meant to be sarcastic.
Does that mean you are against AWS, Google, and Apple shutting down Perler? All of those are large enough, and are quasi-monopolistic to meet your definition.
I'm not OP, and I'm not a trumper or Conservative but I am 110% into free speech and I don't like the parler ban.
That said, it's really not equivalent. There are 101 other services if AWS turn you down. You can still access the parler site from an apple/android phone too. On android you can still install the app, just not via the play store.
Censorship is incidious because many people support at least some. So you convince liberals to support banning parler and conservatives to support banning porn payments (or whatever). And they're both poorer for it. We should all be agreeing on this, not being fractional...
We should all be uniting in our call to get Visa , Mastercard, Apple, Google and a dozen others declared utilities. Rather than arguing over which problem is biggest, solve them all.
That said, it's really not equivalent. There are 101 other services if AWS turn you down. You can still access the parler site from an apple/android phone too. On android you can still install the app, just not via the play store.
Censorship is incidious because many people support at least some. So you convince liberals to support banning parler and conservatives to support banning porn payments (or whatever). And they're both poorer for it. We should all be agreeing on this, not being fractional...
We should all be uniting in our call to get Visa , Mastercard, Apple, Google and a dozen others declared utilities. Rather than arguing over which problem is biggest, solve them all.
Except that ban was clear collusion by Google, Apple and Amazon against a single organization.
It's concerning when an alternative no longer just means an alternative of the same service but also the entire infrastructure stack. We've seen similar situations during the digital piracy era of the early 2000s.
It's concerning when an alternative no longer just means an alternative of the same service but also the entire infrastructure stack. We've seen similar situations during the digital piracy era of the early 2000s.
I honestly can’t think of a better example of the egregious abuse of quasi-monopolistic power than the shutting down of Parler.
Other hosts exist. But Apple shouldn't be allowed to prevent sideloading which makes the app store no longer a monopoly.
I don't see the point of closing Parler. It was a perfect platform to monitor those people and gather them in the same place. Now it will be more difficult.
[deleted]
[deleted]
The banking/payment industry is acting as a cartel to shut down certain activities. This is what antitrust law is for.
This argument always reminds me of the evergreen dril tweet: https://twitter.com/dril/status/473265809079693312?lang=en (cw: profanity). You've rhetorically zoomed out so far that only the most abstract description of the category of the action is up for discussion. But this is begging the question - there's no reason that this must be the case.
This rhetorical trick of categorizing all of these as "private companies denying service," is the same one used by those who opposed anti-discrimination laws. Should an ice-cream store be able to kick out a person pissing on the floor? Should they be able to kick out a black person for being black? In each case, it's simply "a private company doing whatever they want." But, obviously, these two cases are not the same.
Personally, I think it's quite a different thing to kick people who incite violence off your social media platform than it is to ban sex-workers from using you as a payment processor. And, because they are different actions, with different intent and effects, it is, of course, possible to think "Hey, it's good that [x] is happening, but bad that [y] is happening."
This rhetorical trick of categorizing all of these as "private companies denying service," is the same one used by those who opposed anti-discrimination laws. Should an ice-cream store be able to kick out a person pissing on the floor? Should they be able to kick out a black person for being black? In each case, it's simply "a private company doing whatever they want." But, obviously, these two cases are not the same.
Personally, I think it's quite a different thing to kick people who incite violence off your social media platform than it is to ban sex-workers from using you as a payment processor. And, because they are different actions, with different intent and effects, it is, of course, possible to think "Hey, it's good that [x] is happening, but bad that [y] is happening."
I compared these situations because both are about explicility illegal activities clearly defined by law. They're more similar than different.
Your personal opinion on which decision you support is just that, your personal opinion, and only reinforces my point about the subjectivity and inherent hypocrisy of it all and whether private company action over state prosecution is the correct course of action.
Your personal opinion on which decision you support is just that, your personal opinion, and only reinforces my point about the subjectivity and inherent hypocrisy of it all and whether private company action over state prosecution is the correct course of action.
Just because something is subjective does not mean it is hypocritical.
"Visa and Mastercard are private companies and can do whatever they want." Not without DOJ pressure, unfortunately.
