4 ms·

Free speech, separation of church and state has nothing to do with it. Not wanting to be associated with rape, child and revenge porn (variations on non-consent

Free speech, separation of church and state has nothing to do with it. Not wanting to be associated with rape, child and revenge porn (variations on non-consent) is all it is. User submitted content is so much harder to verify facts about (consent in particular) and as long as the user submitted content is sexual in nature, it is legal plutonium.

jhgb 5y ago
> User submitted content is so much harder to verify facts about That doesn't seem to be stopping e-Bay and such. I don't believe that payment processors have any idea what are people buying and selling.
- SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
  Ebay has the same kind of rules, prohibiting "sexually oriented materials" and allowing nudity "only in limited situations". (https://www.ebay.com/help/policies/prohibited-restricted-items/adult-items-policy?id=4278 https://www.ebay.com/help/policies/prohibited-restricted-ite...)
  - jhgb 5y ago
    Except "sexually oriented materials" are not the same thing as illegal goods. I was NOT talking about "sexually oriented materials".
  - kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
    Stolen items are fenced on eBay. The payment processors don't have an issue with actual crimes like theft but want to impose a moral code on legal behavior.
    - codetrotter 5y ago
      It’s not about morals, it’s about chargebacks. That’s why.
      - kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
        Then you charge a higher merchant fee.
        MichaelGroves 5y ago
        They could do that. Or they could choose not to be involved in that sort of business.
    - User23 5y ago
      How is banning theft any less arbitrary than banning porn?
    - SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
      Can you explain in more detail? I just don't see the analogy you're drawing here. People may sometimes fence stolen items on Ebay, but you're not allowed to, and payment processors would definitely cut them off if you were.
      - jhgb 5y ago
        Maybe that people may sometimes post illegal porn on OnlyFans but you're not allowed to either? User-traded goods on e-Bay are also much harder to verify facts about than goods from a brick-and-mortar shop. Doesn't seem to prevent e-Bay from operating.
    - anigbrowl 5y ago
      Be realistic, if I offer stolen set of fancy hubcaps or something (ie something potentially expensive but doesn't have a serial # like a computer) there's no real way to tell if it's legit or not. If I offer porn for sale and there's an anti-porn policy, they can just say 'welp this is porn to us.' Like how would you distinguish between a stolen item and a used item without requiring people to keep every receipt for anything they ever buy? This is not an endorsement of their anti-porn policy, just observing that that it's easy for them to implement that in contrast to your theft example.
- kwere 5y ago
  c'mon man
- ev1 5y ago
  As of this year you can no longer sell on eBay without going through full KYC, including SSN (not EIN), providing a physical bank account, etc. If you are selling as a company, including a multi-owner or multi-person company you are still required to provide full personal details for the people involved and any beneficial owners.
neolog 5y ago
A lot of the attacks against amateur porn and sex work are by religious groups masking their actual motive by focusing on consent verification. Verification raises the barrier and makes performers much more vulnerable since their legal identities are attached to their work. https://newrepublic.com/article/160488/nick-kristof-holy-war-pornhub https://newrepublic.com/article/160488/nick-kristof-holy-war...
- zdragnar 5y ago
  So what? There are legitimate arguments to having consent verification, and the things they prevent are about as far from victimless crimes as you can get- what happens on the internet, stays on the internet, leading to a lifetime of re-victimization. Just because people you don't like are for something does not mean that you must automatically be against it.
  - hvdijk 5y ago
    "So what?" as a response to a post explaining how a policy puts certain people at risk, regardless of what the policy is and who those certain people are, makes how you view those people quite a lot clearer than you may have intended.
    - zdragnar 5y ago
      The person I responded to implied that the arguments in favor of consent verification were made in bad faith because some people might also oppose porn in general. It is a logical fallacy. The risk of de-anonymization doesn't go away because their consent wasn't verified- tattoos, birthmarks, backgrounds of images and video, etc are still there. Not only that, but that same risk still applies to people whose videos were posted without consent. What's worse than being raped and having your video put online? Knowing that everyone you ever work with may have seen it, for the rest of your life. Also, if you read the article the post attached, it literally opens with a woman who had to impersonate a lawyer to get porn of her taken off of pornhub. "How I view those people" seems to be your imagination, not mine.
robbrown451 5y ago
I don't see how a payment processor is "being associated" with the content. Deciding whether that sort of thing is happening really shouldn't be their purview.
- miohtama 5y ago
  Because Exodus Cry campaigned for it https://mobile.twitter.com/GustavoTurnerX/status/1428440817316761603 https://mobile.twitter.com/GustavoTurnerX/status/14284408173...
  - emanuer 5y ago
    This is why I love HN, you gave me a surprising, but after evaluating your links trustworthy explanation. Thank you! If anyone else is wondering Exodus Cry is an organization which originated out of a weekly prayer group founded 2007 [0], they apparently lobbied Mastercard to only accept providers which verify the identity of all performers & review content before any upload [1]. Which is almost impossible for the tubes / onlyfans => no more payment [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_Cry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_Cry [1] https://www.mastercard.com/news/perspectives/2021/protecting-our-network-protecting-you-preventing-illegal-adult-content-on-our-network/ https://www.mastercard.com/news/perspectives/2021/protecting...
- midev 5y ago
  > I don't see how a payment processor is "being associated" with the content They are literally facilitating the transaction.... Handling payments which determine access to the content is very much "being associated". > Deciding whether that sort of thing is happening really shouldn't be their purview. That is their purview. Who they choose to process payments for, and the various rates based on content and risk, is the entire purpose of their business.
  - robbrown451 5y ago
    Risk I understand. But that's not really an issue here. These are relatively small payments, and it is easy to see what percentage end up causing them trouble. I doubt it is any higher than anything else. Content, no. My email provider doesn't get involved in what I am emailing (even though they might be "facilitating" a crime or other unsavory), the car dealership doesn't get involved in what I am going to use the car for. I mean by your logic a grocery store could ask what business you are in, and not sell you food because that is facilitating what you are doing. Sure, if law enforcement and courts get involved, then they can stop being a provider. But to suggest that it somehow reflects badly on the credit card company that they are used on a porn site is ridiculous.

