8 ms·
The main reason why companies don't allow NSFW content is because of puritan payment processors that see that stuff and then go absolute sicko mode and lock peo
by xena 4y ago
The main reason why companies don't allow NSFW content is because of puritan payment processors that see that stuff and then go absolute sicko mode and lock people out of the traditional finance system.
- gear54rus 4y agoThis comment right here can be shown to snobs who still denounce crypto btw
- mschild 4y agoThis is not an argument for crypto, it's an argument for better regulations so that processors don't make up their own rules.
- gear54rus 4y agoWell you can wait a lifetime or you can take control away from them with a couple clicks. The choice is obvious.
- JohnFen 4y agoAs a rule of thumb, whenever anyone says "the choice is obvious", the choice they're talking about is usually far from obvious.
- robertlagrant 4y ago> This is not an argument for crypto, it's an argument for better regulations so that processors don't make up their own rules. Better (which I assume is your euphemism for "more") regulation isn't neceesarily the answer, or even particularly the answer. Do you want to force payment processors to do work they don't want to do? Isn't there a word for that?
- mschild 4y agoNot necessarily more. Better in this context means clearer and enforced. PayPal is the prime example where it's operating very similar to a bank. You have an account with a balance and can send and receive money, but it doesn't see itself as a bank and in many countries doesn't have a bank license. At least in part this is done to avoid the regulatory work that comes with it. I absolutely want to force payment processors to do work they don't want to do. For example, banks in Germany are forced to provide you with a basic bank account regardless whether they want to or not. That's because a bank account is simply a must have to take part in modern life. If PayPal decides it doesn't want to do business with you, for whatever arbitrary reason, you are effectively locked out of a lot of online stores that only accept PayPal as a payment method. There is plenty of examples of PayPals really sketchy behaviour online. Every few months you can even see complaints on HN about it.
- robertlagrant 4y ago> it's operating very similar to a bank We might be talking at cross purposes; I'm not sure! How is it like a bank?
- mschild 4y agoPayPal offers you a virtual account that you can pay money into. You can use that money to make purchases online, send and receive money from friends or other businesses. In effect, it acts like a bank account. However, it's not an actual bank account. In Europe, any money you put into that account is also not ensured by the government, like a normal account would. If I pay with a credit card, there are processes in place to deal with fraud and charge backs. PayPal is well known to automatically close accounts with little recourse to access the money on those accounts. They should absolutely be regulated.
- worik 4y agoI agree they should be regulated But they are nothing like a bank The feature of a bank is credit creation. Lending more money than they hold. Unless I missed some news PayPal does not do that
- sharemywin 4y agocrypto + NSFW generative AI = ???? that's not going to lead to a whole lot of black market images.
- xp84 4y agoIt certainly stretches the bounds of reason for me that you could put a person in an isolation chamber with a powerful computer with no network connection, and after they type a few words into it, if the output of the computer has certain qualities, they are now a felon and the output is illegal to possess. But this seems like the world the “AI-regulators” seem to want.
- sharemywin 4y agoyou don't think it would be problematic for someone to create deep fake images of some ones kids in explicit sexual positions? I certainly think if the parents found out about it and the law wouldn't do anything about it the parents would take the law into their own hands. I'm sorry if this wasn't phrased very well. I just didn't know how else to make my point with out be very specific.
- xp84 4y agoA skilled artist can already easily do that and there's no law against it that I know of. (Granted, I haven't researched it because I'm neither an artist nor a pervert...) Now, if they were drawn to resemble specific people and the producer of the "artwork" used them to harass those people, that's harassment. If they used them to groom other kids, that's an existing crime too. But my point was that the production of gross art in isolation, or the possession of it, didn't need to be criminalized. (Actual photographs of the same were criminalized because of the pretty decent assumption that minors were coerced, harmed, exploited. Probably all of the above.)
- alexb_ 4y agoThat's already illegal - you're using someone's image and likeness in a way they did not approve of.
- xena 4y agoTaking all payment in Ethereum doesn't matter when you have to pay for servers and domain names in fiat.
