Hacker News Reader

> This just feels like the steps towards a more puritanical America. One that looks at sex, porn, and similar things as immoral and "dirty".

And in doing so, ensuring that such things are relegated to the shadows instead of being regulated in broad daylight and preventing such harms from taking place.

I did not even think of that!

Not only lack of regulation but also in places that make it even harder to hold people accountable (increased anonymity).

Being forced into the cash economy means being victimized by crime.

The flower, vegetable, and mushroom farms near me don't have to deal with that. The farm that grows baby Marijuana plants has to hold a bunch of cash and gets robbed. This is California, so it's all theoretically legal, but it's not equal.

I think that's the unspoken part of conservative policy in this area: the victims deserve the consequences of their immoral activity.

Don't want to get robbed? Don't grow drugs. Don't want to have your naked photos/videos posted on the internet? Don't have sex before you're an adult. Or not married, or whatever.

Eh, that seems like a stretch. I doubt it's so subversive.

Sure it's the de facto state of things, but when conservatives don't like things they tend to do so outright, e.g. the recent Supreme Court ruling.

Plus is it really policy keeping Visa away from these trades? Or internal forces withing Visa?

> when conservatives don't like things they tend to do so outright

Going to disagree with you on that one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_whistle_(politics)

The recent ruling itself is a facade. All of these Federalist Society pranksters pretend to care about abortion, but of the six FS justices only Barrett has an ideological commitment. The actual ideological commitment they all share is Borkism. Since 1977 the judiciary has steadily chipped away at antitrust law, and they've done so largely by pretending to care about dead babies. Republicans nominate lots of judges, and these Borkists have always said the right things (at lower court levels, they don't even have to make many anti-abortion rulings, and at all levels there are vastly more cases about commerce than about abortion) to be on the list. Soon enough, additional attacks on abortion rights will no longer be as politically useful, and the masks will come off.

I'm not a lawyer, but Visa stopped doing business with PH in 2020 when a report came out that showed the moderation issues with PH. [0] I'm guessing that the lawyer for this case decided to go after Visa because of this. It can be used as evidence that even Visa themselves agrees they shouldn't have been doing business with PH.

[0] https://www.theverge.com/2020/12/10/22168240/mastercard-endi...

I am not a lawyer either.

But I would think to win sueing someone you have to show intent. If visa cut off ties when new evidence was presented I would think that would show a lack of intent?

You often dont have to show intent.

> But I would think to win sueing someone you have to show intent.

In this case the plaintiff has to show knowledge, but showing is a later stage of the case. The decision here was only over whether a valid claim was stated.

> It can be used as evidence that even Visa themselves agrees they shouldn't have been doing business with PH.

Specifically cited in the decision (along with Pornhub purging of the vast majority of it's content in direct response to that suspension) as showing that Visa had the power to affect Pornhub content (since Visa had apparently argued that lack of such power as a reason they should not be liable even if they had knowledge.)

I’m sure the idea is to take advantage of joint and several liability ( https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/joint_and_several_liability ). If Pornhub and Visa are declared to be severally liable, the woman will be able to collect the entire judgement from Visa, even if the court says Visa is only 1% liable and Pornhub is 99% liable.

Visa will then be able to sue Pornhub to pay its share. In theory, everybody will pay the amount they were supposed to, but the victim will get the money sooner by sending the bill to the party with the deepest pockets.

But often, the parties most at fault go out of business, so the party with the deepest pockets pays the whole judgement and the people who actually caused the injury escape punishment.

> I feel for this woman, But I don't like where this is going.

Why?

> I highly highly doubt that Visa had any knowledge in this.

So? Whether it's likely to be true was not an issue at this stage. The question was only whether the plaintiff had made an argument which, if proven true by evidence at trial, would constitute a violation of the law for which a remedy is avaialable against Visa. Because the court found answer was yes—because, among other things, they alleged that Visa did have such knowledge—the case can proceed to where the plaintiff gets a chance to present evidence to prove the allegations and Visa gets to try to rebut them, with evidence on both sides.

