Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Against the censorship of adult content by payment processors

soatok.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 272 posts

Re: Against the censorship of adult content by payment processors

#231

Post by xg15 »

tomhow wrote: post #224
wolfgang42 wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know puns are considered the lowest form of humor, but I still appreciate the occasional bit of levity to lighten the mood in serious discussions.

Gee sometimes it's hard to know what's going to be considered egregious vs whimsical by this community! I've taken off the penalties.

All good and sorry. I get that there is a risk of this board turning into Reddit if too many whimsy/joke comments are permitted. It would indeed be bad if that happened. I'll be more watchful with my posts in the future.

Re: Against the censorship of adult content by payment processors

#232

Post by jfyi »

ranger_danger wrote: post #197
whatamidoingyo wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a part of the message I received from them: - $25.00 - Monthly fee for the merchant account. - $19.95 - Monthly fee for the Authorize.net payment gateway (API Connection to your website) - 3.95% - Keyed rate - $0.25 - per transaction fee - $1,450 - HIGH-RISK fee - 10% Rolling reserve It just seems unfair, as these fees are for "adult content" sites (i.e. nudity, etc.), which is not what I built.

Why not just go straight to authorize.net? Or your local bank can probably set you up with them... always worked for me.

Because authorize.net is a payment gateway, not a processor. You'd still need a processor and the one your bank works with will have similar requirements.

Honestly, those rates are better than I expected. I think OnlyFans has a 20% rate and the one real experience I have had with processors that handle adult industry was nearing 30%. They had legitimate fraud problems though.

Re: Against the censorship of adult content by payment processors

#233

Post by Tadpole9181 »

hx8 wrote: post #67
wombat-man wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At some point they'd probably want to convert back to fiat and that's the trick. Coinbase or whichever company will probably follow suit.

I think payment processors blocking Coinbase would open them up to large legal liabilities.

Like payment processors threatening the largest game platform on the planet for decades would, right?

There are no legal protections, it needs to be fixed at the government level with payment neutrality policies. Steam has hundreds of millions of users and couldn't fight it. Itch had to go nuclear and kill every single NSFW game ever put on their platform, likely affecting millions.

Re: Against the censorship of adult content by payment processors

#234

Post by Tadpole9181 »

throwpoaster wrote: post #219
Jzush wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t care for furries myself but I think so long as it’s legal and doesn’t harm anyone. I don’t care what an adult chooses to spend their own money on. And neither should payment processors. They have no business being gatekeepers for anyone’s money. My money isn’t and shouldn’t be subject to their shareholders interests.

> as it’s legal and doesn’t harm anyone Porn harms everyone involved.

I'm sorry, did I miss something? You and them said "furries" and now, suddenly, you're talking about porn.

Or are you immediately proving everyone critical of the payment processors right by showing that the "undesirables" will have their existence marked as sexual and then have access to the basic requirements of modern living shut down?

Re: Against the censorship of adult content by payment processors

#235

Post by Tadpole9181 »

throwpoaster wrote: post #221
Jzush wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s a personal opinion not a fact with any merit. And as a personal opinion has no bearing on what an adult should be allowed to spend their money on.

Tell that to the sex trafficking victims. Are you a Tate supporter? In reality, the belief that porn is harmless has no evidentiary support. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_pornography

If you really care: normalize sex work, regulate labor requirements, and support sex worker unions.

Re: Against the censorship of adult content by payment processors

#236

Post by Tadpole9181 »

throwpoaster wrote: post #112
bavent wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who’s morals? Yours, specifically, I’m assuming?

I support the anti-porn feminists resisting the capitalist commodification of the female body, yes. What moral system do you advocate? Laissez-faire?

I'm sorry, did you just in one breathe say we need payment processors to enforce an arbitrary morality and then in the next breathe criticize laissez-faire morality?

And what if, tomorrow, the payment processors capitulate with a new morality? They decide women politicians shouldn't be allowed to take donations, for instance?

Sex workers should be better supported and the markets cleansed via strict regulation of the labor and how it's treated, and strong unions.

Payment processors making a shady porn underground using backdoor finances, even more than it already is, will do nothing but make this problem worse.

Re: Against the censorship of adult content by payment processors

#237

Post by throwpoaster »

Tadpole9181 wrote: post #236
throwpoaster wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I support the anti-porn feminists resisting the capitalist commodification of the female body, yes. What moral system do you advocate? Laissez-faire?

I'm sorry, did you just in one breathe say we need payment processors to enforce an arbitrary morality and then in the next breathe criticize laissez-faire morality? And what if, tomorrow, the payment processors capitulate with a new morality? They decide women politicians shouldn't be allowed to take donations, for instance? Sex workers should be better supported and the markets cleansed via strict regulation of the…

I'm not saying morality is arbitrary, no. I'm saying that commodifying human bodies is reprehensible and your advocacy for same is shameful.

Live sex work already involves existing payment processors.

Porn addicts are definitionally addicted to fantasy. I wish you luck with the rest of your comment.

Re: Against the censorship of adult content by payment processors

#238

Post by Tadpole9181 »

throwpoaster wrote: post #237
Tadpole9181 wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, did you just in one breathe say we need payment processors to enforce an arbitrary morality and then in the next breathe criticize laissez-faire morality? And what if, tomorrow, the payment processors capitulate with a new morality? They decide women politicians shouldn't be allowed to take donations, for instance? Sex workers should be better supported and the markets cleansed via strict regulation of the…

I'm not saying morality is arbitrary, no. I'm saying that commodifying human bodies is reprehensible and your advocacy for same is shameful. Live sex work already involves existing payment processors. Porn addicts are definitionally addicted to fantasy. I wish you luck with the rest of your comment.

Shameful that I respect women as equal adults who have a right to have autonomy, and desire strict laws to guarantee their safety alongside an organization of their own labor dedicated to their fair compensation and safe, respectable treatment?

Truly, the horror!

Is infantilizing women as incapable of making their own choices better? Should we also take away their credit cards because they just can't be trusted? Yes, reductio ad absurdum, but I hope you can see the point I'm making.

You rate limit loans to mitigate harm potential, you don't ban them outright.

Most manual labor takes a toll on the body, so we make OSHA and do our best to make sure employers are minimizing how bad it gets. You don't ban manual labor.

Sex, and porn, are normal affairs. Protect the people involved and elevate the working class. Don't drive them into an even shadier, less controlled market.

Unfortunately, I'm fully aware I can't convince you.

Re: Against the censorship of adult content by payment processors

#239

Post by throwpoaster »

Tadpole9181 wrote: post #235
throwpoaster wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tell that to the sex trafficking victims. Are you a Tate supporter? In reality, the belief that porn is harmless has no evidentiary support. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_pornography

If you really care: normalize sex work, regulate labor requirements, and support sex worker unions.

“Regulation will fix it” is a common liberal cognitive failure. Proof by example: the open drug markets in SF.

Your solution to normalize violence against women and girls is a moral failure.

Re: Against the censorship of adult content by payment processors

#240

Post by throwpoaster »

Tadpole9181 wrote: post #234
throwpoaster wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> as it’s legal and doesn’t harm anyone Porn harms everyone involved.

I'm sorry, did I miss something? You and them said "furries" and now, suddenly, you're talking about porn. Or are you immediately proving everyone critical of the payment processors right by showing that the "undesirables" will have their existence marked as sexual and then have access to the basic requirements of modern living shut down?

You perhaps missed the original article.

Is sex work a requirement of modern life? Should it be?

Post reply on HN