jhgb 5y ago

> User submitted content is so much harder to verify facts about That doesn't seem to be stopping e-Bay and such. I don't believe that payment processors have any idea what are people buying and selling.

SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
Ebay has the same kind of rules, prohibiting "sexually oriented materials" and allowing nudity "only in limited situations". (https://www.ebay.com/help/policies/prohibited-restricted-items/adult-items-policy?id=4278 https://www.ebay.com/help/policies/prohibited-restricted-ite...)
- jhgb 5y ago
  Except "sexually oriented materials" are not the same thing as illegal goods. I was NOT talking about "sexually oriented materials".
- kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
  Stolen items are fenced on eBay. The payment processors don't have an issue with actual crimes like theft but want to impose a moral code on legal behavior.
  - codetrotter 5y ago
    It’s not about morals, it’s about chargebacks. That’s why.
    - kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
      Then you charge a higher merchant fee.
      - MichaelGroves 5y ago
        They could do that. Or they could choose not to be involved in that sort of business.
  - User23 5y ago
    How is banning theft any less arbitrary than banning porn?
  - SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
    Can you explain in more detail? I just don't see the analogy you're drawing here. People may sometimes fence stolen items on Ebay, but you're not allowed to, and payment processors would definitely cut them off if you were.
    - jhgb 5y ago
      Maybe that people may sometimes post illegal porn on OnlyFans but you're not allowed to either? User-traded goods on e-Bay are also much harder to verify facts about than goods from a brick-and-mortar shop. Doesn't seem to prevent e-Bay from operating.
  - anigbrowl 5y ago
    Be realistic, if I offer stolen set of fancy hubcaps or something (ie something potentially expensive but doesn't have a serial # like a computer) there's no real way to tell if it's legit or not. If I offer porn for sale and there's an anti-porn policy, they can just say 'welp this is porn to us.' Like how would you distinguish between a stolen item and a used item without requiring people to keep every receipt for anything they ever buy? This is not an endorsement of their anti-porn policy, just observing that that it's easy for them to implement that in contrast to your theft example.
kwere 5y ago
c'mon man
ev1 5y ago
As of this year you can no longer sell on eBay without going through full KYC, including SSN (not EIN), providing a physical bank account, etc. If you are selling as a company, including a multi-owner or multi-person company you are still required to provide full personal details for the people involved and any beneficial owners.

