3 ms·

This is an interesting update! Are Visa and MasterCard the reason behind the ban on sex content creators?

salawat 5y ago
There was similar pressure applied by payment processors to purveyors of firearms several years ago. This seems to be pretty standard tactics really.
noahtallen 5y ago
My understanding is that MasterCard is introducing/continuing very strict guidelines for reporting around adult content, like documenting that people have given consent and are old enough. And then, all videos have to be verified before publish, and live videos have to be verified live. In other words, a huge cost to publishing user-generated content. This isn’t a problem for adult content studios dealing with a known set of performers and publishing their own videos. That’s why the policy is so especially impactful towards OnlyFans, where all content is paid, and it’s all created by people the company can’t trust by default. The stated goal is to reduce criminal behavior, but obviously, the main goal is for MasterCard to protect its brand image. Folks are unsure how much actual impact this kind of policy will have against the very real and terrible problem of sex exploitation and trafficking. Which leads people to wonder if the policy is more about being prude and less about preventing exploitation. I could see clear arguments both ways.
- hulitu 5y ago
  > The stated goal is to reduce criminal behavior, but obviously, the main goal is for MasterCard to protect its brand image. For me they just destroyed their brand image. They have just shown, just like PayPal some years ago that they can terminate service based on phylosophical issues. I have nothing against them collaborating with law enforcement when there is a warrant, but cutting payments to arbitrary entities just because they believe that those entities are responsible for CP is overreaching. Do they cut payments also to Hollwood studios because they promote violence ? Or to Blackwater because of what they do in conflict zones ?
  - cududa 5y ago
    Yes but you’re still going to use visa and MasterCard with whatever your banks debit card is based off of. They’ve been cutting off payments to sites that publish adult content for ages, this isn’t new.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > The stated goal is to reduce criminal behavior, but obviously, the main goal is for MasterCard to protect its brand image No, the main goal is protect their bottom line against legal liability. Visa and MC have been proactive in anti-trafficking measures because they have been sued for facilitating online trafficking, because they are very deep pockets defendants that tend to have a nexus to sites involved in commercially distributing trafficking-derived content. So, if there's any whiff of information that they have regarding even the potential of trafficking, they are going to take action to minimize the potential for legal action accusing them of knowingly facilitating trafficking, which has already occurred in previous cases. > Folks are unsure how much actual impact this kind of policy will have against the very real and terrible problem of sex exploitation and trafficking. Which leads people to wonder if the policy is more about being prude and less about preventing exploitation. The goal is not primarily to reduce trafficking but to reduce the card companies’ legal exposure relating to trafficking. Its not about being prudish; Visa/MC don’t care about that as long as they are making money without unnecessary risk exposure.

There was similar pressure applied by payment processors to purveyors of firearms several years ago. This seems to be pretty standard tactics really.

noahtallen 5y ago

My understanding is that MasterCard is introducing/continuing very strict guidelines for reporting around adult content, like documenting that people have given consent and are old enough. And then, all videos have to be verified before publish, and live videos have to be verified live. In other words, a huge cost to publishing user-generated content. This isn’t a problem for adult content studios dealing with a known set of performers and publishing their own videos. That’s why the policy is so especially impactful towards OnlyFans, where all content is paid, and it’s all created by people the company can’t trust by default. The stated goal is to reduce criminal behavior, but obviously, the main goal is for MasterCard to protect its brand image. Folks are unsure how much actual impact this kind of policy will have against the very real and terrible problem of sex exploitation and trafficking. Which leads people to wonder if the policy is more about being prude and less about preventing exploitation. I could see clear arguments both ways.

hulitu 5y ago
> The stated goal is to reduce criminal behavior, but obviously, the main goal is for MasterCard to protect its brand image. For me they just destroyed their brand image. They have just shown, just like PayPal some years ago that they can terminate service based on phylosophical issues. I have nothing against them collaborating with law enforcement when there is a warrant, but cutting payments to arbitrary entities just because they believe that those entities are responsible for CP is overreaching. Do they cut payments also to Hollwood studios because they promote violence ? Or to Blackwater because of what they do in conflict zones ?
- cududa 5y ago
  Yes but you’re still going to use visa and MasterCard with whatever your banks debit card is based off of. They’ve been cutting off payments to sites that publish adult content for ages, this isn’t new.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> The stated goal is to reduce criminal behavior, but obviously, the main goal is for MasterCard to protect its brand image No, the main goal is protect their bottom line against legal liability. Visa and MC have been proactive in anti-trafficking measures because they have been sued for facilitating online trafficking, because they are very deep pockets defendants that tend to have a nexus to sites involved in commercially distributing trafficking-derived content. So, if there's any whiff of information that they have regarding even the potential of trafficking, they are going to take action to minimize the potential for legal action accusing them of knowingly facilitating trafficking, which has already occurred in previous cases. > Folks are unsure how much actual impact this kind of policy will have against the very real and terrible problem of sex exploitation and trafficking. Which leads people to wonder if the policy is more about being prude and less about preventing exploitation. The goal is not primarily to reduce trafficking but to reduce the card companies’ legal exposure relating to trafficking. Its not about being prudish; Visa/MC don’t care about that as long as they are making money without unnecessary risk exposure.