Also this is why we should work to increase circulation of cryptocurrency. No stupid religious restrictions and stupid political sanctions.
Also why PornHub and OnlyFans are immune to religious lobby?
There's no actual evidence in the article that payment processors made them do it. They actually banned pornography long before this. They just updated the terms to clarify what counted as pornography.
> Also this is why we should work to increase circulation of cryptocurrency.
Cryptocurrency actually does avoid this problem because it doesn't allow chargebacks and the consumer has to foot the bill for transaction fees. Those are also the reasons why consumers don't like it.
> Also why PornHub and OnlyFans are immune to religious lobby?
They're not? They would have the same high risk accounts and include the higher fees into their business model.
Stripe _says_ they will handle these type of payments, but more often than not, within roughly a year of implementation you'll get an email from them kicking you off their platform, no matter how vigilant you were, or even if the things you were selling were more rated R than rated X. Source: my own insider knowledge along with colleagues in the space.
This should be the top article. It's only an hour old and has hundreds up upvotes.
The payments industry is strong arming free speech to promote religious fundamentalism.
There is no such thing as vice content being higher risk. That's a diversion topic. Fewer and fewer people are hiding porn payments from their wives.
We don't need the religious oligarchy dictating how you can live.
Edit: it's back. Halfway down the page. A few minutes ago it was not on the home page at all and I had to search for it.
U.S. customers pretty much JUST got chips in our cards... but issuers "forgot" to implement the PIN part.
Zero sympathy for this scumbag monopoly.
If it’s not a moral issue, then the rules should be simple and easily communicable. Examples: Comply with the law of your jurisdiction. Keep your chargeback rates below x%. Instead, payment processors intentionally refuse to enforce consistent rules across platforms. Not the behavior of an economically-motivated, entirely rational agent.
[1] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/13634607241305579
It’s a little strange to complain about no one being responsive to you when you’ve summarily dismissed every comment in this thread.
The counterargument here doesn't even make sense. You think payment processors are run by people with weird puritan takes on adult content? No, they're exactly the same nerds that work everywhere else in the industry. I'm sure someone will come up with some just-so story about how payment processors, and only payment processors, are suspectible to influence from religious radicals or whatever, but: special pleading is special pleading.
If the conversation is too boring and repetitive for you personally due to your long, long history as a commenter, you could always choose not to participate in it. That’s more or less what you’ve done here in any case, with the added efficiency of one fewer step.
This is what, past the thirtieth anniversary of Eternal September? I’d think you’ve had plenty of time to cope with the social phenomenon.
> I'm sure someone will come up with some just-so story about how payment processors, and only payment processors, are suspectible to influence from religious radicals or whatever, but: special pleading is special pleading.
A lot of that going around, huh. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48129408
Second, agreed, if this was primarily about chargeback rates, there'd be no differentiation between disallowing things like hypnosis, (fictional) non-con, BDSM, etc. over vanilla sexual material. Instead it seems to be a mixture of pressure by (primarily religious, though some feminist) anti-porn activists, negative media portrayals (e.g. Kristof's PornHub article in the NYT), and understandable fear of lawsuits resulting from hosting actual illegal material (Visa/Pornhub case in California).
(Note that OnlyFans did get attacked in this same way before and briefly attempted to pivot to non-adult content before rapidly backpedaling after a user and creator uproar.)
You can have chargebacks in crypto if the payment is scripted to allow chargebacks. It would be up to the merchant and the buyer on whether or not to allow that, and who would mediate the dispute.
Visa can run away with your unclaimed payouts (if forced to do so by law enforcement for example). This doesn't have to be true in crypto; you can set things up so that the third party can either release the money to the payee or send it back to the payer, without giving them the capability to send it to some arbitrary address of their choosing.
Maybe your rates are high because of the risk pool you are in.
But why would fraud be more prevalent specifically in the adult content industry than the average over all the industries? Do criminals prefer working in porn than elsewhere? Why? Or do chargebacks simply occur more often due to spouses disputing a charge in an attempt to save face in front of their partner?
The stats I've seen actually did put the charge back rate is high compared to other industries.
