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

PayPal stops payouts to models on Pornhub

vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 802 posts

Re: PayPal stops payouts to models on Pornhub

#421

Post by trixie_ »

codexon wrote: post #345
ryukafalz wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think part of it is a bootstrapping problem. Bitcoin solved an interesting technical problem, so people started using it. Once people started getting interested, companies popped up to sell it, but notably there was a base of users prior to that. By contrast, the barrier to entry for a new system denominated in USD is much higher. People can't really start using it until there's a company around to support it, and…

Bitcoin (and all other cryptocoins) are just not usable for mass transactions. Buying anything with bitcoin takes over 10 minutes, often times over an hour for shops that are paranoid and require 3+ confirmations. During the peak bubble time, I remember buying something with bitcoin taking 2 hours!! This technical problem has not been solved and the "lightning network" just turns exchanges like Coinbase into a bank o…

10 minutes is nothing. A wire transfer can take hours. A bank transfer can take days. A wire transfer might cost you 20 bucks as well. Bitcoin is amazing at transferring large sums of money quickly, internationally, for a low overhead cost. It's extremely useful for a lot of people.

Re: PayPal stops payouts to models on Pornhub

#422

Post by oneplane »

james_s_tayler wrote: post #353
tux1968 wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds like something that should be handled by law enforcement, not your bank.

Banks form an important part of it as KYC is designed to cut down on Money Laundering. Globally KYC/AML rules have gotten much stricter in recent years. If criminals can't access their money it ought to curb some of the incentives.

That idea behind the rules mostly just annoys legitimate users and only curbs an insignificant amount of criminal activity because alternatives exist (and have always existed). It's somewhat like piracy warnings on digital media; piracy will ignore it but people that consume the content legally still have to sit through the nonsense.

Re: PayPal stops payouts to models on Pornhub

#423

Post by oneplane »

nintendo1889 wrote: post #418
RileyJames wrote: post #377

Earlier 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)

Think about refusing to bake a cake for homosexuals. How is this any different?

It's different because it's about critical services with no alternatives.

Re: PayPal stops payouts to models on Pornhub

#424

Post by codexon »

kadoban wrote: post #419
codexon wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Um no, you deposit all your bitcoin into Coinbase's bitcoin wallet so there's no crypto enforcement that you own the bitcoin anymore. That's the only way Coinbase can safely use your bitcoin on their lightning network connections. They need to commit regular bitcoin into a lightning network channel on the main blockchain before they can spend it.

That's not lightning. That's just how exchanges work now.

That is how exchanges have always worked, but the lightning network encourages people to use centralized exchanges that already have lightning network channels between all other exchanges and sellers so they don't have to waste time committing unknown amounts of bitcoins between 100+ vendors.

Re: PayPal stops payouts to models on Pornhub

#425

Post by jeltz »

jeffasinger wrote: post #404
jeltz wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not convinced it is just that. PayPal also refuses to do business with online gambling which is an industry with low fraud levels (in the early poker days they were high, but that was a long time ago). Thankfully there are a bunch pf credit card processors who know how good customers online casinos are and most banks are fine too, so that industry is not deplatformed.

Most of the online gambling operators in New Jersey take PayPal, though you usually have to use either a bank account linked with ACH or a balance you already have in PayPal.

European gambling operators don't. It is pretty much impossible for a European operator to get PayPal (there have been a couple of exceptions).

Re: PayPal stops payouts to models on Pornhub

#426

Post by sneak »

devit wrote: post #224
zamadatix wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Water/power are utilities and are regulated differently than other industries. But your general question is an open debate. If you run a hosting company do you have to host things you disagree with? If you run a transaction company doy you have to exchange with parties you disagree with? What if a certain type of transaction is too high risk, do they have to do it anyways? Personally I'd like to see things lean more…

I think the test should be whether another company could offer a service giving the same result. So for instance this would be fine: - A web hosting company refusing clients, because you can use another one - Amazon refusing to sell the item themselves, because other companies can sell on the Amazon marketplace - A bank refusing a client, since you can just use another bank This would not be fine: - Apple refusing to…

> Apple refusing to list an app on the app store, since no else can do so

There are other app stores. Apple just doesn't support using them in their OS.

A much better example would be the ability to extend MobileSafari - Apple can and does do this (e.g. readability mode), but nobody else is allowed to (e.g. Instapaper). You can't choose a different default browser on iOS. There's a fine line between "not supported" and "anticompetitive".

Re: PayPal stops payouts to models on Pornhub

#427

Post by cortesoft »

int_19h wrote: post #336
cortesoft wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By that logic, a restaurant should be able to discriminate based on race, since there are other restaurants that could serve those customers.

Yes, unless many of those other restaurants also discriminate in the same way (which can be treated as an exclusionary cartel). Keep in mind that our modern anti-discrimination laws were passed at a time where that was demonstrably the case. And I'm not at all sure that it wouldn't also be the case if the anti-discrimination laws were repealed today. My point, rather, is that the purpose of those laws, and really any…

I think even if only a few restaurants in town discriminated against a racial minority, harm would be done. Being excluded from everyday activities because of something like race is inherently harmful, no matter how many other options you have.

Re: PayPal stops payouts to models on Pornhub

#428

Post by fnord123 »

tux1968 wrote: post #326
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not just in the past. There's a current case going on about a major channel that Pornhub used to feature about performers being allegedly both lied to about where the footage would be available and raped. Very possibly what spurred PayPal to make this change.

That sounds like something that should be handled by law enforcement, not your bank.

It's a civil law suit against Girls Do Porn.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/she-was-18-and-tricked-into-do...

Re: PayPal stops payouts to models on Pornhub

#429

Post by oneplane »

Spooky23 wrote: post #410
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can anyone explain how this even happens? Who could possibly threaten a bank over handling financial transactions for sex workers? And what could they possibly threaten the bank with? Even if it's some big business like Chick-fil-A... Presumably they only bank with one bank, and presumably the porn and sex work industry has more money at that bank than Chick-fil-A. How's this actually work? It's not making sense to m…

Look at the recent scandal with “Girls do Porn”. Some nasty people exploited and harmed women through dishonesty and grift. Do you want your bank associated with that? Do you want to be sued because you benefited from the conduct or financed it?

If you are going to care about what your bank is associated with, you might as well pull in banks that fund fossil fuel and weapons. Of if you like a different flavour, one that funds nuclear energy and planned parenthood. It's not like a bank is a nice place where only nice things happen for everyone's preferences and perspectives.

Unless you can find a bank that only does 1 thing and it happens to be a thing you like, there will always be something to be up in arms about. Maybe not immediately, but always something, some time. Today it's PornHub, tomorrow it's meat, and next year it's oil.

Re: PayPal stops payouts to models on Pornhub

#430

Post by oneplane »

Terretta wrote: post #403
phire wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt anyone is threatening banks on this based on moral grounds. I suspect it's just fraud, people using stolen credit cards and bank details to pay for porn (because porn can be delivered digitally) So these accounts disproportionately show up in the fraud department and the fraud department spends more time dealing with those accounts than the profit generated. Eventually, the bank or payment processor decides i…

SCENARIO Usually it’s not stolen credit cards, usually it’s their card but they say it was stolen and try to do a charge back. Hubby pays for porn. Wife looks at bill. Hubby denies it, must have been identity theft! They demand a charge back since clearly card stolen by unknown porn hound, not innocent hubby. CONSEQUENCES Card processors and especially customers of card processors get their accounts flagged for too m…

Or maybe just tell your wife that you like to buy porn.
Post reply on HN