Gumroad no longer allows most NSFW art, leaving its adult creators panicked | Hacker News Reader

Gumroad no longer allows most NSFW art, leaving its adult creators panicked

techcrunch.com

51 pointsrahidz58 comments

Open articleView on HN

I'm sure this will end well for them. I guess if you go out of business, you don't have to worry about running afoul of your choice of payment provider's requirements.

So far as I know, Gumroad is basically the artists' OF. Without porn, what will they really have left?

Reminder that NSFW content has disproportionate amounts of fraud and chargebacks. This is also why Stripe, PayPal, Visa, etc. hate it just from a business perspective.

That's "common knowledge" but I wonder how true that is.

I have a feeling NSFW attracts more problems from a "moral", political and pressure groups perspective than actual fraud and that's the main reason companies don't want to touch it.

The rate depends, but take OnlyFans: They cascade (I.e. spread out) payments across at least 3 providers, and automatically rotate between them to avoid any of them getting a rate too high.

Seems like quite a bit of logistics if it was not really an issue.

That doesn't really make sense unless they have a way to flag higher-risk charges and route them to a processor that is more risk-tolerant (and usually more expensive). Eg. I could see segmenting the charges for the first month or two into a higher risk bin, and then moving recurring customers into low-risk bins on processors with cheaper rates.

But a rates a rate?

There is a difference between straight up porn and fan-service (OnlyFans) and the adult artwork and erotic educational content on Gumroad. I would be surprised if these suffer from the same amount of chargebacks.

I know. But I also know that if NSFW content makes up the majority of your store and/or sales, it behooves you to find a payment processor who accepts that risk (albeit at a higher cost).

Funnily enough, I bought lots of stuff on GumRoad and wasn’t aware that NSFW is huge there. I only knew it as the platform for online courses, ebooks and mediocre notion templates

Then the artist can take on the risk by establishing their own business and finding a payment processor who accepts that risk instead. Will they? Won't they?

If everyone on your platform does that, you no longer have a platform though.

Banning/outlawing the majority of your users, no matter how annoying or costly they are, is generally not a winning move for a platform that lives off its users.

You'd think they would have learned from the example of Tumblr.

So why not offer payment methods without chargebacks? Here in Europe, i pay 95% online payments with direct bank transfers, which do not offer chargebacks.

Because in America, direct bank payments are a pain, and come with the risk of more money being taken out than displayed onscreen. Your bank account information might also get re-used.

There’s a reason why it’s common advice to use credit cards and not debit cards, simply because the fraud protections and laws are stronger.

But if you can't accept credit cards for some reason, no one would tell you to close up your business instead of accepting debit cards.

"This specific category has a high risk of chargebacks, so it's using a less convenient/safe system" does not seem like an absurd thing for a payment processor (or a storefront) to say. Services like Paypal support direct bank access for payouts, right? The systems may not be ideal, but payment processors are not so uncomfortable with them that they won't support them at all.

This doesn't really explain why payment processors couldn't restrict payments for adult material to a subsystem or charge higher transaction fees for it specifically. If this is just about risk, then... risk can be priced. It doesn't seem that complicated. You calculate the chargeback rate for the category and you price transactions for that category accordingly. Part of the financial cost of payments online goes into subsidizing risk, this is already something that we all do every time we use a credit card on a service with transaction fees.

Stripe couldn't have a different pricing tier for payments or businesses operating within specific categories?

Aren’t there payment processors that allow adult content? Makes me wonder why a platform like Gumroad couldn’t just use a different processor for customers that mark themselves as NSFW.

As much as people love to hate it: crypto

I wish there was an easy way to handle subscriptions with crypto. Like if MetaMask or other wallet apps agreed on a "pull-based" billing system. That would probably never happen, but I can dream.

As an operator, I'd also want a smart contract that collects payments from a list of tokens/altcoins and immediately converts it to USDC.

You can do that by making a smart contract that the payee can only pull X amount from on certain block intervals, and the payer can deposit and withdraw from a often as they like. It would essentially be a checking account.

