6 ms·

Dropbox is already used to “sell” adult content. Creators accept payments on something like cashapp, and then send the customer a link to a shared dropbox folde

Dropbox is already used to “sell” adult content. Creators accept payments on something like cashapp, and then send the customer a link to a shared dropbox folder. It does make me wonder what they will change now that they support that directly, because if the traditional payment processors are involved, adult content will definitely be a no-no.

causality0 4y ago
It never fails to strike me as utterly bizarre that financial services are allowed to discriminate like that.
- Seattle3503 4y ago
  I wish payments weren't an oligopoly.
- colpabar 4y ago
  Well everyone was cheering them on when they were canceling the nazis so I think any notion that payment processors should be neutral is dead at this point.
  - kennywinker 4y ago
    Oh hey look it's a slippery slope argument! First of all, a slippery slope is slippy - that doesn't mean you have to slide down it. You can ban deepy objectionable content, without banning mildly objectionable stuff. As evidence, see any country in the world with functioning hate speech laws. There are lots of them. Second, payment processors / platforms restricting or banning adult content predates the recent resurgence of nazism in america by decades. Third, a bunch of platforms shutting down sex content in recent times has been driven by US laws like FOSTA-SESTA and not "cancel culture" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Enabling_Sex_Traffickers_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Enabling_Sex_Traffickers_...
    - colpabar 4y ago
      Your comment illustrates my point exactly, and I think your attitude is why payment processors will always remain as powerful as they are. My position is that payment processors should not be the arbiters of what is allowed to be paid for by humans. I think that is your position too, but because you don't like the way I made my argument, you reply with a snarky and dismissive tone and treat me like I'm dumb. That banks and other payment processors shouldn't be the rulers of the world is what we all must agree on and fight for if anything is ever going to change. As soon as you say "well in this case they should because I like when they do it to people I dislike," you are effectively saying that they should be all powerful, just as long as their moral compass aligns with yours.
      - zimpenfish 4y ago
        > My position is that payment processors should not be the arbiters of what is allowed to be paid for by humans. But should they have the choice of free association with whom they do business?
        ISO-morphism 4y ago
        Not if they are a utility (like water and electricity) which some can argue they should be.
        colpabar 4y ago
        I don't know. I am all for businesses having that freedom, but I don't really think banks are normal businesses because there are no other options. But I do lean towards "no" to your question, because if we say it's ok for them to choose who they associate with, we are implicitly saying it's ok for them to restrict any content they want. But ultimately, I don't know, and I just find it confusing that any regular person would argue for the rights of _banks_.
        bko 4y ago
        The problem is they get influenced by the state. See Operation Choke Point that was an initiative started by Justice Department to help combat "fraud" and "money laundering" and ended up hitting a lot of adult entertainers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point
  - rurp 4y ago
    I feel like we could categorize people calling for racist violence separately from those choosing to share pictures of their naughty bits, and treat each group differently. Unfortunately there are at least as many influential people who want to ban content they find icky as there are folks wanting to stop modern day nazis.
    - colpabar 4y ago
      I would prefer we didn't allow payment processors to categorize anyone, period. It is way too much power. If people want to buy porn, let them. If people want to donate to bail funds, let them. If people want to donate to nazis, let them.
  - tshaddox 4y ago
    Imagine the hypocrisy to simultaneously believe that Nazis are bad but adult content isn't!
- ywain 4y ago
  The reason financial institutions don't like adult content is not because of some arbitrary morality concerns, but rather simply because the adult industry is fraught with fraud, disputes and chargebacks.
  - RC_ITR 4y ago
    Well, and for a relative small market (in $ terms) it really reminds people how inconvenient the world would be if not for visa.
  - iudqnolq 4y ago
    Not arbitrary, but morality plays a role because the industry is afraid of public pressure and potential legislation. There's been significant lobbying from elected law enforcement and religious groups. For example: * https://www.eff.org/ja/deeplinks/2015/12/sheriffs-threats-against-credit-card-companies-violate-first-amendment https://www.eff.org/ja/deeplinks/2015/12/sheriffs-threats-ag... * https://www.bbc.com/news/world-52543508 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-52543508 Take the second campaign linked. It went beyond advocating for the current law to be enforced and also advocated for cutting off morally reprehensible content (such as content that fetishizes racial slurs) from the global financial system. I'm not saying that's wrong, I'm saying that it's a moral judgement.
- _-david-_ 4y ago
  Porn has massive chargebacks so that should be justification enough for financial services to not work with them or at least charge premiums.
- polski-g 4y ago
  The government needs to start their own debit card service.

causality0 4y ago

It never fails to strike me as utterly bizarre that financial services are allowed to discriminate like that.

