Hacker News Reader

Comment by xyst | Hacker News Reader

This is fine. But they also use their weight to punish sex workers.

There was a case recently that forced PH to delete a shit ton of content. Some of it was not even porn (just random gaming videos).

No due process. Just visa/mc threatening to no longer process their transactions

View on HN

I'm confused... Where does due process come into play in a contractual relationship between two companies? It's applicable to governmental entities in criminal law. Contract disputes both do not involve the government outside of a request by the parties for litigation, and are civil and not criminal law.

Because the credit companies are acting under the guise of the law. "I don't want to end business with you, but the law compels me to do this!" If you haven't broken the law, there's no way to appeal this decision they've made as they do not have a route for that.

That aside, the ability to pay a service is pretty much fundamental to its existence. Being able to at-will terminate any company you want, even ones that are provably innocent, with no way for them to so much as appeal against your decision is a worrying amount of power for a company to hold. I don't think that even the government can do something like that (at least not legally).

The law tells them who they can do business with, and they comply. That's not really a guise, unless me driving the speed limit is also a guise... If there's any challenge here, it's that such law restricts card networks' freedom of association. Which the US only has as an extension to freedom of speech... So I'm not sure that challenge would work, when the entire point is that certain forms of speech are what's being limited.

It's a guise when the law is not actually what motivates their decisions. Like if you used the speed limit as an excuse not to go to a particular grocery store, or something.

So am I understanding correctly that your assertion is that the card networks actually don't want to do business with these companies, and they use the law as an excuse?

I find it the claim that they would rather not do business with entire multi-billion-dollar markets pretty exceptional.

Mostly yes, my claim is that they don't want to do business in many cases, largely because of widespread taboo and because of worry it will make them look bad. Companies are made of people, and the latter does have financial consequences.

But my claim isn't that they want to avoid the entire industry. It's that they want to cut certain segments and use their control to make things as 'tame' as possible. So that actually doesn't cost them very much.

Pornhub execs can go to jail if they don't remove stuff that is illegal and prevent sex trafficking on their site. Facilitating and distribution itself is a crime. PH isn't a government prosecutor they have error on the side of caution and due process is right you have with the government not a private business.

> prevent sex trafficking on their site.

How exactly does an electronic video platform stop the forced movement of physical people?

Women in the videos that Pornhub is profiting off of could be sex trafficking victims. They have taken steps to stop sex trafficking but that was more of the government threatening to shut them down and/or jail their execs.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/02/amid-scandal-por...

Here's a good article on Pornhub

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/06/20/the-fight-to-h...

It's probably more correct to say that the whole system exploits sex workers. No intention to punish is necessary--MC & Visa are happy to make as much money as possible while ultimately dumping all risk onto the individuals making the content.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com