User submitted content is so much harder to verify facts about (consent in particular) and as long as the user submitted content is sexual in nature, it is legal plutonium.
https://newrepublic.com/article/160488/nick-kristof-holy-war...
Just because people you don't like are for something does not mean that you must automatically be against it.
It is a logical fallacy. The risk of de-anonymization doesn't go away because their consent wasn't verified- tattoos, birthmarks, backgrounds of images and video, etc are still there.
Not only that, but that same risk still applies to people whose videos were posted without consent. What's worse than being raped and having your video put online? Knowing that everyone you ever work with may have seen it, for the rest of your life.
Also, if you read the article the post attached, it literally opens with a woman who had to impersonate a lawyer to get porn of her taken off of pornhub.
"How I view those people" seems to be your imagination, not mine.
How many problems occur, what kind, what protocols would address the problems without needlessly harming performers and consumers?
There's no mechanism I can imagine that would make this situation true. HOW would everyone have seen it? Are you aware of just how many porn videos/pictures there are in the world?
You'd be well served to post a stat for how many people have had their coworkers see their rape videos, I'd bet $$$ that it's a negligible number compared to the livelihood issues suffered by onlyfans removing all those creators.
Payment processors are choosing to not associate with businesses that cannot demonstrate that legal consent was gained from everyone involved in the production of the videos.
There's neither church nor state involved here.
You say there's neither church nor state, but then you cite payment processors and legal consent, which are both constructs that are determined by the state. And the content that's in question is sexual consent. The idea that there should be an additional mind (e.g. a legal mind) regulating the behaviors of sexual participants is an old religious conservative idea.
If you still insist that the church in this sense has no meaning, and that this isn't a question of church and state, then you don't believe that there is fundamentally a problem of church and state at all, which in itself is an old religious conservative idea.
If you want to count "choosing to not support a business that enables rapists and child porn" as exclusively an old conservative idea, I guess you are missing the mark by quite a lot.
The institution of a church in the theological sense has nothing to do with a legally registered organization. The domain of the church, in the sense of "separation of church and state", is in the psychology and interal belief structures of the mass of people. The Enlightenment thinkers who asserted a separation of church and state were not making an assertion about mere legal technicality.
Just pointing out that this seems to be your own interpretation and isn't held in any legal doctrine I've been able to find.
In-fact it doesn't have a lot of historical or academic backing either: Historically, the separation of church and state was about removing the special benefits of state-sanctioned religions so that other churches could exist.
That was explicitly about the legally registered organisation, and you can see this now in how legally registered churches are constantly trying to find ways to legally divorce themselves from linked entities so those entities can receive state funding. That is 100% about the legally registered organisations.
Where do you see "legally registered organization" in this defintion?
Of course, within existing legal doctrine, "separation of church and state" could only refer to legal technicalities. And that's the whole point I was making, that separation goes both ways. For you to redefine the idea behind separation of church and state in merely legal terms is itself a breach of that separation.
See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_kingdoms_doctrine#Response...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genevan_Consistory
In any case, this has nothing to do with consent laws, which are entirely a matter for the state.
> this has nothing to do with consent laws, which are entirely a matter for the state.
That's what I've been saying. And it has nothing to do with my point.
I don't think many people who believe in the separation of church and state would think that implies that the state doesn't have the ability to make and enforce laws around consent.
For example, when states strengthen regulations on abortion clinics with the stated goal of improving patient safety, but the driving forces behind the legislation are anti-abortion groups who know that rural abortion providers will have to close, creating large unserved areas... will those laws help or hurt the safety of women who want abortions?
Likewise, we should be wary of consent verification laws that are pushed by groups whose supporters are opposed to legal pornography.
In both cases the goal is not to protect women. The goal is to take something morally wrong and make it seedy, underground, and dangerous, like morally wrong things are supposed to be.
This is the definition of an ad hominem, which is what the whole separation of church and state discussion is, since neither church nor state are involved here.
We arent discussing regulations, we are discussing payment processors choosing to not do business with video hosts who cannot prove legal consent was obtained from all involved.
If you ran a business, would you want to make money off of rape and child pornography? The payment processors chose "no", and that is their right.
In porn as in abortion, prohibitionists are numerous and committed enough to be a force to reckoned with, but they strategically justify their work using reasons that the rest of society finds persuasive. Anti-abortionists believe that abortion is inherently wrong, but they talk about women's safety while they shut down clinics.