Also re: auto converting tokens - you can jusr make a service to do that, it doesn't have to be a smart contract. A smart contract probably could be used with a DEX though, but I think that may be needlessly complex.

> You can do that by making a smart contract that the payee can only pull X amount from on certain block intervals, and the payer can deposit and withdraw from a often as they like. It would essentially be a checking account.

This is super interesting. Has anyone done this?

Honestly it's pretty trivial. I haven't tested it (it does at least compile), but I had GPT-4 write a contract for this[0]. Obviously don't use this for anything meaningful, just meant to convey the idea. More features could be added to do things like allow the account creator to add / remove more payees with their own withdrawl rates, allow them to directly transfer to someone besides themselves (analogous to paying with a debit card).

[0] https://dpaste.org/NWFbE

> Honestly it's pretty trivial.

Literally no artist anywhere has ever received an actual payment from an actual customer with this method (I'm not counting the artist themselves making a test payment).

No, if Gumroad bans you, you can't just set up your own crypto smart contracts and make money that way. This is some academic crypto anarchist fantasy.

You can look at the code. It's like 50 lines. It is logically trivial. I was replying to a comment that called it "super interesting", which is why I pointed out how trivial it is.

> No, if Gumroad bans you, you can't just set up your own crypto smart contracts and make money that way.

For no reason other than people don't want to.

> For no reason other than people don't want to.

You're living in complete fantasy land. There are many reasons people find it hard to make payments in crypto, other than "just don't want to".

Again, I'm reiterating the point that artists need to eat food to live, and artists would be happy to set up payments in crypto, if that would lead to them gaining access to food. But it wouldn't, so they won't.

> You can look at the code. It's like 50 lines. It is logically trivial

Ah yes, the thing I always love to do before purchasing a naughty comic book: code reviews! I just love to read the code that verifies that my $2 purchase of a comic book. I love sweating nervously and verifying that clicking this button will not have unforeseen consequences, such as one where I lose my house because I missed something in code review. wHy dOEsNT evERyONe jUSt uSE crYPtO

A lot of artists already are using crypto to accept payments. Look at “crypto art” space as a whole. You don’t need tons of paperwork to set up on and off ramps.

> A lot of artists already are using crypto to accept payments. Look at “crypto art” space as a whole.

You're conflating collectibles, which are purchased for speculative purposes, to the kinds of art which are purchased for consumption. Yes, you can use crypto to build ponzi-like games for digital assets, everybody knows that. The question here is can an artist charge like $5 for a comic book or $10 for a monthly subscription. And the answer to that question is no, not to an extent where they would be able to afford food, which they need in order to continue living.

> You don’t need tons of paperwork to set up on and off ramps.

I personally needed a passport, a driver's license, and a recent electricity bill. I also needed a mobile phone with video camera, plus a banking connection which is crypto friendly.

Owning a passport and electricity bill is hardly “paperwork,” lol. If an artist can’t manage to set up a crypto account—or a bank account, which requires the exact same documents—they are probably not in a position to run their own art business.

> You're conflating collectibles

No—I am talking broadly about artists selling their work through crypto, and some of it does include $5 comics, like Sloth Zine:

https://x.com/slothzine/status/1763674161333834057?s=20

> If an artist can’t manage to set up a crypto account—or a bank account, which requires the exact same documents—they are probably not in a position to run their own art business.

The artist, sure. But once the artist goes through all that work to set it up, will they get access to food which they need in order to continue living? No, they won't. Because the consumers will prefer products that are easy to pay for.

> No—I am talking broadly about artists selling their work through crypto, and some of it does include $5 comics, like Sloth Zine:

aaand the link you gave is an NFT collectible...

The price point was not the main point here - sure an NFT doesn't have to be expensive it can also be cheap. That was not the point. My point was that the audience for ponzi-like NFT games is different from the audience for more "traditional" consumers of art. If you are, for example, an artist who currently makes comic books that people will pay for with Visa and Mastercard, you will not be able to provide food on the table by switching into crypto payments.