- gear54rus 4y agoLots of work on that front no doubt, and not only wrt domains
- Rufbdbskrufb473 4y agoServers and domains are one of the easiest things to buy with crypto. I actually just migrated away from Hetzner last week (for unrelated reasons) to two new providers to whom I'm paying crypto (no KYC required) based on this list: https://bitcoin-vps.com/ https://bitcoin-vps.com/
- sharemywin 4y agowould be nice if you could pay in your own token.
- Rufbdbskrufb473 4y agoI'm not sure to what you're referring by "your own token", but most do offer a range of popular tokens by using one of the 3rd party payment providers like Coingate. I had paid for my servers with some Litecoin I have that I usually use for small purchases because of the low fees.
- sharemywin 4y agokind of like a free tier for token projects. if it gets traction you would need more servers but the token would have value so there you go.
- boeingUH60 4y agoIt's because NSFW content has higher risks of chargeback and fraud (there's a reason their payment processors charge 20%+). Besides, companies don't want to be on the bad side of outrage; it only takes one mistake of processing a payment for child pornography and your name will be plastered everywhere as a child porn enabler. Do you really think the execs at Visa and Mastercard are puritans and not profiteering capitalists that will process payments for NSFW content if they were able to?
- nickpp 4y agoThe whole US society seems more puritan while more capitalist at the same time, seen from this side of the pond. It’s a paradox I can’t really explain, any clues?
- LargoLasskhyfv 4y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_work_ethic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_work_ethic Besides that: 'There is no such thing as society!'
- dpflan 4y agoPerhaps it’s as easy as “ethics and laws are not the same thing”. One can profit either way, but unethical profiteering may not be prevented by a law.
- robertlagrant 4y agoYou're conflating capitalism and greed. Plenty of greedy people in non-capitalist systems.
- nickpp 4y ago> Plenty of greedy people in non-capitalist systems. Totally agreed. But I am not placing any moral value on either greed or capitalism. I would think, however, that capitalists would not ignore such an obvious profit center as the sex industry. Thus my bafflement.
- dpkirchner 4y agoI think it's equally likely that they just don't want their product to be known as "the porn bot".
- speed_spread 4y agoWhy not? As long as it's not official. Bing was/is known as "the porn search engine" which never seemed to bother Microsoft.
- dpkirchner 4y agoI think the difference is that OpenAI wants to sell their text generation services to big companies that will show AI content directly on their platforms (think chat support bots), whereas Bing is selling eyeballs to advertisers (who also don't want their ads shown alongside porn by the by). If OpenAI has the reputation of serving up porn to whoever asks, there's no way the Walmarts of the world will sign up.
- cubefox 4y agoIt is amazing that in the year 2023, where things are possible that were science fiction until recently, we still rely on private payment processors, credit card companies, which extract fees for a service that doesn't have any technical necessity anymore. I think the reason is just inertia. They work well enough in most cases, and the fees aren't so high as to be painful, so there is little pressure to switch to something more modern.
- andsoitis 4y ago> switch to something more modern such as?
- cubefox 4y agoI would be very surprised if something based on Blockchain or similar software doesn't offer a solution here. Another route would be to establish a protocol for near instantaneous bank transfers, and try to get a lot of banks on board. The immediacy of transfers seems to be the main reason why companies use credit card services, not buyer protection or actual credit.
- Gasp0de 4y agoPayPal?
- cubefox 4y agoNo PayPal is basically a credit card company. It is an intermediary which gives short credits in order to achieve near instantaneous payments. And extracts fees along the way.
- xpe 4y agoI have no particular love of legacy systems (whether they be banks, imperialism, or Electoral Colleges), but what about your comment is plausible given the widespread recognition that blockchain technologies have been oversold, leading to widespread fraud and failure? Maybe I’m missing something, but the above comment reminds me of the blockchain naïveté of 10 years ago. I don’t mean to be dismissive; I’m suspending disbelief long enough to ask what you mean in detail.
- bobbyi 4y agoIt's also because the companies are backed by VCs. VCs get their money from limited partners like pension funds who don't want their money invested in porn.
- addisonl 4y agoI don’t buy this, if this was the reason then paid porn couldn’t exist, and we know that’s not the case.