>Anyone who has an issue with this must also take issue with the others.
That doesn't follow. Someone can acknowledge that companies have the right to run itself however it wants but disagree with this particular decision. It is possibly incoherent to argue that Twitter may ban people but Visa may not ban anyone; it is perfectly coherent to argue that Twitter should ban certain people and Visa should not ban these particular businesses.
Also, I don't think it's a contradiction even to say that Visa may not ban anyone. Running a website is a form of speech. Every website absolutely must be moderated beyond what is required to remove spam or what is required by law. Telling them what kind of community they are allowed to run is an excessive infringement on their freedom of speech. This is similar to why I support net neutrality but fervently oppose any sort of mandatory neutrality on websites. It would take a tortured argument to claim that routing packets is a form of speech (particularly when these packets are encrypted), while running a website always requires taking an editorial role.
No one would find it strange if a book store decided not to carry a particular book. People would find it very strange if their credit card company refused to process a payment for a particular book.
I neither support nor oppose banning payments to Pornhub since I don't know much about the website. I have no skin flicks in the game.
That doesn't follow. Someone can acknowledge that companies have the right to run itself however it wants but disagree with this particular decision. It is possibly incoherent to argue that Twitter may ban people but Visa may not ban anyone; it is perfectly coherent to argue that Twitter should ban certain people and Visa should not ban these particular businesses.
Also, I don't think it's a contradiction even to say that Visa may not ban anyone. Running a website is a form of speech. Every website absolutely must be moderated beyond what is required to remove spam or what is required by law. Telling them what kind of community they are allowed to run is an excessive infringement on their freedom of speech. This is similar to why I support net neutrality but fervently oppose any sort of mandatory neutrality on websites. It would take a tortured argument to claim that routing packets is a form of speech (particularly when these packets are encrypted), while running a website always requires taking an editorial role.
No one would find it strange if a book store decided not to carry a particular book. People would find it very strange if their credit card company refused to process a payment for a particular book.
I neither support nor oppose banning payments to Pornhub since I don't know much about the website. I have no skin flicks in the game.
I'm surprised no one's mentioned platforms like OnlyFans so far.
That's the path forward for adult entertainment content (among other content). It puts the power back in the hands of content creators, and removes a lot of avenues for exploitation.
As long as VISA/MC don't do the same thing there, of course.
That's the path forward for adult entertainment content (among other content). It puts the power back in the hands of content creators, and removes a lot of avenues for exploitation.
As long as VISA/MC don't do the same thing there, of course.
So was Pornhub. That's what the sex workers in the article are upset about. They were able to sell their videos. They can still make ad revenue but the ban by Visa/MC just ends up hurting them.
I doubt it will be long before the religious lobbies go after Onlyfans.
I doubt it will be long before the religious lobbies go after Onlyfans.
> "There's not a lot you can do about it, which makes you feel really helpless. I have friends who are considering leaving the business as a whole, just because Pornhub was such a big source of income."
I would guess for at least some of the public, sex workers leaving the business would be seen as a feature rather than a bug.
I would guess for at least some of the public, sex workers leaving the business would be seen as a feature rather than a bug.
One of the performers quoted summed it up well in the article:
> "The real target of these groups is not to help victims or fight illegal content on the internet, but to ban all forms of adult material."
A few years ago I was doing some research to figure out how I felt about SESTA/FOSTA, and one of the things I quickly came to realize is that a lot of groups and politicians who are ostensibly anti-trafficking are actually anti-porn, and use the boogieman of trafficking to build a broader coalition than they could on a purely anti-porn agenda.
> "The real target of these groups is not to help victims or fight illegal content on the internet, but to ban all forms of adult material."
A few years ago I was doing some research to figure out how I felt about SESTA/FOSTA, and one of the things I quickly came to realize is that a lot of groups and politicians who are ostensibly anti-trafficking are actually anti-porn, and use the boogieman of trafficking to build a broader coalition than they could on a purely anti-porn agenda.
It's not really a secret. Even when actual "trafficking" charges get filed in court, the most common type is prosecuting a woman for trafficking herself.