Your argument lies on the assumption that consumers are too lazy to follow their favourite content creators to new payment avenues.

The reality is that a number of artists have already added crypto as an alternate and additional payment stream, and this includes comic artists and illustrators. This trend will probably continue as more platforms and payment processors make changes that are generally against the interests of their users (eg: the OP).

Can you show me one (1!) artist who makes a living wage off of crypto payments without any kind of ponzi-like speculative aspect? An artist who is just using crypto as means of payment AND actually getting paid with it. Just one example is enough.

I’ve already given you an example: Sloth Zine, an indie digital comic by illustrator Burka Bayram that is selling via crypto & tokenization. You can even read about his story here:

https://canvasrebel.com/meet-burka-bayram/

I'm interested to see this as well. I know some who do Patreon and crypto, but none are just crypto.

> You're living in complete fantasy land.

You're just arguing against things I am not saying.

> There are many reasons people find it hard to make payments in crypto, other than "just don't want to".

Feel free to elaborate.

> artists need to eat food to live, and artists would be happy to set up payments in crypto, if that would lead to them gaining access to food. But it wouldn't, so they won't.

Can you give reasons why it wouldn't besides people (which includes payers) don't want to use it?

> Ah yes, the thing I always love to do before purchasing a naughty comic book: code reviews!

People are able to make apps. I didn't link an app because I don't know of any, and I don't really care to find one if it already exists. I linked code because this is a hacker forum, and it was trivial to get.

> Can you give reasons why it wouldn't besides people (which includes payers) don't want to use it?

Sure! Acquiring the required paperwork and banking connections to get on crypto on/off ramps is difficult. That's one reason.

Anyway, see how you retreated your argument to "which includes payers"? So it seems that you actually agree with me that artists wouldn't be able to set up crypto payments to provide a livelihood for themselves, due to reasons which are outside their control.

Specifically Monero. No evidence for Puritans or data-mining companies to try and shame you or make you pay to forget.

absolutely not the solution.

I don't see why not though? One of the benefits of a decentralized currency is that it is not subject to censorship by any central authority who disagrees with the content you are purchasing. That is exactly the problem these guys are having. Granted, they'll have to pay a lot of transaction fees/gas, and the volatility still makes it hard to fix prices, but for one-off transactions, you can ignore day-to-day volatility as long as the minute-to-minite volatility is bearable.

I didn't say it was "the" solution, but it absolutely is a solution to what they asked.

It still isn't a solution any way you cut it and in any case, hence the keyword 'absolutely'

It's a payment system that allows adult content.

If you're an artist who needs to eat food in order to live, this "payment system" does not facilitate your ability to achieve that.

It’s “a” solution but not a “helpful” or “realistic” solution.

Not sure why you're being downvoted, because your comment succinctly highlights the issues and is correct.

It doesn't highlight any issues. It effectively just says "you are wrong". It doesn't really add anything to the discussion.

> Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Well, that's your opinion. I believe I highlighted the main issues with your suggestion, and added exactly the same helpfulness to the discussion as an assertion that artists should rely on patrons to send them cryptocurrency to support themselves.

It highlights the issue that the suggested solution is a theoretic or academic solution which we theorize might work out some day, but is not currently a realistic solution for the need to provide food for artists to eat so that they could remain alive.

The fact that you disagree with the explanation due to ideological purity reasons is not grounds for downvoting it.

> the suggested solution is a theoretic or academic solution which we theorize might work out some day, but is not currently a realistic solution for the need to provide food for artists to eat so that they could remain alive.

These are all your words, not theirs. They didn't suggest this at all.

> The fact that you disagree with the explanation due to ideological purity reasons is not grounds for downvoting it.

This is true, but:

1) I didn't downvote it (I literally can't)

2) There are other good reasons to downvote it, such as what I linked.

Unless you have something more to say about cyrpto I think we should leave this here.

> These are all your words, not theirs. They didn't suggest this at all.

