5 ms·

Aren't the payment processors not abusing their dominant position, like what happened a decade ago with Wikileaks? At least at that time they had the excuse the

Aren't the payment processors not abusing their dominant position, like what happened a decade ago with Wikileaks? At least at that time they had the excuse they were pressured by the US government. What's motivating them this time? Do we need some sort of liability safe-harbor for payment processors?

thrower123 5y ago
Regardless of any legal safeguard you might legislate into place, it's radioactive PR to be associated in any way with sex trafficking and child porn.
- cataphract 5y ago
  I'm not sure it is. When people hear "PornHub is disseminating / profiting off revenge porn", does anyone think "shame on their payment processors"? I think the outrage is directed at the operators of the websites themselves.
  - icegreentea2 5y ago
    People with only outrage won't think about their payment processors. Those with outrage who think through their options to enact change will think of their payment processors, and direct group pressure on them.
    - jrwoodruff 5y ago
      I'm very skeptical that anyone would think through this scenario and arrive at boycotting an entire payment network. Not just PornHubs bank, or payment processor, but an entire credit card network. And of those that did, I doubt it would be a big enough group for Mastercard to even notice. Unless that 'someone' is a major institution like Bank of America, or the federal government.
      - thrower123 5y ago
        It doesn't take many people to agitate, if they are sufficiently unpleasant and noisy and can't be easily written off as cranks.
      - lazide 5y ago
        They don't need to boycott it - financial regulators can and have come down on banks and payment processors for allowing 'morally dubious businesses' [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point] such as payday lenders, firearms related companies, porn producers, and many more. There is a long history of this type of thing happening, and no one wants to get near an industry where their underlying ability to bank (and therefore interact with the financial system at all) can be yanked with a phone call.
      - HelloNurse 5y ago
        Payment processor scenario: you need to select one, for example for the POS in your new grocery store. Your fanatical friend says that the evil heathens at provider X support porn and you should avoid payments from X. You want to appease your friend, even if you don't want to boycott porn; on the other side of the balance, in favor of using provider X anyway, no compelling business or moral reason.
      - shadilay 5y ago
        This has nothing to do with boycotts or consumer choice. It's about regulation. If payment processors don't crack down the government will. No one votes for pedos.
    - jandrese 5y ago
      Has anybody in history ever said "I'm cutting up my MasterCard because this porn site takes it!" Organizing a boycott like that seems almost impossible. There just isn't enough realistic competition and going back to paper checks is just not happening, especially online.
      - johnnyanmac 5y ago
        Not many, but it just takes a few of the "right" people who know how to pull the strings: https://www.institutionalinvestor.com/article/b1s9f698vwhczr/Bill-Ackman-Sent-a-Text-to-the-CEO-of-Mastercard-What-Happened-Next-Is-a-Parable-for-ESG https://www.institutionalinvestor.com/article/b1s9f698vwhczr...
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - emaginniss 5y ago
    Some of this is going to come down to legal liability. Someone who suffers because of child or revenge porn at OF or PH might realize that there isn't enough money at those companies and will instead direct lawsuits at "the companies that enabled the behavior." Even if unsuccessful, the legal fees could be enormous.
gadders 5y ago
Payment processors have been doing this for a while with anyone politically controversial as well. Now people have realised they fold to public pressure, you just need to start complaining about your own pet cause to make it happen.
foodjinn 5y ago
They did the same to Cody Wilson's patreon alternative and Dick Masterson's NewProject2 using the exact same verbiage too.
elmo2you 5y ago
These large international payment processors, with their almost mafia/cartel-like rules and influence, have a long history of being used by powerful entities do enforce policies that would otherwise be (and in many cases actually are) illegal. Their behavior certainly goes way beyond their legal mandate, if not in the USA then for in other countries. Certainly arbitrary, within international context all but certainly illegal. Considering the impact that have had around the globe with their abuses, arguable even covert state terrorism. However, they are essentially untouchable. Any substantial threat to these companies will have several huge economies instantly through all their persuading power at whomever may cause pose that threat. I don't see that changing as long as these companies are such a convenient tool, in a system where literally everything is ruled by capital (how conveniently). But the system will erode itself, step by step. Until it does come to a collapse. Good luck with that day, for I hope to not live to see it happen (it won't be pretty).
leokennis 5y ago
I’m not sure if it’s abuse. In The Netherlands, ING got a €750,000,000 fine from the government (the largest ever in this country) for not doing enough to prevent money laundering. It basically ate up the entire quarterly profits. So I don’t think it’s so much “abusing a dominant position” as “being subject to so many regulations and potential fines that it’s almost always better to just not engage in some business than to take any risk”. Lost revenue from OnlyFans is peanuts compared to potential fines for “facilitating sex trafficking”.