On top of that, anti-trafficking NGOs tend to be unnecessarily friendly with law enforcement groups and both get more funding by exaggerating the problem.
Can't they somehow verify themselves and then be allowed to upload anything they want[1]?
I thought the problem was that anyone could make an account and upload whatever they wished like child pornography, hidden cams, etc.
[1] As long as it is legal and it's their own stuff.
I thought the problem was that anyone could make an account and upload whatever they wished like child pornography, hidden cams, etc.
[1] As long as it is legal and it's their own stuff.
That's not the problem, as stated in the article. It's payments being cut off by card networks.
The article also says the following.
Credit card giants Visa, Mastercard and Discover have blocked all payments to Pornhub, after the adult site was accused of being "infested" with child abuse and rape-related videos.
However, the accusations were made by anti-sex-work groups, not anybody who genuinely cares about the performers' safety or livelihoods.
It's generally advisable in cases like this to go find what the sex workers rights advocacy organisations are saying, because mainstream reporting is often puritan trash.
(also, so long as the performers were well compensated, I don't honestly see why we should care about "rape-related" given e.g. 50 Shades of Grey was very much 'written porn for women' and while I don't understand that particular kink I'm unwilling to judge what people want to fap/schlick to)
It's generally advisable in cases like this to go find what the sex workers rights advocacy organisations are saying, because mainstream reporting is often puritan trash.
(also, so long as the performers were well compensated, I don't honestly see why we should care about "rape-related" given e.g. 50 Shades of Grey was very much 'written porn for women' and while I don't understand that particular kink I'm unwilling to judge what people want to fap/schlick to)
This misses some historical context around credit cards and online pornography companies where credit card companies basically just refuse to be allowed to be used for online porn, primarily around chargebacks.
If they’ve found an excuse to not need to work with PornHub, they could easily retain that for perpetuity because credit card companies don’t like being associated with the porn industry.
I’ll be surprised if PornHub ends up working directly with the major credit cards again.
If they’ve found an excuse to not need to work with PornHub, they could easily retain that for perpetuity because credit card companies don’t like being associated with the porn industry.
I’ll be surprised if PornHub ends up working directly with the major credit cards again.
While I cannot know for sure what Pornhub does, as I have never used it (but I use other sites with erotic content), I have read about the evolution of this case.
It was said that after the accusations have been published, Pornhub has reacted by removing the content that was claimed to include illegal parts and they have changed the rules for using the site (e.g. disabling anonymous uploads and downloads) in order to prevent such cases in the future.
Only after the Pornhub reaction, VISA and MC blocked the payments, at a time when there already was not much more that PH could do, except maybe closing the site completely.
So only Visa and MC can change anything now.
It was said that after the accusations have been published, Pornhub has reacted by removing the content that was claimed to include illegal parts and they have changed the rules for using the site (e.g. disabling anonymous uploads and downloads) in order to prevent such cases in the future.
Only after the Pornhub reaction, VISA and MC blocked the payments, at a time when there already was not much more that PH could do, except maybe closing the site completely.
So only Visa and MC can change anything now.
The article also says they have solved that problem, by deleting all videos not uploaded by "verified users". So I don't see why the credit card companies wouldn't unblock it relatively soon.
The cat-and-mouse game between adult industry workers and the credit card industry is legendary. Credit card processors have never been kind to that industry, and once they find a reason to kick someone to the curb it stays that way.
Didn't they solve it? I heard they deleted something like 80% of their videos last month.
[deleted]
Isn't that because PornHub didn't verify anything and was filled with content that exploited people? In the end, the issue seems to be PornHub rather than the card networks.
[deleted]
I'm really glad that no one in this subthread proposed anything involving a blockchain.
"Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I find that surprising. I think cryptocurrencies are the worst technology known to man, but avoiding censorship is what they are built for and their only legitimate use case.
Bitcoin
This has been done before by others in response to credit card networks cutting the cord, and it never replaces the lost revenue.
The way things are going crypto may actually become a real currency and you would never need to convert to dollars.
I don't own any crypto and never thought I'd be saying this so soon but things have changed a lot in the past 6 months.