Would you prefer that someone in this position, making this allegation, be denied a remedy without the opportunity to prove their case?

I have an issue if that remedy comes at the cost of someone or a company that was not directly involved in the case.

In this case Visa was providing a service with little to no knowledge of the internal workings of PornHub.

Like I originally said. Would you still be saying this if they were attempting to sue the banks? The datacenters? The ISPs? The manufactures of the machines in the datacenter? If visa is liable for this so are all of those which does not make any sense.

They are already suing pornhub in this case. I don't see the value or reasoning that Visa has any liability here.

To me her getting a financial remedy quicker is not a valid reason to sue a different party.

> In this case Visa was providing a service with little to no knowledge of the internal workings of PornHub.

Why should their level of knowledge of the internal workings of MindGeek be relevant, if they had knowledge of and actively chose to profit from the illegal activity at issue?

> Would you still be saying this if they were attempting to sue the banks? The datacenters? The ISPs? The manufactures of the machines in the datacenter?

Yes, I would say the same. Whether they can prove the requisite level of knowledge is an issue for trial, but they have certainly stated a claim that is sufficient, and would be sufficient mutatis mutandis against any of the others.

> If visa is liable for this so are all of those which does not make any sense.

No, Visa having actual knowledge of the illegal conduct and actively choosing to profit from it does not imply that all of those had the same knowledge and made the same choice. And, again, this isn't a decision that Visa is liable, but that the plaintiff has stated a claim under which Visa would be liable if the claim is proven, and part of proving that is proving Visa’s knowledge.

> They are already suing pornhub in this case. I don't see the value or reasoning that Visa has any liability here.

Whether either has liability is yet to be determined; this isn't a decision on liability but on whether the allegations made by the plaintiff if proven—which include Visa’s actual knowledge and active decision to profit from MindGeek’s distribution of illegal content—would constitute a violation of the law for which a remedy is available against the defendants.

> To me her getting a financial remedy quicker is not a valid reason to sue a different party.

Not sure why this strawman is raised here.

>I really don't want this to turn into a case where payment companies are reluctant to do anything that is mildly controversial and could be turned against them at a later point.

This has already been happening. Look at GoFundMe and Patreon.

Strong agree.

I don't see Visa as culpable here. And yes, you're right—no more culpable than the ISP serving PornHub, or their analytics provider, data center, ad services, or anything else. The blame lies squarely on PornHub. And there are surely other institutions than Visa that should be obliged to take immediate serious issue with CSAM on PH.

Why isn't Visa being forced to stop providing payment processing services for Liquor stores that sell alcohol to people who drive drunk and injure themselves and others? It's not a strawman—I see Visa as removed from culpability in that case as they are in this PornHub case.

The specific behavior of the person posting this content is unquestionably damnable, but it doesn't mean PornHub is a whole is a net-bad. Sex work is real work, and America has a real damn hard time appreciating the aesthetics of the human body in a comfortable and unproblematic manner, and the pressure to keep PornHub surpassed in the shadows is also what promotes some bad behavior—since we can't talk about sex comfortably as a culture.

In any case, Visa's job is not to moderate the content of the internet or any other purchases on their platform, aside from an interested best-effort response to deny outright the sale of illegal goods and services. Visa should be able to fine or sue PornHub for breach of contract. Or increase their payment processing fees, and make them provide reports and transparency from this. It is not ok for Visa to feel forced by external pressure to cut off this business category as a whole. Sure, charge them more, but don't deny the business.

fr it's not visas fault. this is just as stupid as letting sandy hook families sue gun manufacturers. it's just looking for a scapegoat. "somebody must pay!" so they keep looking until they find one. somebody gotta write the 50 million settlement check.

Isn’t this mostly due to Bill Ackman (among others) not appreciating the type of videos they were hosting and having friends in high places to get what he wants? https://www.businessinsider.co.za/amp/bill-ackman-pornhub-mi...