thrower123 5y ago

Regardless of any legal safeguard you might legislate into place, it's radioactive PR to be associated in any way with sex trafficking and child porn.

cataphract 5y ago
I'm not sure it is. When people hear "PornHub is disseminating / profiting off revenge porn", does anyone think "shame on their payment processors"? I think the outrage is directed at the operators of the websites themselves.
- icegreentea2 5y ago
  People with only outrage won't think about their payment processors. Those with outrage who think through their options to enact change will think of their payment processors, and direct group pressure on them.
  - jrwoodruff 5y ago
    I'm very skeptical that anyone would think through this scenario and arrive at boycotting an entire payment network. Not just PornHubs bank, or payment processor, but an entire credit card network. And of those that did, I doubt it would be a big enough group for Mastercard to even notice. Unless that 'someone' is a major institution like Bank of America, or the federal government.
    - thrower123 5y ago
      It doesn't take many people to agitate, if they are sufficiently unpleasant and noisy and can't be easily written off as cranks.
    - lazide 5y ago
      They don't need to boycott it - financial regulators can and have come down on banks and payment processors for allowing 'morally dubious businesses' [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point] such as payday lenders, firearms related companies, porn producers, and many more. There is a long history of this type of thing happening, and no one wants to get near an industry where their underlying ability to bank (and therefore interact with the financial system at all) can be yanked with a phone call.
    - HelloNurse 5y ago
      Payment processor scenario: you need to select one, for example for the POS in your new grocery store. Your fanatical friend says that the evil heathens at provider X support porn and you should avoid payments from X. You want to appease your friend, even if you don't want to boycott porn; on the other side of the balance, in favor of using provider X anyway, no compelling business or moral reason.
    - shadilay 5y ago
      This has nothing to do with boycotts or consumer choice. It's about regulation. If payment processors don't crack down the government will. No one votes for pedos.
  - jandrese 5y ago
    Has anybody in history ever said "I'm cutting up my MasterCard because this porn site takes it!" Organizing a boycott like that seems almost impossible. There just isn't enough realistic competition and going back to paper checks is just not happening, especially online.
    - johnnyanmac 5y ago
      Not many, but it just takes a few of the "right" people who know how to pull the strings: https://www.institutionalinvestor.com/article/b1s9f698vwhczr/Bill-Ackman-Sent-a-Text-to-the-CEO-of-Mastercard-What-Happened-Next-Is-a-Parable-for-ESG https://www.institutionalinvestor.com/article/b1s9f698vwhczr...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- emaginniss 5y ago
  Some of this is going to come down to legal liability. Someone who suffers because of child or revenge porn at OF or PH might realize that there isn't enough money at those companies and will instead direct lawsuits at "the companies that enabled the behavior." Even if unsuccessful, the legal fees could be enormous.

gadders 5y ago

Payment processors have been doing this for a while with anyone politically controversial as well. Now people have realised they fold to public pressure, you just need to start complaining about your own pet cause to make it happen.

foodjinn 5y ago

They did the same to Cody Wilson's patreon alternative and Dick Masterson's NewProject2 using the exact same verbiage too.

elmo2you 5y ago

These large international payment processors, with their almost mafia/cartel-like rules and influence, have a long history of being used by powerful entities do enforce policies that would otherwise be (and in many cases actually are) illegal. Their behavior certainly goes way beyond their legal mandate, if not in the USA then for in other countries. Certainly arbitrary, within international context all but certainly illegal. Considering the impact that have had around the globe with their abuses, arguable even covert state terrorism. However, they are essentially untouchable. Any substantial threat to these companies will have several huge economies instantly through all their persuading power at whomever may cause pose that threat. I don't see that changing as long as these companies are such a convenient tool, in a system where literally everything is ruled by capital (how conveniently). But the system will erode itself, step by step. Until it does come to a collapse. Good luck with that day, for I hope to not live to see it happen (it won't be pretty).

leokennis 5y ago

I’m not sure if it’s abuse. In The Netherlands, ING got a €750,000,000 fine from the government (the largest ever in this country) for not doing enough to prevent money laundering. It basically ate up the entire quarterly profits. So I don’t think it’s so much “abusing a dominant position” as “being subject to so many regulations and potential fines that it’s almost always better to just not engage in some business than to take any risk”. Lost revenue from OnlyFans is peanuts compared to potential fines for “facilitating sex trafficking”.