neolog 5y ago

A lot of the attacks against amateur porn and sex work are by religious groups masking their actual motive by focusing on consent verification. Verification raises the barrier and makes performers much more vulnerable since their legal identities are attached to their work. https://newrepublic.com/article/160488/nick-kristof-holy-war-pornhub https://newrepublic.com/article/160488/nick-kristof-holy-war...

zdragnar 5y ago
So what? There are legitimate arguments to having consent verification, and the things they prevent are about as far from victimless crimes as you can get- what happens on the internet, stays on the internet, leading to a lifetime of re-victimization. Just because people you don't like are for something does not mean that you must automatically be against it.
- hvdijk 5y ago
  "So what?" as a response to a post explaining how a policy puts certain people at risk, regardless of what the policy is and who those certain people are, makes how you view those people quite a lot clearer than you may have intended.
  - zdragnar 5y ago
    The person I responded to implied that the arguments in favor of consent verification were made in bad faith because some people might also oppose porn in general. It is a logical fallacy. The risk of de-anonymization doesn't go away because their consent wasn't verified- tattoos, birthmarks, backgrounds of images and video, etc are still there. Not only that, but that same risk still applies to people whose videos were posted without consent. What's worse than being raped and having your video put online? Knowing that everyone you ever work with may have seen it, for the rest of your life. Also, if you read the article the post attached, it literally opens with a woman who had to impersonate a lawyer to get porn of her taken off of pornhub. "How I view those people" seems to be your imagination, not mine.

robbrown451 5y ago

I don't see how a payment processor is "being associated" with the content. Deciding whether that sort of thing is happening really shouldn't be their purview.

miohtama 5y ago
Because Exodus Cry campaigned for it https://mobile.twitter.com/GustavoTurnerX/status/1428440817316761603 https://mobile.twitter.com/GustavoTurnerX/status/14284408173...
- emanuer 5y ago
  This is why I love HN, you gave me a surprising, but after evaluating your links trustworthy explanation. Thank you! If anyone else is wondering Exodus Cry is an organization which originated out of a weekly prayer group founded 2007 [0], they apparently lobbied Mastercard to only accept providers which verify the identity of all performers & review content before any upload [1]. Which is almost impossible for the tubes / onlyfans => no more payment [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_Cry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_Cry [1] https://www.mastercard.com/news/perspectives/2021/protecting-our-network-protecting-you-preventing-illegal-adult-content-on-our-network/ https://www.mastercard.com/news/perspectives/2021/protecting...
midev 5y ago
> I don't see how a payment processor is "being associated" with the content They are literally facilitating the transaction.... Handling payments which determine access to the content is very much "being associated". > Deciding whether that sort of thing is happening really shouldn't be their purview. That is their purview. Who they choose to process payments for, and the various rates based on content and risk, is the entire purpose of their business.
- robbrown451 5y ago
  Risk I understand. But that's not really an issue here. These are relatively small payments, and it is easy to see what percentage end up causing them trouble. I doubt it is any higher than anything else. Content, no. My email provider doesn't get involved in what I am emailing (even though they might be "facilitating" a crime or other unsavory), the car dealership doesn't get involved in what I am going to use the car for. I mean by your logic a grocery store could ask what business you are in, and not sell you food because that is facilitating what you are doing. Sure, if law enforcement and courts get involved, then they can stop being a provider. But to suggest that it somehow reflects badly on the credit card company that they are used on a porn site is ridiculous.