Seattle3503 4y ago
I wish payments weren't an oligopoly.
colpabar 4y ago
Well everyone was cheering them on when they were canceling the nazis so I think any notion that payment processors should be neutral is dead at this point.
- kennywinker 4y ago
  Oh hey look it's a slippery slope argument! First of all, a slippery slope is slippy - that doesn't mean you have to slide down it. You can ban deepy objectionable content, without banning mildly objectionable stuff. As evidence, see any country in the world with functioning hate speech laws. There are lots of them. Second, payment processors / platforms restricting or banning adult content predates the recent resurgence of nazism in america by decades. Third, a bunch of platforms shutting down sex content in recent times has been driven by US laws like FOSTA-SESTA and not "cancel culture" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Enabling_Sex_Traffickers_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Enabling_Sex_Traffickers_...
  - colpabar 4y ago
    Your comment illustrates my point exactly, and I think your attitude is why payment processors will always remain as powerful as they are. My position is that payment processors should not be the arbiters of what is allowed to be paid for by humans. I think that is your position too, but because you don't like the way I made my argument, you reply with a snarky and dismissive tone and treat me like I'm dumb. That banks and other payment processors shouldn't be the rulers of the world is what we all must agree on and fight for if anything is ever going to change. As soon as you say "well in this case they should because I like when they do it to people I dislike," you are effectively saying that they should be all powerful, just as long as their moral compass aligns with yours.
    - zimpenfish 4y ago
      > My position is that payment processors should not be the arbiters of what is allowed to be paid for by humans. But should they have the choice of free association with whom they do business?
      - ISO-morphism 4y ago
        Not if they are a utility (like water and electricity) which some can argue they should be.
      - colpabar 4y ago
        I don't know. I am all for businesses having that freedom, but I don't really think banks are normal businesses because there are no other options. But I do lean towards "no" to your question, because if we say it's ok for them to choose who they associate with, we are implicitly saying it's ok for them to restrict any content they want. But ultimately, I don't know, and I just find it confusing that any regular person would argue for the rights of _banks_.
      - bko 4y ago
        The problem is they get influenced by the state. See Operation Choke Point that was an initiative started by Justice Department to help combat "fraud" and "money laundering" and ended up hitting a lot of adult entertainers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point
- rurp 4y ago
  I feel like we could categorize people calling for racist violence separately from those choosing to share pictures of their naughty bits, and treat each group differently. Unfortunately there are at least as many influential people who want to ban content they find icky as there are folks wanting to stop modern day nazis.
  - colpabar 4y ago
    I would prefer we didn't allow payment processors to categorize anyone, period. It is way too much power. If people want to buy porn, let them. If people want to donate to bail funds, let them. If people want to donate to nazis, let them.
- tshaddox 4y ago
  Imagine the hypocrisy to simultaneously believe that Nazis are bad but adult content isn't!
ywain 4y ago
The reason financial institutions don't like adult content is not because of some arbitrary morality concerns, but rather simply because the adult industry is fraught with fraud, disputes and chargebacks.
- RC_ITR 4y ago
  Well, and for a relative small market (in $ terms) it really reminds people how inconvenient the world would be if not for visa.
- iudqnolq 4y ago
  Not arbitrary, but morality plays a role because the industry is afraid of public pressure and potential legislation. There's been significant lobbying from elected law enforcement and religious groups. For example: * https://www.eff.org/ja/deeplinks/2015/12/sheriffs-threats-against-credit-card-companies-violate-first-amendment https://www.eff.org/ja/deeplinks/2015/12/sheriffs-threats-ag... * https://www.bbc.com/news/world-52543508 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-52543508 Take the second campaign linked. It went beyond advocating for the current law to be enforced and also advocated for cutting off morally reprehensible content (such as content that fetishizes racial slurs) from the global financial system. I'm not saying that's wrong, I'm saying that it's a moral judgement.
_-david-_ 4y ago
Porn has massive chargebacks so that should be justification enough for financial services to not work with them or at least charge premiums.
polski-g 4y ago
The government needs to start their own debit card service.