5 ms·

They of course are free to work with or not work with whatever vendors they choose, but it's really surprising to see a financial services company make a choice

They of course are free to work with or not work with whatever vendors they choose, but it's really surprising to see a financial services company make a choice that will mean they make less money. Maybe I'm just jaded, but it can't possibly be that they're doing this just because they think it's the right thing to do. Why is this better for their bottom line in the longer run? Do they foresee some sort of huge liability headache if that site gets shut down, so they're just taking their ball and going home before the storm hits?

toomuchtodo 6y ago
Imagine you are a Visa or Mastercard executive. Your company has found evidence of illegal, sexually exploitative (including that of the underage variety) materials on a site your company tangentially provides services for. What other option do you have? Congressional testimony, civil suits, reputational risk and damage. These are the pitfalls you are attempting to avoid by deplatforming Mindgeek through their payment processor.
- chadlavi 6y ago
  I guess it could be the case that they regularly sever relationships with vendors for this, but usually it's not newsworthy. So the angle is basically preventative PR? Business lost based on future outrage outweighs business lost to porn subscribers, sort of thing?
  - toomuchtodo 6y ago
    > So the angle is basically preventative PR? Business lost based on future outrage outweighs business lost to porn subscribers, sort of thing? Yeah. See exileration's comment about the NY Times piece. Pornhub looked the other way on verified users and safety/trust (content moderation and the like) to generate more users/views and they got burned.
- hrktb 6y ago
  Edit: I wasn’t thinking about financial regulation applied to processors on a whole range of illegal behavior, where regulator will go after the payment processor to force it to police transactions Gist of the original comment: As other commenters point out, your go to option should be to alert authorities and have them investigate.
  - criddell 6y ago
    > your go to option should be to alert authorities and have them investigate And then continue processing payments for what you sincerely believe to be child abuse and rape until the justice system finally gets around to dealing with it?
    - hrktb 6y ago
      I sympathize with the point, because as an individual that’s what I would do. I see it as a less clear situation for an entity that has so much control other everyone’s life. Phrasing it in a “innocent until proven guilty” would be too much, as they are not governing bodies, but there is a line somewhere that should be set in my opinion, and crossing it should be backed by something legal happening on with it (basically PornHub having an injunction to stop doing business until due trial), and not just the processor acting on its principles.
nostromo 6y ago
> They of course are free to work with or not work with whatever vendors they choose Don’t like Standard Oil? Just heat your home and cook your food with someone else’s oil! I’m tired of hearing this argument to defend technology monopolies and duopolies. If you have no legal reason to deny services to someone, don’t. That would mean baking cakes for gay weddings if you’re a baker open to the public and processing credit card payments for pornography if you’re a payment processor.
- gamblor956 6y ago
  But in this case, it appears they do have legal reasons for denying services. The company was aware of it's CP problem and didn't do much to stop it. Now they have a very strong incentive to police their site.
  - nostromo 6y ago
    But why are we looking to MasterCard to police pornography on the internet and not our government?
    - FemmeAndroid 6y ago
      Because that's a false dichotomy and we are looking to both.
- chadlavi 6y ago
  I think the more apt analogy might be choosing not to sell flour to that jerk who runs the anti-gay cake store anymore because you don't want to be caught up in the bad PR. I'm pretty sure you can still use MasterCard to fund a PayPal account, which can be used to buy any manner of thing, so it's not purely that Mastercard doesn't want their money being used to buy illegal things. They just don't want to be associated with it.
  - freeone3000 6y ago
    Except you can't pay for Pornhub with PayPal, as PayPal can't be used to buy pornography. Not even the legal kind. They won't even take the proceeds. Venmo is owned by PayPal and has the same policies. Google Pay also has an explicit ban on pornography. As does Apple Pay. As does Samsung Pay. In fact, I don't think any balance-carrying service available to Americans even theoretically allows paying for porn.
baby 6y ago
Mastercard is so big that them choosing to ban some recipients is almost like banning these recipients from existing. I know there’s visa but I can imagine that as a company that’s a huge stab in the guts. Imagine having a product banned by the iOS apps tore!
- stordoff 6y ago
  > Imagine having a product banned by the iOS apps tore! Like PornHub - pornographic content isn't allowed.
  - baby 6y ago
    exactly, that's already pretty fucked up in my book. Same for weed apps, they're banned. I can't use the PAX app on my phone.
Miner49er 6y ago
I actually wonder if credit card companies even make money doing business with PornHub? My understanding is that porn credit card charges are charged back extremely often. Dealing with those has to eat away at the margin. Maybe they just saw this as an opportunity to get out of business with PornHub and not look like they are unfairly denying service?
- chadlavi 6y ago
  That would make a lot of sense too!
- jeltz 6y ago
  Every industry gets unique rates so that is already priced in.
cathyreisenwitz 6y ago
It's likely the DOJ is pressuring them. Look up Operation Choke Point.
- ardy42 6y ago
  > It's likely the DOJ is pressuring them. Look up Operation Choke Point. No, this is driven by public and media pressure. There was a really blunt expose about PornHub a week ago by a prominent NYT columnist.

