A side note, pornography is a weapon and sexual liberation is a form of political control. See It's usage against Palestinians by the Jewish ethno-state and in Venezuela. The left essentially did a deal with the state, if we get to engage in sexual degeneracy and we won't criticize your political policy. Read Libido Dominandi - Sexual "Liberation" & Political Control.
PayPal stops payouts to models on Pornhub
691–700 of 802 posts
Re: PayPal stops payouts to models on Pornhub
#692Earlier quoted context omitted.
It means that it has been sent to the Bitcoin network to be mined in the next block.
Could the sender simply cancel it?
to expand on the "replacing"
there is a mechanism called replace by fee, so it becomes a question of incentives
The payment processors can scan the mempool for transactions that would invalidate the initial transaction, so then it would be a question of lead time. Great for digital services etc, not so great for in life purchases.
So if you absolutely 100% need confirmation, then yeah 10 minutes is what you need to wait, but that again is a question of probability comparative to credit card chargebacks/fees etc.
Even the next block inclusion isn't a guarantee... it just means that you have at current prices approximately 200k insurance. With enough resources and luck, someone could +EV roll back your transaction, but the cost scales exponentially.
The current viable solution for small inperson transactions is pretty much replicating the banking system. Current versions of abstracting the banking system into something decentralized are clunky/buggy to say the least.
Re: PayPal stops payouts to models on Pornhub
#693Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the United States I think you can actually. Nothing stops you. You can't discriminate based on a few criteria like race, age, gender (and depending on the state) sexual orientation.
Even this depends. In DC political affiliation is a protected class. https://ohr.dc.gov/protectedtraits
“Political affiliation: belonging to or supporting a political party”
Presumably landlords in DC can still kick people out for wearing an Obama / Trump shirt. (That’s supporting a candidate, not a party.)
I’d be curious to see court precedents on this.
Re: PayPal stops payouts to models on Pornhub
#694Financial deplatforming is a monster, long-term trend to watch over the next decades. Deplatforming happens with sex workers. It also happens in the US marijuana industry. It happens with perfectly legal political content. The number of ways in which someone, somewhere will be offended by products or services for sale is growing, driven by a rapidly improving worldwide communication network and delivery system, and b…
Ask Julian Assange [1] how this works with political speech and journalism. Though I've probably provoked "the hate" by naming the major example rather than thought about the underlying principles and what's at stake. [1] https://wikileaks.org/Banking-Blockade.html
> Ask Julian Assange
I wish. But I'm afraid no one will be able to ask him anything, ever.
Re: PayPal stops payouts to models on Pornhub
#695Earlier quoted context omitted.
Coinbase has essentially become another bank. They go well beyond KYC requirements and have banned people for things they don't like.
Citation needed. Like not saying I don't believe it, just want details.
Search /r/Bitcoin/ for banned from coinbase and you'll get plenty of examples: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/search?q=banned+from+coin
Re: PayPal stops payouts to models on Pornhub
#696Earlier quoted context omitted.
Coinbase has essentially become another bank. They go well beyond KYC requirements and have banned people for things they don't like.
Could you (or someone else) elaborate on Coinbase going beyond KYC requirements?
If you send BTC from Coinbase to an outside wallet they monitor it for activity they don't like (eg suspected dark market purchases).
Once you transfer outside of Coinbase it's none of their business what you do with it.
Re: PayPal stops payouts to models on Pornhub
#697Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, GP is surprisingly correct, and I’m actually kinda surprised that HN just jumped right to downvotes. But I guess I shouldn’t be. When you attack someone’s heart they writhe in pain. Calling cigarettes “adult pacifiers” for example will really offend someone who is enslaved by cigarettes, even though it’s true. Pointing out the danger and seriousness of today’s horrible porn epidemic will do nothing in a crowd of…
I don't smoke (never have, tried it, not for me), but I still think calling them “adult pacifiers” is an over the top, intentionally inflammatory statement that's not true. If anything, it makes your very real point that people should stop smoking seem ridiculous.
You're right, it's not true. Babies use pacifiers because they haven't had time to learn how to sooth themselves yet, or how to deal with stress properly. Adults use smoking for the same reason, but they have had time to develop self-control and discipline so that they can respond properly to stress. So it's unfair to babies to call cigarettes adult pacifiers.
But I mentioned it in this thread because it's very related to "adult content" which shouldn't rightly be called "adult" since it's based on impulsivity and lack of self-control or discipline, and based on a desire to pacify themselves. The word pacify comes from the Latin word for peace, and "adult content" enslaves people by making them feel reliant on it for their internal peace, just like they would a cigarette or pacifier.
