5 ms·

If pornhub is breaking the law, then it should be prosecuted. The ability of companies and individuals to send and receive payments should not be at the whim o

If pornhub is breaking the law, then it should be prosecuted. The ability of companies and individuals to send and receive payments should not be at the whim of public opinion anymore than their access to the electric grid. Payment processing is at the point where it needs to be regulated as a utility.

Oblouk 6y ago
This is one of the few benefits I can see to cryptocurrency.
- macspoofing 6y ago
  And even that is tenuous. In cases where you run afoul of AML regulations, cryptocurrency will not save you. In cases such as this where you break no laws, but your payment processor refuses to process payments ... well, at some point you'll have to convert your crypto cash into real cash - so all you did was kick the ball downstream and fixed nothing. If MasterCard refuses to process your payments, they can also refuse to process payments for the crypto exchange if they do business with you.
tamrix 6y ago
Don't think that this problem lies solely with porn websites. The same illegal content is uploaded and distributed to Twitter, tictok and other social media but they're protected by the same article 240 pornhub is. However, in the eyes of the leftist cesspool twitter is, if you say you want to remove article 240 to hold twitter accountable for distributing illegal content via tweets, then suddenly you're a Trump supporting alt right conspiracy theorist.
- jackson1442 6y ago
  Are you suggesting that platforms should be held responsible for all content posted on their respective sites? I personally feel that is an absurd burden and simply won't work. In May of 2019, 500 hours of content were uploaded to YouTube every minute. How could a platform possibly be held accountable for that sheer volume of content? YouTube already tries to do this, but AI is only so good and hiring that many humans to both watch the content and report on it is a massive undertaking. It would make sense to pursue Twitter if they are in fact acting in _bad faith_, but not being able to read all 9255 tweets posted _every second_ doesn't seem like a reason to punish Twitter.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- popinman322 6y ago
  > in the eyes of the leftist cesspool twitter is, > suddenly you're a Trump supporting alt right conspiracy theorist. Maybe it's how you use language and not the idea? Saying that Twitter should be held accountable for illegal content is fairly agreeable, even if it's a huge burden.
shbooms 6y ago
That's part of the issue here--they aren't breaking the law (at least in the U.S.) Thanks to protections enacted by "Section 230" of the 1996 Communications Descent Act [1]: Section 230(c)(1) provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an "interactive computer service" who publish information provided by third-party users: No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati...
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  Section 230 no longer protects companies who are hosting child exploitation as of SESTA/FOSTA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Enabling_Sex_Traffickers_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Enabling_Sex_Traffickers_... And Section 230 will be gutted more thoroughly or retired entirely in the coming decade. A lot of internet marketing is going into protecting it from tech companies whose bad behavior relies on it, but both political parties in the US agree it's time is over.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > but both political parties in the US agree it’s time is over. There are factions within both parties that agree that Section 230 should be repealed or replaced with something significantly different, but there are factions in both parties that disagree and, perhaps more importantly, there is a lack of consensus on whether it should be simply repealed or modified/replaced, and if the latter on what the replacement/modification should be, and many of the people that agree that there is a problem view the status quo as better than other faction’s preferred end-state. So, while I think there will be a lot of noise about 230 over the next few years, I’m a lot less confident than you seem to be that there will be any successful action to repeal or massively modify it.
- mfer 6y ago
  You should read the wikipedia page further as it points out an exemption for this type of case... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230#Sex_trafficking_-_Backpage.com_and_FOSTA-SESTA_(2012%E2%80%932017) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230#Sex_trafficking_-_... The exception for this type of case had bi-partisan support.

Oblouk 6y ago

This is one of the few benefits I can see to cryptocurrency.

macspoofing 6y ago
And even that is tenuous. In cases where you run afoul of AML regulations, cryptocurrency will not save you. In cases such as this where you break no laws, but your payment processor refuses to process payments ... well, at some point you'll have to convert your crypto cash into real cash - so all you did was kick the ball downstream and fixed nothing. If MasterCard refuses to process your payments, they can also refuse to process payments for the crypto exchange if they do business with you.

tamrix 6y ago

Don't think that this problem lies solely with porn websites. The same illegal content is uploaded and distributed to Twitter, tictok and other social media but they're protected by the same article 240 pornhub is. However, in the eyes of the leftist cesspool twitter is, if you say you want to remove article 240 to hold twitter accountable for distributing illegal content via tweets, then suddenly you're a Trump supporting alt right conspiracy theorist.

jackson1442 6y ago
Are you suggesting that platforms should be held responsible for all content posted on their respective sites? I personally feel that is an absurd burden and simply won't work. In May of 2019, 500 hours of content were uploaded to YouTube every minute. How could a platform possibly be held accountable for that sheer volume of content? YouTube already tries to do this, but AI is only so good and hiring that many humans to both watch the content and report on it is a massive undertaking. It would make sense to pursue Twitter if they are in fact acting in _bad faith_, but not being able to read all 9255 tweets posted _every second_ doesn't seem like a reason to punish Twitter.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
popinman322 6y ago
> in the eyes of the leftist cesspool twitter is, > suddenly you're a Trump supporting alt right conspiracy theorist. Maybe it's how you use language and not the idea? Saying that Twitter should be held accountable for illegal content is fairly agreeable, even if it's a huge burden.

shbooms 6y ago

That's part of the issue here--they aren't breaking the law (at least in the U.S.) Thanks to protections enacted by "Section 230" of the 1996 Communications Descent Act [1]: Section 230(c)(1) provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an "interactive computer service" who publish information provided by third-party users: No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati...

ocdtrekkie 6y ago
Section 230 no longer protects companies who are hosting child exploitation as of SESTA/FOSTA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Enabling_Sex_Traffickers_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Enabling_Sex_Traffickers_... And Section 230 will be gutted more thoroughly or retired entirely in the coming decade. A lot of internet marketing is going into protecting it from tech companies whose bad behavior relies on it, but both political parties in the US agree it's time is over.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > but both political parties in the US agree it’s time is over. There are factions within both parties that agree that Section 230 should be repealed or replaced with something significantly different, but there are factions in both parties that disagree and, perhaps more importantly, there is a lack of consensus on whether it should be simply repealed or modified/replaced, and if the latter on what the replacement/modification should be, and many of the people that agree that there is a problem view the status quo as better than other faction’s preferred end-state. So, while I think there will be a lot of noise about 230 over the next few years, I’m a lot less confident than you seem to be that there will be any successful action to repeal or massively modify it.
mfer 6y ago
You should read the wikipedia page further as it points out an exemption for this type of case... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230#Sex_trafficking_-_Backpage.com_and_FOSTA-SESTA_(2012%E2%80%932017) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230#Sex_trafficking_-_... The exception for this type of case had bi-partisan support.