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

71–80 of 272 posts

Re: Against the censorship of adult content by payment processors

#71

Post by windward »

protocolture wrote: post #5

Clarifying I find the furry art weird, and not pornographic. (Weird is fine btw, normal is the worse insult imho) I think the biggest issue is the damage that the word "Censorship" has taken in the last few years. If I ran a payment processor, the first thing I would do is try to be as neutral as my moral compass allows. The second thing I would do is intentionally stop processing payments on behalf of anyone I was u…

This is a mis-definition of censorship, similar to what happens to 'propaganda', where you're only considering the censorship that you don't like to be censorship.

Re: Against the censorship of adult content by payment processors

#72

Post by altairprime »

linotype wrote: post #3

It pains me to say this, but this might actually be a valid use case for cryptocurrency. These companies are cowards.

The article linked by this post disagrees:

> I’ve seen some comments floating around that suggest that the fix is to jettison Visa and MasterCard in favor of cryptocurrency.

> I think this is fundamentally a losing strategy: It moves the burden and risk of being unbanked onto the developers and publishers rather than the platforms. Yes, it decentralizes (to a point), but each node has less resources to defend themselves in court when the oppressors change their tactics again. I believe it’s better to stand together than fragment.

Re: Against the censorship of adult content by payment processors

#73

Post by londons_explore »

recursivecaveat wrote: post #52
linotype wrote: post #3

It pains me to say this, but this might actually be a valid use case for cryptocurrency. These companies are cowards.

Honestly I think Visa/MC appreciate being nudged into this situation. Normalization of them as financial gatekeepers gives them a big favor that they can grant to governments by cutting the tap off to orgs/companies/people whenever. Its a direction that is convenient for them and a lot of the heat for the move gets passed on to some Australian non-profit instead of them. Hard for me to square their behavior unless th…

If this were the case, we'd probably see very different policies for every country.

Yet this doesn't seem to be the case. Pornhub doesn't say 'payment for interracial porn is available in all countries except Opressionland'.

Re: Against the censorship of adult content by payment processors

#74

Post by cesarb »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #46
TZubiri wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a gajillion currencies, banking systems, wallets, crypto, amex. Widen your category definition and you'll see it.

I say again: > consider how much it limits the viability of an online business to not accept credit cards For the vast majority of online businesses, accepting exclusively crypto, or exclusively bank payments, would result in much less business. Orders of magnitude less business. They are not viable alternatives for the vast majority of purposes.

> For the vast majority of online businesses, accepting exclusively crypto, or exclusively bank payments, would result in much less business. Orders of magnitude less business.

I would add a qualifier to your statement: for the vast majority of global online businesses. An online business serving a single country could make use of country-specific payment systems, which are often very popular. If a Brazil-only online business accepted only payments through PIX and boleto bancário, that could result in less business, but not orders of magnitude less business.

Re: Against the censorship of adult content by payment processors

#75

Post by aqme28 »

willprice89 wrote: post #19
cwillu wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Companies shouldn't have rights.

If I'm the sole owner and only employee of a small business, should I have the right to choose my clients? If so, at what size/scale/level of market capture should I lose my rights?

To some extent, no. In my opinion* you shouldn't get to say "I refuse to design websites for gay people."

*: Not always the same as Sam Alito's

Re: Against the censorship of adult content by payment processors

#76

Post by coldpie »

FirmwareBurner wrote: post #63
jjav wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Visa/Mastercard should have the right to refuse service. Given their market dominance, they should absolutely not have any right to refuse service. At that level of scale, they need to be treated like common carriers, who must handle all communications/transactions.

THIS. Why is this PoV even controversial? Especially given that the videogames in question weren't even illegal. Hell, I don't even like those games, but it's about the precedent of corporate overreach: if it's all legal, Visa/MasterCard shouldn't be able to decide for me what games I'm allowed to buy, no matter how weird they may be. It's not their job to judge the legal kinks I'm up to in the privacy of my own home…

> THIS. Why is this PoV even controversial?

Because it is stating that the government should control private behavior, which bumps into free speech and freedom of association issues. That gets pretty controversial.

There are other solutions to the stated problem:

> Given their market dominance, they should absolutely not have any right to refuse service.

The fix is to address the precondition in that statement: their market dominance. If a single entity is so powerful that it can control entire markets, then the problem is not what it does with that power, but that it has that power in the first place.

The solution to this problem is enforcing our existing anti-trust laws, not passing new laws to compel private behavior. We should not have only one or two entities that control this entire market. That's a sign of a broken market, and that's what must be addressed.

Re: Against the censorship of adult content by payment processors

#77

Post by potbelly83 »

I think a lot of people are missing the point. Most likely what's happening here is that the issuers (not Visa/MC) see a large number of chargebacks/fraud for adult content sites and have determined that it's much easier if they don't accept transactions from these sites.

Re: Against the censorship of adult content by payment processors

#78

Post by [deleted] »

hx8 wrote: post #65
brookst wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the “instead of providing school lunches, eliminate poverty” argument. I am fully supportive of fostering competition. But until the market actualky changes, monopilies / duopolies should be regulated to prevent this abuse of power. Rejecting a simple tactical solution in favor of a future systemic overhaul is classic perfect vs good.

Calling for the creation of a government run alternative isn't arguing against School Lunches. It's the exact opposite.

[deleted]

Re: Against the censorship of adult content by payment processors

#79

Post by iknowSFR »

potbelly83 wrote: post #77

I think a lot of people are missing the point. Most likely what's happening here is that the issuers (not Visa/MC) see a large number of chargebacks/fraud for adult content sites and have determined that it's much easier if they don't accept transactions from these sites.

Sure but isn’t allowing those company to pick and choose what industries they service a dangerous precedent? They’ve monopolized the consumer credit markets and as such, can use that weight to dictate competition in consumer markets.

Re: Against the censorship of adult content by payment processors

#80

Post by [deleted] »

brookst wrote: post #23
willprice89 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with your assessment of the current situation. But I think the solution is to break up the duopoly, either by leveling the playing field or creating government-run alternatives, rather than force the duopoly to do certain things.

This is the “instead of providing school lunches, eliminate poverty” argument. I am fully supportive of fostering competition. But until the market actualky changes, monopilies / duopolies should be regulated to prevent this abuse of power. Rejecting a simple tactical solution in favor of a future systemic overhaul is classic perfect vs good.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN