5 ms·

>if payment processors are going to be charged in criminal cases that involve the use of their systems for purchasing things that are illegal >sued each time s

>if payment processors are going to be charged in criminal cases that involve the use of their systems for purchasing things that are illegal >sued each time someone uses them to purchase something that may be illegal The removed content was gross, but it was legal content. That's the heart of the issue.

bluGill 1y ago
Are you 100% sure it is legal? No possibility that something is illegal.
- bluefirebrand 1y ago
  That's not how courts work You assume it is legal until shown to be illegal
  - shagie 1y ago
    From https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/01/business/dealbook/pornhub-visa-mastercard-disney.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Z08.WqCJ.DUPIdlK6vtry&smid=url-share https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/01/business/dealbook/pornhub... (unlocked article) > “If Visa was aware that there was a substantial amount of child porn on MindGeek’s sites, which the Court must accept as true at this stage of the proceedings, then it was aware that it was processing the monetization of child porn, moving money from advertisers to MindGeek for advertisements playing alongside child porn like Plaintiff’s videos,” Judge Carney wrote. > Judge Carney: “When the Court couples MindGeek’s expansive content removal with allegations that former MindGeek employees have reported a general anxiety at the company that Visa might pull the plug, it does not strike the Court as fatally speculative to say that Visa — with knowledge of what was being monetized and authority to withhold the means of monetization — bears direct responsibility (along with MindGeek) for MindGeek’s monetization of child porn, and in turn the monetization of Plaintiff’s videos.”
    - bluefirebrand 1y ago
      How is this even a counter argument? Was anyone ever arguing that child porn is not illegal? And from the Judge's statement, Visa and Mastercard were aware it was there and also aware it was illegal So.. what are you even trying to say here? Make an argument, don't just blindly post paragraphs like that is supposed to discredit what I'm saying And just to clarify for certain: what I am saying is that when Visa and MasterCard became aware of the child porn they should have taken action at that time This is clearly about them failing to do so
      - shagie 1y ago
        Anytime that someone is going to get sued for monetizing something that is illegal somewhere, the payment processor is likely to get pulled in also as part of the lawsuit. It's been shown that the payment processor can't say "we just move money from one customer to another" and absolve themselves of liability in the court case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography_in_Australia#Illegal_pornography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography_in_Australia#Illeg... While some of that content may be legal in the US, it isn't everywhere else in the world. As such, they're going to be in the situation of Collective Shout saying "when we sue {company} for hosting that content, we're going to sue you too for allowing {company} to monetize it through your system." Payment processors have lost that court case before and are likely rather risk adverse to be brought into another one.
        bluefirebrand 1y ago
        Maybe Payment Processors shouldn't be a nearly global duopoly then
        warkdarrior 1y ago
        How is the duopoly relevant here? If there were 10,000 global processors, would be they be less likely to be sued?
        1y ago
  - miohtama 1y ago
    But in this case the advocate group Collective Shout was exercising the laws of God, not the laws of court
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- johnnyanmac 1y ago
  On Steam, in the US? Yes, pretty much. They don't even allow 18+ live action actors for such content. They got in an issue over a dev on that in 2023. Itch.io, in the US? I'm 99.9% certain. I don't believe any game there has the presentation to do any live action stuff to begin with.
pryce 1y ago
It sounds like the payment processors aren't well-equipped to know what item counts as illegal content or not, and that relying on the reckons of some evangelical activist group with a history of homophobia is predictably terrible option. I suppose other than the expensive and years-long task of developing significant domain expertise themselves, payment processors would probably like instead to defer their decisions to some other legal entity, perhaps some kind of government-funded organisation. With the surge in anti-gay 'groomer' conspiracy theories now retargeted towards trans people comprising much of the electoral campaign of the incumbent president, it is hard to imagine a less appropriate climate for a US government to create anything to fill that gap.

bluGill 1y ago

Are you 100% sure it is legal? No possibility that something is illegal.

bluefirebrand 1y ago
That's not how courts work You assume it is legal until shown to be illegal
- shagie 1y ago
  From https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/01/business/dealbook/pornhub-visa-mastercard-disney.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Z08.WqCJ.DUPIdlK6vtry&smid=url-share https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/01/business/dealbook/pornhub... (unlocked article) > “If Visa was aware that there was a substantial amount of child porn on MindGeek’s sites, which the Court must accept as true at this stage of the proceedings, then it was aware that it was processing the monetization of child porn, moving money from advertisers to MindGeek for advertisements playing alongside child porn like Plaintiff’s videos,” Judge Carney wrote. > Judge Carney: “When the Court couples MindGeek’s expansive content removal with allegations that former MindGeek employees have reported a general anxiety at the company that Visa might pull the plug, it does not strike the Court as fatally speculative to say that Visa — with knowledge of what was being monetized and authority to withhold the means of monetization — bears direct responsibility (along with MindGeek) for MindGeek’s monetization of child porn, and in turn the monetization of Plaintiff’s videos.”
  - bluefirebrand 1y ago
    How is this even a counter argument? Was anyone ever arguing that child porn is not illegal? And from the Judge's statement, Visa and Mastercard were aware it was there and also aware it was illegal So.. what are you even trying to say here? Make an argument, don't just blindly post paragraphs like that is supposed to discredit what I'm saying And just to clarify for certain: what I am saying is that when Visa and MasterCard became aware of the child porn they should have taken action at that time This is clearly about them failing to do so
    - shagie 1y ago
      Anytime that someone is going to get sued for monetizing something that is illegal somewhere, the payment processor is likely to get pulled in also as part of the lawsuit. It's been shown that the payment processor can't say "we just move money from one customer to another" and absolve themselves of liability in the court case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography_in_Australia#Illegal_pornography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography_in_Australia#Illeg... While some of that content may be legal in the US, it isn't everywhere else in the world. As such, they're going to be in the situation of Collective Shout saying "when we sue {company} for hosting that content, we're going to sue you too for allowing {company} to monetize it through your system." Payment processors have lost that court case before and are likely rather risk adverse to be brought into another one.
      - bluefirebrand 1y ago
        Maybe Payment Processors shouldn't be a nearly global duopoly then
        warkdarrior 1y ago
        How is the duopoly relevant here? If there were 10,000 global processors, would be they be less likely to be sued?
        1y ago
- miohtama 1y ago
  But in this case the advocate group Collective Shout was exercising the laws of God, not the laws of court
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
johnnyanmac 1y ago
On Steam, in the US? Yes, pretty much. They don't even allow 18+ live action actors for such content. They got in an issue over a dev on that in 2023. Itch.io, in the US? I'm 99.9% certain. I don't believe any game there has the presentation to do any live action stuff to begin with.

pryce 1y ago

It sounds like the payment processors aren't well-equipped to know what item counts as illegal content or not, and that relying on the reckons of some evangelical activist group with a history of homophobia is predictably terrible option. I suppose other than the expensive and years-long task of developing significant domain expertise themselves, payment processors would probably like instead to defer their decisions to some other legal entity, perhaps some kind of government-funded organisation. With the surge in anti-gay 'groomer' conspiracy theories now retargeted towards trans people comprising much of the electoral campaign of the incumbent president, it is hard to imagine a less appropriate climate for a US government to create anything to fill that gap.