What does seem like a scam though is, especially in the digital space, a refund is basically free. The merchant could agree in the case of any charge back the credit card company can just take it back, they won't argue, just take it. They'd even agree to pay the transaction fee.
But you can't, so you get the 20% fee, and you still get the money clawed back from you.
It helps that a lot of people have no respect for the people producing the content; they'll happily consume it, but they refuse to acknowledge any work that goes into it or that people should be compensated for what they've created.
The problem is the VIRP/BRAM requirements push adult content into using only a handful of acquiring banks, and thus there is insufficient competition to get them to lower rates since where else you gonna go?
To get around this, some sites use less obvious or vague names, but that creates its own category of chargebacks.
>How is an adult chargeback ratio calculated?
Divide the number of chargebacks in a month by the total transactions in the same month. The result is the chargeback ratio. Visa and Mastercard both use this formula, with Visa weighting dispute count and dollar volume together under VAMP.
https://sensapay.com/resources/blog/adult-industry-chargebac...
It seems like that sector has 3-4X the disputes and maybe even fraud, independent of your own business practices or success.
There are orders of magnitude more CSAM on other platforms, such as Facebook. As explained elsewhere in the comments, Pornhub was targeted by evangelical, anti-pornography groups which weaponized claims of CSAM against Pornhub for their own political purposes, despite the fact that Pornhub had vanishingly few instances even compared to other pornography platforms, let alone non-pornography platforms (like Facebook).
I am not sure if CSAM is the only reason for this group - notice they specifically listed MILF/DILF, that doesn't involve or imply CSAM in any way.
Also we're not arguing the language here or its adherence to the specific reality, but the blunt tool the laws are.
Putting other countries laws aside, I believe that digitally manipulating the image of the real child in that way results in the production of the actual CSAM and as such is a federal crime.
And back to my previous comment - actual children are involved, so the abuse actually happens. If you doubt it, feel free to read up about women who experienced their own AI-manipulated pictures to make them appear naked - I don't think you deny the actual harm here.
In terms of generation (harming pixels), I think the idea of the lawmakers is to criminalise similar ones as well ("indistinguishable from a real child") to offer some protections to real children.
No, it's not. People have been charged, but their convictions overturned. E.g: https://capcentral.org/case_summaries/people-v-gerber/
> As the United States Supreme Court found in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002) 535 U.S. 234, 250-251, “[v]irtual child pornography is not ‘intrinsically related’ to the sexual abuse of children . . .. ” The nexus between such images and exploitation of children is “contingent and indirect.” The images created by Gerber is akin to virtual child pornography since the superimposing of a childs head on adult pornographic images does not involve the sexual exploitation of an actual child. Thus, mere possession of them is protected under the First Amendment.
People should be pre-conditioned to lose their marbles at the mere idea of someone being naked, and rush to the saviours in power as a consequence. It is not universal, there are many places where people are not trained by hyper-sexualised culture to treat children as sexual objects first and foremost (of course, it's always because of some “other” maniacs “everywhere”). That does not mean that those places are “better” or “safer”, just not that crazy.
In simple terms, viewers taught how to feel by the Jerry Springer Show (and by that I mean all “respectable” globalised media together, the difference is superficial) put on the cork hats, and dictate how everyone else should act. All while being 100% sure they are “progressive”, unlike those “savages”.
Obviously, certain people really like that they can keep any international hosting company, or business in general, on a leash, and they like it to be that way forever, so it's essential that you keep supporting the hypocrisy.
One needs education to explain that, for example, hentai manga has little to do with realism, that character drawing styles have a long history that is only partially intertwined with lolicon wave started in the early 1980s (and that they even cross-pollinated with female-oriented manga along the way), or that the strict indecency ban (again, thanks to US) had created it in the first place (so little girls were actually used to portray proverbial 900 year old vampiresses because you could not draw those vampiresses that way).
Then we can see that any kind of image, even highly realistic, even photographs, is a deliberate set of choices made by the author, not a 1:1 copy of of “reality”. Then we can switch to the viewer side, and study how the contents of people's head define what they see, and how they react.