The difference is, the groups who care about the safety of women will look at the details and say, the effect of this supposed "reproductive safety" bill is that thousands of women will lose access to legal abortion. Even if it targets shortcomings at poorly staffed, decrepit facilities, they won't support it if it actually makes women less safe. Overall, will shutting down OnlyFans payments make things better or worse for the women on it? People who aren't asking that question don't actually care.
Replacing skepticism and critical analysis isn't doing anyone any favors, and it doesn't make the matter at hand an issue of church or state.
The Craigslist shutdown seemed mostly driven by anti-sex work motivations
The Pornhub identity verification changes were driven by women who had been tricked into having their videos appeared and sued Pornhub over their inability to get them taken down: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pornhub-lawsuit-nonconsensual-v...
So yes - motivation is important. The identity verification requirements for performers on porn sites are at least partially driven by actual victim complaints.
So it is at least partially to protect women.
Nonsense. The odds of you stumbling upon a particular porn photo or video are miniscule unless you are specifically searching for it or it's very popular (which is very hard and not going to happen for unwilling pictures).
Particularly as most sites would take down images of you on request.
Producers should have been doing this anyway.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2257
> "... create and maintain individually identifiable records pertaining to every performer portrayed in such a visual depiction."
For example, research on the take-down of reputable sex work sites harms workers by removing their opportunities for safe work.
> the financial situation of the vast majority of research participants has deteriorated, as has their ability to access community and screen clients.
https://antitraffickingreview.org/index.php/atrjournal/artic...
If that inconveniences performers, then that’s their problem to deal with. We shouldn’t be focused on making things easy for performers if that happens at the expense of allowing revenge porn.
Going after porn sites does nothing really to stop the harassment (they can just send the pic or video directly rather than a link).
https://mobile.twitter.com/GustavoTurnerX/status/14284408173...
Thank you!
If anyone else is wondering Exodus Cry is an organization which originated out of a weekly prayer group founded 2007 [0], they apparently lobbied Mastercard to only accept providers which verify the identity of all performers & review content before any upload [1]. Which is almost impossible for the tubes / onlyfans => no more payment
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_Cry
[1] https://www.mastercard.com/news/perspectives/2021/protecting...
They are literally facilitating the transaction.... Handling payments which determine access to the content is very much "being associated".
> Deciding whether that sort of thing is happening really shouldn't be their purview.
That is their purview. Who they choose to process payments for, and the various rates based on content and risk, is the entire purpose of their business.
Content, no. My email provider doesn't get involved in what I am emailing (even though they might be "facilitating" a crime or other unsavory), the car dealership doesn't get involved in what I am going to use the car for. I mean by your logic a grocery store could ask what business you are in, and not sell you food because that is facilitating what you are doing.
Sure, if law enforcement and courts get involved, then they can stop being a provider.
But to suggest that it somehow reflects badly on the credit card company that they are used on a porn site is ridiculous.
I guarantee you they do. This is right from SendGrid:
__Twilio SendGrid Email prohibits sending of any content that is illegal or content that is harmful, unwanted, inappropriate, objectionable, confirmed to be criminal misinformation, or otherwise poses a threat to the public, even if the content is permissible by law. This content is not allowed, regardless of user consent.__
They then have a huge list of prohibited topics. Pornography, misinformation, hate speech, etc.
I recommend you check your provider TOS.
> the car dealership doesn't get involved in what I am going to use the car for
Car dealerships are free to refuse you service for any reason, other than being a protected class. I guarantee there is a long list of activities you could tell a dealership you'd do, and they'd refuse you service.
> I mean by your logic a grocery store could ask what business you are in, and not sell you food because that is facilitating what you are doing.
Yes, this is literally the case, lol. Not just by logic, but by actual reality. A grocery store can refuse you service for any reason other than discrimination of a protected class.
You need to update yourself with the laws in this country.
> But to suggest that it somehow reflects badly on the credit card company that they are used on a porn site is ridiculous.
They are free to do business with anyone they see fit. Pornography comes with the significant risk of actual harm to people. Therefore, they don't want to be involved.
If you don't like it, maybe capitalism isn't for you.
I'm kinda on the fence, but you're making a good case against it.
That doesn't seem to be stopping e-Bay and such. I don't believe that payment processors have any idea what are people buying and selling.
User-traded goods on e-Bay are also much harder to verify facts about than goods from a brick-and-mortar shop. Doesn't seem to prevent e-Bay from operating.
Like how would you distinguish between a stolen item and a used item without requiring people to keep every receipt for anything they ever buy? This is not an endorsement of their anti-porn policy, just observing that that it's easy for them to implement that in contrast to your theft example.