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

241–250 of 272 posts

Re: Against the censorship of adult content by payment processors

#241

Post by dragonwriter »

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

> Tell that to the sex trafficking victims.

“Slavery hurts everyone involved” is true, but is not a reason to ban work that is not slavery. And that is just as true if you limit it to sex work as it is more generally.

Re: Against the censorship of adult content by payment processors

#242

Post by justinrubek »

whatamidoingyo wrote: post #141
unstatusthequo wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not Square? Why not crypto? I realize HN kinda hates crypto as a group, but it solves your situation here, does it not? I realize it’s another step for users who don’t already have it, but I guess you need to determine whether it would cause enough friction to not get signups.

> Why not Square? I looked for alternatives, such as PayPal, and Square. They consider dating websites "high-risk", so they would most likely ban the account as well. It just seems like too much of a headache to rewrite the codebase to just have the account banned again. > Why not crypto? I thought about this as well. I don't dislike the idea of crypto, but what would users think? It would probably be a huge red flag…

Why is the payment processor so strongly coupled to the point that you would need to rewrite it? I understand there's effort to adapt it but I don't think it's good to write the code like that.

Re: Against the censorship of adult content by payment processors

#243

Post by notjoemama »

throwpoaster wrote: post #214
notjoemama wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conversationally it's probably more about morality. However, for those like myself that have looked into the matter, it becomes a much needed discussion about standards of care. The AMA holds regular meetings to determine standards of care. Fortunately for us, they post these to YouTube. I looked and found the most recent meeting where they adopted standards of care for youth and gender dysphoria. It was a brief sect…

If there is such a thing as "sexual politics" then it is properly the domain of the state.

Incorrect. Politicians defer to experts and that fails when it is shown the governing bodies (as I did above) are not performing the necessary functions to ensure safety and efficacy. Politics follows society, not preempts it.

Re: Against the censorship of adult content by payment processors

#244

Post by notjoemama »

FirmwareBurner wrote: post #165
notjoemama wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have IRL facepalmed reading this. This comment gave me the equivalent exposure to 10 hours on X/Twitter. I don't know man, jumping into a conversation like this is a great way to get people to NOT listen. I agree with your following point and would add I find these matters more complicated. For example, you wouldn't be typing a comment on this site without the kind of corporate freedom that raised the standard of…

>I don't know man, jumping into a conversation like this is a great way to get people to NOT listen. Nobody said I was wrong though. You can disagree with the messenger, but you can't disagree with the message.

I'm saying you're wrong because you cannot substantiate your point. Quantify it and I will admit I'm wrong.

Re: Against the censorship of adult content by payment processors

#245

Post by Tadpole9181 »

throwpoaster wrote: post #239
Tadpole9181 wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Oh, please.

I advocate for strong anti-trafficking and consent requirement laws and regulations on how porn sold in the US must be made and you bring up fictional "open drug markets" in SF?

I'm advocating for OSHA and labor unions for sex workers. Guess what, those work.

And you know what never has? Prohibition on alcohol, prohibition on marijuana, or forcing women to wear burkas for modesty. For their safety, of course.

Re: Against the censorship of adult content by payment processors

#246

Post by Tadpole9181 »

throwpoaster wrote: post #240
Tadpole9181 wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Every single reply you have given is a non-sequitor or wildly misreads what someone has said.

Payment processors are a basic requirement of modern life.

Re: Against the censorship of adult content by payment processors

#247

Post by hx8 »

Tadpole9181 wrote: post #233
hx8 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

1. Blocking coinbase would be anti-compeitive behavior which are totally different laws.

2. Valve is not publicly traded so we cannot do a detailed comparison, but all indications show Playstation is a larger gaming platform than Steam. Steam is not "the largest game platform on the planet".

3. Yeah I agree that strong legal regulations for the payment processing industry would be good. I think a public electronic payment processing system would be better, and wide adoption of a crypto-currency based solution would be the best. My trust in governments and central banks to handle monetary policy is very low. My trust in private for-profit companies to handle payment processing is even lower. It's one thing to do well over a few decades, and another thing to do well over a several centuries and real economies operate on a very long timescale.

4. It's disappointing that we treat NSFW as such a taboo.

Re: Against the censorship of adult content by payment processors

#248

Post by bavent »

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 advocate for a moral system in which each individual has total ownership of their body and can do with it and put into it what they want, for the most part. There are always edge cases, and I of course cannot account for them all, so it is more of a rule of thumb. If someone is doing something that is not hurting me or anyone else, it’s not my fucking business.

You advocate for taking ownership over women’s bodies, because clearly you know best apparently?

Re: Against the censorship of adult content by payment processors

#249

Post by bavent »

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.

Really? Most blue collar labor essentially involves selling your body in much worse ways, taking many good years off one’s life in a lot of cases, especially compared to selling sex videos on OnlyFans, or engaging in legal, regulated, protected prostitution. It is essentially commodifying human bodies, do you have a moral issue with this as well?

Re: Against the censorship of adult content by payment processors

#250

Post by some_furry »

Tadpole9181 wrote: post #246
throwpoaster wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You perhaps missed the original article. Is sex work a requirement of modern life? Should it be?

Every single reply you have given is a non-sequitor or wildly misreads what someone has said. Payment processors are a basic requirement of modern life.

Their username has "poast" in it. This should be the only breadcrumb you need to realize you're replying to a troll.
Post reply on HN