Here's a party trick. Japanese entertainment industry still produces a significant amount of media with young women in bikini. Weekly Young Magazine (one of the biggest manga periodicals) keeps placing idols on the front cover to this day. Ask someone about it, and listen to the expected comments about “questionable”, “seedy”, and “exploitative” nature of those (which are obviously true to a large extent). Then compare that to Western media products, global pop stars and such, and enjoy the excuses about it being completely different, “suitable for the whole family”, and “playing by the rules”.
I think the reasons consumers don't like cryptocurrency has more to do with its overwhelming use for and exposure to scams, fraud, money-laundering, etc. than with no chargeback support or having to foot the transaction fees...
Theoretically, they could just split out "explicit" vs "normal" risk categories, but there's two top problems there: 1) it's just fundamentally a smaller-yet-way-more-annoying category than the rest of their payments, and 2) tons of your partners (banks etc etc) have blanket-banned for all of the above reasons.
So... here we are.
Sorry, but that's just bullshit. This is nothing more than your standard pseudogovernmental meddling in the "just build your own financial infrastructure" vein, and it's coming from foreign countries this time rather than the US itself (it currently has an administration less hostile to business).
There's CashApp / Venmo / Zelle, previously Paypal, for P2P transfers (paying your friend for a half of the pizza you both just ate), but that's largely an internet phenomenon. There are wire transfers, but those are expensive and largely for big-ticket items you don't buy that often, think cars or houses, not TVs. There are ACH transfers, which is how wages and bills often work. The fun part of ACH is that the person executing the transfer doesn't have to be the account owner, so businesses can just transfer bill payments from your account to theirs. And then there are the famous checks, which work when no other option is available.
Non-purchase person-to-business transaction are largely done via credit card, sometimes by check or ACH. Explicitly instructing your bank to send a transfer to an account number provided by the business, either through a form or through a "quick transfer" UI, is very rare on that side of the pond.
And there's just so many more things you can pay for. Physical stuff. Art prints and comics. Game mods. Art commissions. Services that aren't just video platforms (social media, hookup apps and so on). There's so much more stuff out there that's not child-friendly, and I bet that all of these categories have different amounts of financial risk atrached to them.
So why are all these different things grouped under the widest net, with the worst offenders being used as reason to deny processing to the entire market segment? Why did they ban all explicit content and not just porn site subscriptions or whatever else has the most chargebacks?
This comment thread is confidently trying to steer around this topic, but there is ideology mixed up in this, and probably to a way larger extent than you think.
Note that I'm not saying we should ban that. I'm just saying that if the 'unbearably high chargeback' excuse had merit, they would've been precision-striking just those categories of sales, instead of opting to nuke everything that humans find sexual, regardless of medium, type of product/service, artistic merit, popularity and so on.
No I can't. Can you elaborate?
This has always been a lie. I work preventing stolen credit cards from being used to buy gift cards.
Payment networks do not at all care about cutting you off for having chargeback heavy flow. They demonstrate their value to customers by supporting those chargebacks, they make $20 for every single one. If you have a large fraction of your payments causing chargebacks, they just charge you more money for the privilege. They won't cut you off unless you are obviously not doing anything to prevent credit card fraud or are party to the actual fraud itself. Payment networks don't even do that much to prevent fraud, because it doesn't hurt their business at all. Everyone knows you are protected when you use a credit card, and frequent demonstrations help that.
This has always come down to some fundamentalist "Christian" groups who keep spending big bucks suing anyone they can find who sells anything adult, and suing Visa and Mastercard as accessories. They are trying to ban porn, toys, adult content in general.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Center_on_Sexual_Expl...
This is the group that drove Pornhub to delete 9/10ths of their library.
Compare their efforts to the australian group who got so much flak for demanding steam remove violently rapey games and yet are fine with steam still being full of sexually explicit games that aren't about simulating abuse.
I can't understand why people believe this lie. If it were true, you would not be able to buy a gift card over the internet at all.
They see all LGBT stuff as porn. Which is why the current moral panic in US/UK involves transgender people. Once trans people are outlawed, the rest of the rainbow will be rounded up and eliminated.
