My understanding is that MasterCard is introducing/continuing very strict guidelines for reporting around adult content, like documenting that people have given consent and are old enough. And then, all videos have to be verified before publish, and live videos have to be verified live. In other words, a huge cost to publishing user-generated content. This isn’t a problem for adult content studios dealing with a known set of performers and publishing their own videos. That’s why the policy is so especially impactful towards OnlyFans, where all content is paid, and it’s all created by people the company can’t trust by default.
The stated goal is to reduce criminal behavior, but obviously, the main goal is for MasterCard to protect its brand image. Folks are unsure how much actual impact this kind of policy will have against the very real and terrible problem of sex exploitation and trafficking. Which leads people to wonder if the policy is more about being prude and less about preventing exploitation. I could see clear arguments both ways.
> The stated goal is to reduce criminal behavior, but obviously, the main goal is for MasterCard to protect its brand image.
For me they just destroyed their brand image. They have just shown, just like PayPal some years ago that they can terminate service based on phylosophical issues. I have nothing against them collaborating with law enforcement when there is a warrant, but cutting payments to arbitrary entities just because they believe that those entities are responsible for CP is overreaching. Do they cut payments also to Hollwood studios because they promote violence ? Or to Blackwater because of what they do in conflict zones ?
Yes but you’re still going to use visa and MasterCard with whatever your banks debit card is based off of. They’ve been cutting off payments to sites that publish adult content for ages, this isn’t new.
> The stated goal is to reduce criminal behavior, but obviously, the main goal is for MasterCard to protect its brand image
No, the main goal is protect their bottom line against legal liability. Visa and MC have been proactive in anti-trafficking measures because they have been sued for facilitating online trafficking, because they are very deep pockets defendants that tend to have a nexus to sites involved in commercially distributing trafficking-derived content. So, if there's any whiff of information that they have regarding even the potential of trafficking, they are going to take action to minimize the potential for legal action accusing them of knowingly facilitating trafficking, which has already occurred in previous cases.
> Folks are unsure how much actual impact this kind of policy will have against the very real and terrible problem of sex exploitation and trafficking. Which leads people to wonder if the policy is more about being prude and less about preventing exploitation.
The goal is not primarily to reduce trafficking but to reduce the card companies’ legal exposure relating to trafficking. Its not about being prudish; Visa/MC don’t care about that as long as they are making money without unnecessary risk exposure.
But cutting off Bitcoin or other major coin purchasing would have a big impact beyond OnlyFans. Not that you’re wrong, it’s just that the credit card processors would sort of be declaring war on crypto.
The idea is that with widespread adoption of crypto, there is less need of a fiat onramp since people can get paid + buy things in crypto and not need to swap to fiat.
What profit incentive exists for payment processors to not accept these sites? Why can't they offer a high risk product where the merchant takes the full risk of charge backs?
It's not just one payment processor doing this, all the major ones are doing it so it can't be some rouge executive forcing his religious morals upon others.
Exactly. 20% of your customers are associated with 80% of your problems. Right now there’s an equilibrium where payment processors take on some medium risk merchants at much higher fees to cover the disproportionate costs of chargebacks and regulatory risk.
While your statement is not incorrect, it isn't profound either. When something restricts free speech, it almost never (probably never with no exceptions) restricts every type of speech simultaneously and this bar is never used to judge restrictions on speech.
The problem is when a meaningful form of speech is restricted , not when every form is completeñy restrcited simultaneously
You're too late and would be better served by aiding the existing companies already doing this such as SpankChain and Treat. These are just two but there are many, many like them.
"Cancel Culture" - while a social problem in terms of Gamergate-style harassment - has mostly just boiled down to "your boss" getting to moderate your online speech and side-gigs.
It might be your literal boss. It might be the credit card company. Either way, your framing of Sovereignty is greatly appreciated, even down to the individual level where it likely isnt intended.
22 comments
[ 5.3 ms ] story [ 58.6 ms ] threadThe stated goal is to reduce criminal behavior, but obviously, the main goal is for MasterCard to protect its brand image. Folks are unsure how much actual impact this kind of policy will have against the very real and terrible problem of sex exploitation and trafficking. Which leads people to wonder if the policy is more about being prude and less about preventing exploitation. I could see clear arguments both ways.
For me they just destroyed their brand image. They have just shown, just like PayPal some years ago that they can terminate service based on phylosophical issues. I have nothing against them collaborating with law enforcement when there is a warrant, but cutting payments to arbitrary entities just because they believe that those entities are responsible for CP is overreaching. Do they cut payments also to Hollwood studios because they promote violence ? Or to Blackwater because of what they do in conflict zones ?
No, the main goal is protect their bottom line against legal liability. Visa and MC have been proactive in anti-trafficking measures because they have been sued for facilitating online trafficking, because they are very deep pockets defendants that tend to have a nexus to sites involved in commercially distributing trafficking-derived content. So, if there's any whiff of information that they have regarding even the potential of trafficking, they are going to take action to minimize the potential for legal action accusing them of knowingly facilitating trafficking, which has already occurred in previous cases.
> Folks are unsure how much actual impact this kind of policy will have against the very real and terrible problem of sex exploitation and trafficking. Which leads people to wonder if the policy is more about being prude and less about preventing exploitation.
The goal is not primarily to reduce trafficking but to reduce the card companies’ legal exposure relating to trafficking. Its not about being prudish; Visa/MC don’t care about that as long as they are making money without unnecessary risk exposure.
And for that to matter, we need a blockchain that doesnt create full-percentage points of global carbon emissions in the process.
It's not just one payment processor doing this, all the major ones are doing it so it can't be some rouge executive forcing his religious morals upon others.
While that overlaps with speech, it is not the same thing.
The problem is when a meaningful form of speech is restricted , not when every form is completeñy restrcited simultaneously
It might be your literal boss. It might be the credit card company. Either way, your framing of Sovereignty is greatly appreciated, even down to the individual level where it likely isnt intended.