3 ms·
If you disseminate user uploaded porn then moralizing activists can certainly accuse you of that. It's performative hand wringing though. The admins assuredly d
by 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 agoThere 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 agoIn 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 agoThis is a big feature of the Nordic model, but it's not uncommon in other legal frameworks either.