Because this is too specific for your understanding of the reasons to be true. They'd just blanket ban anything NSFW.
https://www.bu.edu/articles/2023/suing-visa-to-shut-down-por... https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/04/visa-suspends-card-payments-...
And yes, naturally this is backed by the Christian right. They've tried to spin/redefine the whole anti-porn thing as anti-child trafficking, as that has more support.
If this problem were as pervasive as people keep saying it is, it would put the merchants out of business long before it would have any noticeable impact on the card brands (Visa, Mastercard) who are typically the ones actually pushing bans like these[0]. Even if the merchant is successful in winning the chargeback, they are the ones who have to pay the fees for it, which means that any business with a predictable and consistently high enough chargeback rate will just stop collecting payments long before the upstream providers care.
A lot of people here don't actually understand how payment processing, risk underwriting, and chargebacks work - which is fair, because it's an arcane area of knowledge that most people don't interact with! But it means that a lot of things which sound like simple and easy explanations are actually completely off base and nonsensical.
[0] I do not have knowledge of the Kickstarter situation specifically, and the article is light on primary-source details, so I am explicitly not commenting on this specific case.
> Also I think it is weird that when someone steals a bank card, they use it to buy adult games instead of buying an iPhone or MacBook and shipping it to the third world country.
iPhone or MacBook purchases are expensive enough to trigger fraud detection reliably. A $19.99 adult content purchase less likely to.
It's not just stolen credit cards, though. Adult content purchases have another problem where purchasers often deny having made the purchase when their significant other finds it on the credit card statement. Shaggy's "It wasn't me" defense.
Ridiculous. People who consume adult content could at least behave like adults.
It's a math problem: If a credit card processor takes 3% of the purchase price and the average purchase is small like a $10 item or a $5 monthly commitment, it doesn't take many disputes to blow up their business model. Disputes are costly because you have to pay humans to deal with paperwork and phone calls.
They charge you a large fee for every chargeback. They get the full purchase price of the transaction back without any effort. It's automatic. Meanwhile your merchant fee per transaction is directly tied to how many chargebacks you produce.
Chargebacks do not cost the payment network any money at all. All cost is borne by the merchants. That's the whole point. That's why chargebacks are effective: Because the payment network is an all powerful authority in the matter and has no incentive to deny chargebacks.
If you believe $15 covers all of the human labor involved plus the cost of their management chain and employment, I wish I could be as optimistic as labor costs as you.
Combined with prevalence of the suspiciously well standardized "because porn users and gamers chargeback Steam purchases way too often" canned responses, I think it's just an excuse, if not "the" excuse somewhere - like the basis for using incorrect data for internal risk modeling or something like that.
Meanwhile other industries like travel have crazy high chargeback rates. This is because it is notorious for a no refund policy / locking customers into purchases months in advance... and then people just chargeback instead of accepting a consumer hostile no refund policy. So travel ends up having high chargebacks... and yet has minimal trouble getting processing.
Nope, not true. They're #2 on Stripe's high risk business list, after porn:
https://stripe.com/resources/more/high-risk-merchant-account...
Seriously though, I think the fix here is not who controls it but legislation that codifies when this type of payment deplatforming can (or cannot) be done. Make some carve-outs for smaller processors (e.g. if your church group wants to set up a pr0n-free version of Stripe, go to town)
If you're a processor (payment or otherwise), you have to be absolutely sure there's no CP or non-consensual content on there. The penalty for even one thing to slip through is damning, and they're under extreme pressure to be the gatekeeper on all of this.
That means you have to manually review everything. That means paying someone to sit through and review all sorts of... questionable... media. A lot of work was shipping this off to overseas review farms. And we occasionally hear reports on how degrading and traumatizing this kind of work can be.
So for Visa, Mastercard, et al I think they are more or less chomping at the bit to just be completely out of this genre of businesses.
Some amount of adult comment is CSAM, or otherwise broadly disfavored. Some companies (Pornhub, OnlyFans) are willing to specialize in discriminating between “regular” adult content and the objectionable stuff, and they have payment processors similarly willing to specialize.
