5 ms·

Yes, it can, but the question is who is going to decide it. Going with this argument any organization large enough would be criminal. Normally what will happe

Yes, it can, but the question is who is going to decide it. Going with this argument any organization large enough would be criminal. Normally what will happen is if the assistance in money laundering or funding criminal activity is incidental or the organization didn't know there was a problem and couldn't be reasonably expected to know, then it's not a crime. But if the organization knows or should have known, then it is. MasterCard is now in the knows or should have known state, so continuing to fund illegal activity could reasonably be considered a crime, at least based on the typical patterns of these laws.

lmilcin 6y ago
The question is then who is doing criminal activity? Is PornHub liable because couple users sneaked something that is illegal? Or is there something we are not aware of and PornHub engaged in it? There is no information on that. If it is the case that only minority of users are responsible then Youtube is likewise liable and Mastercard should stop serving Youtube knowing that at any point in time Youtube has some users that have illegal content. It is different to stop payments for illegal activity and stopping payments to a large corporation that has huge user base that has some users engaging in illegal activity. If it is ok to do that then practically no current large company that has large user base could be served by payment organizations.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
  It just really depends on the specific laws in question. All I can say is it doesn't seem unreasonable for MasterCard to do some CYA under these circumstances.
  - lmilcin 6y ago
    All I say is that from the article I only learned some people posted some illegal content and PH removed it and blocked accounts when it was reported to them. If that is the case I believe this is the case of MasterCard using double standards for their clients and probably because public will not vehemently defend a porn site.
- viraptor 6y ago
  > If it is ok to do that then practically no current large company that has large user base could be served by payment organizations. If this rule was enforced equally, it could be a good thing overall. Yes, it would probably destroy for example YT as it is now and I'm ok with that.
- ogre_codes 6y ago
  > The question is then who is doing criminal activity? Is PornHub liable because couple users sneaked something that is illegal? Or is there something we are not aware of and PornHub engaged in it? There is no information on that. You are missing the point here. MasterCard doesn't care. They have zero interest in fighting legal battles to retain PornHub's business. > If it is the case that only minority of users are responsible then Youtube YouTube spends a ton of money building extensive controls to catch illegal content and remove it from their platform as quickly as possible. So much so a lot of should be legal content gets sucked up and blocked/ removed. From the sounds of it, PornHub doesn't have similar controls even as they are in a business which neck deep in potential legal/ ethical challenges.

lmilcin 6y ago

The question is then who is doing criminal activity? Is PornHub liable because couple users sneaked something that is illegal? Or is there something we are not aware of and PornHub engaged in it? There is no information on that. If it is the case that only minority of users are responsible then Youtube is likewise liable and Mastercard should stop serving Youtube knowing that at any point in time Youtube has some users that have illegal content. It is different to stop payments for illegal activity and stopping payments to a large corporation that has huge user base that has some users engaging in illegal activity. If it is ok to do that then practically no current large company that has large user base could be served by payment organizations.

asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
It just really depends on the specific laws in question. All I can say is it doesn't seem unreasonable for MasterCard to do some CYA under these circumstances.
- lmilcin 6y ago
  All I say is that from the article I only learned some people posted some illegal content and PH removed it and blocked accounts when it was reported to them. If that is the case I believe this is the case of MasterCard using double standards for their clients and probably because public will not vehemently defend a porn site.
viraptor 6y ago
> If it is ok to do that then practically no current large company that has large user base could be served by payment organizations. If this rule was enforced equally, it could be a good thing overall. Yes, it would probably destroy for example YT as it is now and I'm ok with that.
ogre_codes 6y ago
> The question is then who is doing criminal activity? Is PornHub liable because couple users sneaked something that is illegal? Or is there something we are not aware of and PornHub engaged in it? There is no information on that. You are missing the point here. MasterCard doesn't care. They have zero interest in fighting legal battles to retain PornHub's business. > If it is the case that only minority of users are responsible then Youtube YouTube spends a ton of money building extensive controls to catch illegal content and remove it from their platform as quickly as possible. So much so a lot of should be legal content gets sucked up and blocked/ removed. From the sounds of it, PornHub doesn't have similar controls even as they are in a business which neck deep in potential legal/ ethical challenges.