I don't own any crypto and never thought I'd be saying this so soon but things have changed a lot in the past 6 months.
>The way things are going crypto may actually become a real currency
Not as long as it continues to have insane electricity demands and bogs down when it receives even a fraction of the transactions in a given period that Visa or Mastercard processes routinely in an identical given period.
Not as long as it continues to have insane electricity demands and bogs down when it receives even a fraction of the transactions in a given period that Visa or Mastercard processes routinely in an identical given period.
And for a number of national currencies there's liberapay.
https://liberapay.com/
https://liberapay.com/
Moody doesn’t seem to care about the abuse or victims that is rampant in the industry, she just wants to get paid.
If you can get paid reliably then abusers have less leverage in the first place. I've been friends with a lot of sex workers and their #1 gripe is that prohibitionist types create the conditions for abuse.
A lot of the people being mentioned as abused aren't sex workers and do not want to be sex workers. They don't want to be paid for or involved in sex work.
My argument is that the criminalization of sex work is what incentivizes abusive people to set up criminal enterprises around it.
Most people wouldn't be happy to give up a large percentage of their income to help someone they didn't know. If they were then charity donations would be a lot higher than they are.
Few seem to care enough about the abuse that exists in Hollywood and in tech, so why the hullabaloo over sex work? Oh, yeah - sexism against women because they're not supposed to be sexual.
Not getting paid for your work is a form of abuse. None of us can solve all the world's ills and most of us focus on things that hit close to home.
Think of all the foundations that have been created because some wealthy celebrity (or a relative of theirs) had a particular medical condition.
Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research
https://www.michaeljfox.org/
Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation
https://www.christopherreeve.org/
Think of all the foundations that have been created because some wealthy celebrity (or a relative of theirs) had a particular medical condition.
Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research
https://www.michaeljfox.org/
Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation
https://www.christopherreeve.org/
> Think of all the foundations that have been created because some wealthy celebrity (or a relative of theirs) had a particular medical condition.
> Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research
This is a tangent, but I remember a minor news item of Michael J. Fox appearing in an ad soliciting donations for Parkinson's research, Rush Limbaugh (maybe?) criticizing him for "exaggerating his symptoms" in the ad, and then Jon Stewart (definitely) lambasting the criticism on the Daily Show, something along the lines of "How DARE Michael J. Fox appear in an ad trying to fund research into the crippling disease that Michael J. Fox has?!?"
I've been trying to find a clip of that, if anyone knows where to look?
> Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research
This is a tangent, but I remember a minor news item of Michael J. Fox appearing in an ad soliciting donations for Parkinson's research, Rush Limbaugh (maybe?) criticizing him for "exaggerating his symptoms" in the ad, and then Jon Stewart (definitely) lambasting the criticism on the Daily Show, something along the lines of "How DARE Michael J. Fox appear in an ad trying to fund research into the crippling disease that Michael J. Fox has?!?"
I've been trying to find a clip of that, if anyone knows where to look?
Clip of it within another clip of an interview with Michael J. Fox:
ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_fQ3VLSvfI
ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_fQ3VLSvfI
The big concern of NYTimes is that this is a Canadian company making lots of money from the American market. I wonder if they would be so harsh with an American conglomerate.
[deleted]
Well yes, and defunding fur trade will put poachers' livelihoods at risk, and defunding Amazon will put Amazon warehouse workers' livelihoods at risk.
Jobs will always come and go. New jobs will come.
Jobs will always come and go. New jobs will come.
Are you trying to imply this is the end of pornography? Cause that's super not going to happen, they will just move onto other sites that may or may not be more "sketchy".
Can't believe people still use PornHub anyways.
In my experience, the content is not the greatest
What's better, more ubiquitous, or has higher quality content, all while still having largely ad-driven revenue and not being pure cancer?
reddit ticks 4 out of those 5 boxes
A sex worker union [1] who can negotiate with distribution companies and platforms, lobby legislators and payment facilitators (who should not be prohibiting payments for legal business transactions), and ensure quality working conditions and anti-exploitation controls are in place.
[1] https://www.iusw.org/ (just an example, not familiar with them specifically, just demonstrating the existence of such an org)