Earlier quoted context omitted.
you are taking it for granted that corporations should largely be given the same civil rights as private citizens, as decided in citizens united v. FEC, but in my view this was one of the worst decisions to ever come out of the supreme court.
Hmm, maybe, I haven't thought about it much. The angle I'm taking is, as a private citizen I choose not to do business with entities I think are immoral, such as Amazon and Home Depot and Hobby Lobby and Uline and Tesla. If I were a business owner, I would prefer to continue to not to do business with those entities and I'd be pretty pissed if I was forced to by the government. That does seem to agree with your "same…
Against the censorship of adult content by payment processors
271–272 of 272 posts
Re: Against the censorship of adult content by payment processors
#272Earlier 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
The argument is ridiculous on the face of it and just not worth discussing at that point.
Payment processors aren’t taking a stance against slavery and human trafficking by blocking the sales of X rated games on Steam and itch.io and you know that.
And payment processors certainly have no right inserting themselves into any transaction period. They are not the money police. For any other issues between a person and a product there are other infrastructures in place that should have intervened before it ever got to the point of “supporting human trafficking”.
Ridiculous.