toomuchtodo 6y ago

Imagine you are a Visa or Mastercard executive. Your company has found evidence of illegal, sexually exploitative (including that of the underage variety) materials on a site your company tangentially provides services for. What other option do you have? Congressional testimony, civil suits, reputational risk and damage. These are the pitfalls you are attempting to avoid by deplatforming Mindgeek through their payment processor.

chadlavi 6y ago
I guess it could be the case that they regularly sever relationships with vendors for this, but usually it's not newsworthy. So the angle is basically preventative PR? Business lost based on future outrage outweighs business lost to porn subscribers, sort of thing?
- toomuchtodo 6y ago
  > So the angle is basically preventative PR? Business lost based on future outrage outweighs business lost to porn subscribers, sort of thing? Yeah. See exileration's comment about the NY Times piece. Pornhub looked the other way on verified users and safety/trust (content moderation and the like) to generate more users/views and they got burned.
hrktb 6y ago
Edit: I wasn’t thinking about financial regulation applied to processors on a whole range of illegal behavior, where regulator will go after the payment processor to force it to police transactions Gist of the original comment: As other commenters point out, your go to option should be to alert authorities and have them investigate.
- criddell 6y ago
  > your go to option should be to alert authorities and have them investigate And then continue processing payments for what you sincerely believe to be child abuse and rape until the justice system finally gets around to dealing with it?
  - hrktb 6y ago
    I sympathize with the point, because as an individual that’s what I would do. I see it as a less clear situation for an entity that has so much control other everyone’s life. Phrasing it in a “innocent until proven guilty” would be too much, as they are not governing bodies, but there is a line somewhere that should be set in my opinion, and crossing it should be backed by something legal happening on with it (basically PornHub having an injunction to stop doing business until due trial), and not just the processor acting on its principles.

nostromo 6y ago

> They of course are free to work with or not work with whatever vendors they choose Don’t like Standard Oil? Just heat your home and cook your food with someone else’s oil! I’m tired of hearing this argument to defend technology monopolies and duopolies. If you have no legal reason to deny services to someone, don’t. That would mean baking cakes for gay weddings if you’re a baker open to the public and processing credit card payments for pornography if you’re a payment processor.

gamblor956 6y ago
But in this case, it appears they do have legal reasons for denying services. The company was aware of it's CP problem and didn't do much to stop it. Now they have a very strong incentive to police their site.
- nostromo 6y ago
  But why are we looking to MasterCard to police pornography on the internet and not our government?
  - FemmeAndroid 6y ago
    Because that's a false dichotomy and we are looking to both.
chadlavi 6y ago
I think the more apt analogy might be choosing not to sell flour to that jerk who runs the anti-gay cake store anymore because you don't want to be caught up in the bad PR. I'm pretty sure you can still use MasterCard to fund a PayPal account, which can be used to buy any manner of thing, so it's not purely that Mastercard doesn't want their money being used to buy illegal things. They just don't want to be associated with it.
- freeone3000 6y ago
  Except you can't pay for Pornhub with PayPal, as PayPal can't be used to buy pornography. Not even the legal kind. They won't even take the proceeds. Venmo is owned by PayPal and has the same policies. Google Pay also has an explicit ban on pornography. As does Apple Pay. As does Samsung Pay. In fact, I don't think any balance-carrying service available to Americans even theoretically allows paying for porn.

baby 6y ago

Mastercard is so big that them choosing to ban some recipients is almost like banning these recipients from existing. I know there’s visa but I can imagine that as a company that’s a huge stab in the guts. Imagine having a product banned by the iOS apps tore!

stordoff 6y ago
> Imagine having a product banned by the iOS apps tore! Like PornHub - pornographic content isn't allowed.
- baby 6y ago
  exactly, that's already pretty fucked up in my book. Same for weed apps, they're banned. I can't use the PAX app on my phone.

Miner49er 6y ago

I actually wonder if credit card companies even make money doing business with PornHub? My understanding is that porn credit card charges are charged back extremely often. Dealing with those has to eat away at the margin. Maybe they just saw this as an opportunity to get out of business with PornHub and not look like they are unfairly denying service?

chadlavi 6y ago
That would make a lot of sense too!
jeltz 6y ago
Every industry gets unique rates so that is already priced in.

cathyreisenwitz 6y ago

It's likely the DOJ is pressuring them. Look up Operation Choke Point.

ardy42 6y ago
> It's likely the DOJ is pressuring them. Look up Operation Choke Point. No, this is driven by public and media pressure. There was a really blunt expose about PornHub a week ago by a prominent NYT columnist.