I'm failing to understand how you could have read what I wrote and come to the conclusion I didn't suggest that, given that I literally said it was not realistic.

Why? To me, it seems like a clear solution, and is actually one of the core goals of the creation of cryptocurrency.

Many artists I know are ferociously against crypto and they and their fans don't know how to use crypto at all.

Use bank transfer or better yet instead, purchase gifts for the creator on their Amazon, Etsy, etc wishlist in exchange for content or use gift cards.

The above solutions are way better than crypto as it's mostly used for crime and illicit transactions and speculation.

By what metric are these better solutions?

Modern blockchain payment systems (see Base) have transaction fees that are an order of magnitude cheaper than any trad processors; they don’t discriminate based on moral grounds; transactions settle in seconds rather than days; they are not bound to only certain countries; funds are not custodially held by a single centralized tech company; the list goes on.

Much of the rationale for anti-crypto among communities that would most benefit from it (eg: NSFW art) is ill conceived and held together by an almost religious zeal.

All it takes is one defi guy who can really draw rouge the bat with a juicy posterior and artists&dans will get into crypto.

There’s a lot of bad blood in the artistic community (on all fronts, production, distribution and consumption) to anything crypto due to the whole NFT thing… I don’t think you’re going to see anyone trying to do something that’s art + crypto for quite some time.

Yep. CCBill is one the bigger/better known in that space. I’m guessing Gumroad just doesn’t think it’s worth it.

Cash. Crypto is now, but will be regulated into submission, or out of existance.

As mentioned CCBil. Another is Epoch and SegPay. Most are found in the footer for pay sites.

> “We have been asked to be more rigorous in enforcing our ToS and must comply,” Gumroad founder Sahil Lavingia told TechCrunch. He declined to say which company asked Gumroad to enforce stricter rules.

This refusal to even name which payment provider is being an ass irks me, and makes me worry that this may just be a convenient excuse to get rid of adult content 'because the payment providers made me do it'.

Gumroad already was hostile to adult content by forcing anyone looking for sex-related content (regardless of its type) to repeat every search by explicitly ticking the 'Show NSFW' checkbox way down the bottom of the filter list, and have to repeat this for every search, with no way of opting in in the settings.

> “Should Gumroad hire a lobbyist?” he asked in an email to TechCrunch.

Yes? I'm a little confused as to why platforms that feature adult material wouldn't be lobbying around payment processing requirements and regulations. I don't know much about the porn industry, but are there seriously not lobbyists in that industry?

OnlyFans got (effectively) banned from multiple states. They absolutely have a legal team and a PR team that's focused on the government. How would any platform that features adult content not be looking at OnlyFans and thinking, "maybe we should start prepping for legal/regulatory battles."?

I mean, heck, how are they not "lobbying" payment processors? TikTok basically unleashed its entire userbase on the government over a potential ban. When a payment processor starts messing with the content you can allow on a storefront, is there a reason why Gumroad isn't making contact information available for those payment processors and encouraging users to write to them? I'm sure it wouldn't help Stripe's relationship with Gumroad be any more chummy, but like... this is a business relationship, not a friendship. I don't know, these platforms act like they just got an edict from God rather than that they are being pressured by a business partner to make a business decision that their userbase dislikes. Am I out-of-line on this? I feel like when business agreements get restricted and that affects customers, it's relatively common for businesses to use that discontent as leverage in negotiations and not just say, "well, hands are tied, sorry everybody." When Sony restricted Spiderman, Disney was not shy about encouraging people to contact Sony.

I guess I assume there are complications with business relationships with payment processors that makes that harder? I don't know if there are any payment processors that do work with adult content, maybe Gumroad just knows that it doesn't have any bargaining chips to work with?

But I kind of get whiplash between looking at how companies respond to things like iOS restrictions vs how they respond to payment processing restrictions. I would have assumed that these types of businesses were already lobbying, everybody else seems to be. Maybe Gumroad is too small to have those kinds of legal resources? Is Patreon working with lobbyists? Is Kickstarter?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com