Pornography is a curse and a scourge to souls. It enslaves them. If only they knew about Jesus Christ and his mercy and grace! I know at least a few men who are real men, who are able to withstand the physical and emotional forces that press upon their hearts, and are able to withstand the storm of lust that comes upon them like a thief in the night. This world needs more real men, men of courage, men of valor. Men who can lead others, because they themselves are not led by the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, or the pride of life.
Re: PayPal stops payouts to models on Pornhub
#698Earlier quoted context omitted.
They also contain metals like lead, chromium and cadmium. Recycling solar panels is not that simple or clean, it also involves burning plastic.
Sounds like that thing about the perfect being the enemy of the good to me. This chain of comments is interesting to me because it seems to follow a theme I always see around discussion of mining in Australia. To put it extremely bluntly, it usually goes: "Australia is in an advantageous position for a pivot to solar energy" --> "Well yes but we can't just stop mining, and solar panels aren't perfect by the way!" Rel…
Well, if we’re going down the route of fallacies then the post I replied to was cherry picking to produce a false dilemma, but to claim that would be just as unfair as your straw man. They made the choice between “limitless energy raining down on empty desert“ and coal, without mentioning a) how to move the energy, b) how to get the materials for the panels, c) how to clean up / recycle the panels, or d) why nuclear in the desert isn’t a choice.
I’d say nuclear seems the good choice here versus a perfect that’s so perfect it’s utopian. It’s not wrong to question utopian visions. By all means, get rid of coal - is anyone arguing on this page arguing against it?
Re: PayPal stops payouts to models on Pornhub
#699Earlier quoted context omitted.
This debate is currently brewing in Australia, except its against providing services to mining companies. When is right / wrong to boycott? And who should be allowed to? (Persons or companies) Context: in Australia the prime minister (Scott Morrison) is looking into laws to ban boycotts by companies (who are being compelled by people / public opinion)
Thats a really good counter point and I can't think of any way the situations are different other than my morals saying working for pornhub is ok but trashing the planet is not. Of course thats totally subjective and someone could be of the opinion that working for pornhub is not ok.
I think there is a distinction as far as the nature of the boycott, though it's not a clear line.
Declining to buy from or work for a company is pretty much always justifiable. Refusing to provide customer-specific services/work (a rental crane, management consulting, etc.) is a more impactful move, but it's still basically a refusal to engage with the target, either by providing a limited resource or by being enabling their specific actions Refusing them non-scarce, non-specific transactions (e.g. buying lumber) is more extreme, and can become worrying in markets with little competition.
Refusing content-agnostic services is the most extreme and hardest to justify action. These are things that don't connect to the nature of their boycott target, and which many people rely on continuous access to, so even when alternatives exist being forced to switch is actively damaging. We've seen it with DDoS protection, payment processing, and DNS support, but it becomes more vividly alarming if we imagine denying electricity or highway access to an unpopular business. This is why even as Cloudflare decided to shut down Stormfront, they publicly worried that it was a dangerous path to go down.
Finally, I think the situation with payment processors is actually much worse than with DDoS protection, partway to providers of vital services like water and electricity. PayPal is not necessary for survival, but access to money essentially is. And the usual rationale of "you can't force us to deal with anyone else, go open a competitor" is compromised by the extremely tight regulation of payment processors. If PayPal, Visa, and Mastercard decide to shut someone down, there aren't many alternatives. And when we get into tightly-regulated businesses taking government-friendly actions that wouldn't be legal to demand directly (like blocking payments to Wikileaks), the situation gets even murkier...
Re: PayPal stops payouts to models on Pornhub
#700Earlier quoted context omitted.
> willfully-contradictory positions (e.g. one can buy but the other can't sell, etc). This seems weird, but is actually a perfectly reasonable legal regime that's all about power dynamics and enabling the authorities to approach people. Drug users and prostitutes are in much more vulnerable positions than drug dealers and johns respectively. If you make selling drugs a crime, but not buying/owning those same drugs, n…
This is the rationalisation of a legal kludge that is only necessary to assuage consciences that the state has not become "immoral". The facts on the ground are that, dissuasion or not, these economies will never go away ("oldest profession", after all). Full legalisation would allow for complete oversight of such murky sectors, which would ensure everyone's safety better than the current arrangements, at all levels.…
I agree that prostitution should be legalised and regulated to make it safer for everybody involved (because I too don't think it'll ever go away). Cannabis? Probably — I don't know that it's that much worse than tobacco.
Full-on legalisation is not universally desirable, though — there's always heroine, cocaine, crack, meth... — and the asymmetric legality thing is still a very useful tool in those circumstances.