4 ms·

I doubt it's moralizing reasons, it's probably because once you disseminate porn, you become a vehicle for child porn, which is a legal and PR disaster.

fc417fc802 1y ago
If you disseminate user uploaded porn then moralizing activists can certainly accuse you of that. It's performative hand wringing though. The admins assuredly don't want to distribute it and the goal of anyone publicly uploading that on the clearnet is to harass and disrupt rather than to disseminate. Anyway "child porn" as well as the broader "legal reasons" fails to explain the US payment processors' moves to block all sorts of content and products over the years. Even including porn that isn't user uploaded (and thus has proper records keeping).
- naasking 1y ago
  There are all sorts of adjacent reasons too, like human trafficking and prostitution. It's probably similar reasons to why landlords are so aggressive about renters not doing any sex work, because even indirectly receiving proceeds from prostitution is illegal, even when you're unaware of it.
  - fc417fc802 1y ago
    In which jurisdictions? I'm skeptical. If a vendor takes reasonable precautions it should not generally be possible to hold them liable. Anyway you've circled back to user generated content. But again, that's far from the only thing that payment processors have discriminated against over the past couple of decades.
    - naasking 1y ago
      This is a big feature of the Nordic model, but it's not uncommon in other legal frameworks either.
kristopolous 1y ago
From my non-lawyer understanding it's not that. It's about sex trafficking more generally. Here's the most notable case I'm aware of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GirlsDoPorn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GirlsDoPorn Then there was the recent drama with civitai https://civitai.com/articles/14945/credit-card-payments-pausing-may-23-2025 https://civitai.com/articles/14945/credit-card-payments-paus... I believe some of these sex trafficking laws implicated a broad sweep in their litigation and Visa/Mastercard doesn't want to have to go to court over a these things.

fc417fc802 1y ago

If you disseminate user uploaded porn then moralizing activists can certainly accuse you of that. It's performative hand wringing though. The admins assuredly don't want to distribute it and the goal of anyone publicly uploading that on the clearnet is to harass and disrupt rather than to disseminate. Anyway "child porn" as well as the broader "legal reasons" fails to explain the US payment processors' moves to block all sorts of content and products over the years. Even including porn that isn't user uploaded (and thus has proper records keeping).

naasking 1y ago
There are all sorts of adjacent reasons too, like human trafficking and prostitution. It's probably similar reasons to why landlords are so aggressive about renters not doing any sex work, because even indirectly receiving proceeds from prostitution is illegal, even when you're unaware of it.
- fc417fc802 1y ago
  In which jurisdictions? I'm skeptical. If a vendor takes reasonable precautions it should not generally be possible to hold them liable. Anyway you've circled back to user generated content. But again, that's far from the only thing that payment processors have discriminated against over the past couple of decades.
  - naasking 1y ago
    This is a big feature of the Nordic model, but it's not uncommon in other legal frameworks either.

kristopolous 1y ago

From my non-lawyer understanding it's not that. It's about sex trafficking more generally. Here's the most notable case I'm aware of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GirlsDoPorn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GirlsDoPorn Then there was the recent drama with civitai https://civitai.com/articles/14945/credit-card-payments-pausing-may-23-2025 https://civitai.com/articles/14945/credit-card-payments-paus... I believe some of these sex trafficking laws implicated a broad sweep in their litigation and Visa/Mastercard doesn't want to have to go to court over a these things.