42 ms·

That's a circular argument though, the label is also a moral judgement The public was becoming too liberal, didn't have a strong enough reaction to "prostituti

That's a circular argument though, the label is also a moral judgement The public was becoming too liberal, didn't have a strong enough reaction to "prostitution" anymore. Hence they started relabeling most voluntary prostitution disingenuously and even changing laws to make clearly "nothing special" also be "sex trafficking" ... like a man traveling for a weekend getaway to another city with two half-sugar baby half-prostitites.

xienze 4y ago
> That's a circular argument though No it’s not. Whatever moral judgement the government assigns to a crime is irrelevant to a company who is staring down the barrel of a lawsuit for being party to said crime. In the end, all it would take is one case of a pimp accepting payment for his underaged prostitutes via this company for the payment processor to be sued into oblivion, so they made the rational decision to not open themselves to this risk any longer.
- Retric 4y ago
  Hardly a realistic risk there. Payment processors are really hard to sue unless they are directly involved in fraud. Which is why person to person payment processors like Venmo can operate.
  - xienze 4y ago
    > Hardly a realistic risk there. What? No it's not. Here's an example of a payment processor that got sued for being the payment processor used by a debt settlement firm that merely "overcharged consumers, took untimely fees, misrepresented the value of its services, and failed to make critical disclosures about consumer harms."[0] > Payment processors are really hard to sue unless they are directly involved in fraud. All of that is merely a question of the scale of the activity and how badly the government wants to stop it. Same reason cryptocurrency escaped taxing/reporting requirements for many years -- the scale and the ire of the government just wasn't there yet. Relevant to this discussion, the payment processor in question is associated with a company that makes no bones about providing services for people engaged in work that is illegal in many jurisdictions! If you don't think that would eventually land both companies in the government's crosshairs, I don't know what to tell you. Take "fair" out of the equation, if you're a business owner it's not about "fair", it's about saving your ass. It's not a moral judgement for a company to voluntarily disassociate themselves from another company engaged in illegal behavior. > Which is why person to person payment processors like Venmo can operate. Venmo's TOS has named restrictions on what customers can do (and "at our discretion" clauses), and they absolutely will ban users for violating them if it either Venmo can prove it or if they government starts threatening them over it. 0: https://www.mass.gov/news/ags-office-reaches-settlement-with-payment-processing-company-over-claims-of-unlawful-fee-practices https://www.mass.gov/news/ags-office-reaches-settlement-with...
    - Retric 4y ago
      That payment processor was sued for transferring money without account holders consent. That’s exactly the kind of fraud I was referring to. Also, by your reasoning Venmo's TOS is a thin shield vs a single case of under age prostitution.

xienze 4y ago

> That's a circular argument though No it’s not. Whatever moral judgement the government assigns to a crime is irrelevant to a company who is staring down the barrel of a lawsuit for being party to said crime. In the end, all it would take is one case of a pimp accepting payment for his underaged prostitutes via this company for the payment processor to be sued into oblivion, so they made the rational decision to not open themselves to this risk any longer.

Retric 4y ago
Hardly a realistic risk there. Payment processors are really hard to sue unless they are directly involved in fraud. Which is why person to person payment processors like Venmo can operate.
- xienze 4y ago
  > Hardly a realistic risk there. What? No it's not. Here's an example of a payment processor that got sued for being the payment processor used by a debt settlement firm that merely "overcharged consumers, took untimely fees, misrepresented the value of its services, and failed to make critical disclosures about consumer harms."[0] > Payment processors are really hard to sue unless they are directly involved in fraud. All of that is merely a question of the scale of the activity and how badly the government wants to stop it. Same reason cryptocurrency escaped taxing/reporting requirements for many years -- the scale and the ire of the government just wasn't there yet. Relevant to this discussion, the payment processor in question is associated with a company that makes no bones about providing services for people engaged in work that is illegal in many jurisdictions! If you don't think that would eventually land both companies in the government's crosshairs, I don't know what to tell you. Take "fair" out of the equation, if you're a business owner it's not about "fair", it's about saving your ass. It's not a moral judgement for a company to voluntarily disassociate themselves from another company engaged in illegal behavior. > Which is why person to person payment processors like Venmo can operate. Venmo's TOS has named restrictions on what customers can do (and "at our discretion" clauses), and they absolutely will ban users for violating them if it either Venmo can prove it or if they government starts threatening them over it. 0: https://www.mass.gov/news/ags-office-reaches-settlement-with-payment-processing-company-over-claims-of-unlawful-fee-practices https://www.mass.gov/news/ags-office-reaches-settlement-with...
  - Retric 4y ago
    That payment processor was sued for transferring money without account holders consent. That’s exactly the kind of fraud I was referring to. Also, by your reasoning Venmo's TOS is a thin shield vs a single case of under age prostitution.