Some of that specialization involves being willing to take on political exposure. Mainstream payment processors are unusually exposed to risks like “being dragged in front of Congress” — there are a lot of reasons a politician might want to put pressure on a general financial infrastructure provider. So reducing obvious ways to get embarrassingly dragged in front of Congress is rational.
The problem is that activists who are laser focused on eliminating adult content watch intently for the first thing they can use against the company, and even if it violates their ToS something problematic is eventually bound to get through review. Rather than reporting it to the platform, activists then threaten the platform through intermediaries and force them to change their policies to drop adult content.
This is why Pornhub is always targeted under the pretense of "fighting CSAM" when in reality Facebook is orders of magnitude worse in terms of the prevalence of CSAM and the distribution.
Exodus Cry, et. al. don't target Facebook, because they don't actually care about fighting CSAM - they are simply weaponizing that rhetoric in order to attack the the thing they really want to end (pornography, and more broadly, anything "immoral" according to a right-wing, evangelical definition of that word).
1) non-consensual or illegal (CP) content could come with expensive lawsuits.
2) Adult content has higher abuse (charge-backs, fraud, etc..).
Where did I say all? Lol
See how your logic makes zero sense?
They're not. I highly recommend the podcast "Hot Money: who rules porn". It's about the internet "revolution" of porn, when it went from DVD to the Internet. It's very interesting and sometimes hilarious.
4 fingers are OK. 5 fingers are NOT. The payment card cartel has an unofficial list of what is and isn't OK to show. It becomes a different act when all fingers are involved and they don't want that. I kid you not.
https://www.pushkin.fm/podcasts/hot-money/hot-money-who-rule...
In order to increase circulation of cryptocurrencies, you must make it easy and secure to deal in them. The way you do that is through... political sanctions in the form of financial and banking regulations.
Which are set by bodies vulnerable to religious pressures.
Short answer — there are lots of chargebacks and (sometimes) fraud around this content. Vanilla payment processors don’t like high rates of chargebacks and fraud.
> Also why PornHub and OnlyFans are immune to religious lobby?
They use a high-risk payment processor that takes a much higher cut of each sale (basically as insurance).
Opposition to such measures often hinges on false notions of freedom and the purpose of law. One function of law is to teach men to be free in the genuine sense, not as being able to do what thou wilt, but to be able to do what you ought.
There's a reason pornography has a history as an instrument of wartime psyops.
Like freedom from want and freedom from fear, Mr. Roosevelt?
The driving force is mostly a group of nonprofits and lobbying groups that are backed by right-wing, mostly-but-not-exclusively evangelicals.
Over the last decade, they have successfully laundered their views into the mainstream to the point where many people don't realize how influential they have been in writing all of these laws and policies and driving them across the finish line.
None of this is hidden knowledge - they've been acting out in the open for years, but people have an aversion to acknowledging it, because it's an uncomfortable truth which triggers a great deal of cognitive dissonance.
It's not easy money. It's reputationally risky money, that requires EXPENSIVE moderation, defensive litigation potentially fraught with fraud and chargebacks. Follow the money.
The non-government organisations involved in those cases are either proxies that always support local politicians, or have been deliberately created to create opaque decision making source that is outside of legal or public scrutiny. As always, the ones who decide morals for the masses are the ones you can not even criticise. Unfortunately, even if you don't have such activist group, there is always a queue of well-intentioned citizens full of dreams of getting in bed with any politician, and having their 15 minutes of fame.
So one thing is to show who is the boss. Just as a slave owner who randomly kills a couple of slaves just to make others tremble in fear, US reminds others who sets the rules of international trade. The pretext is not that important.
Another is to keep public in check. A citizen who says “Sonic and Mario BDSM Chamber game? Wow, so unbelievable”, and shrugs it off is a bad citizen. Good citizens must react as prescribed to any real or imagined horror stories, be attracted to sexual content in media (or outraged by it, which is the same thing), and always fear the dangers that exist “outside”. The more they do that, the more they ignore the real world around them, and rely on imaginary protections the system and its members provide.
As political entertainers are interested in keeping the status quo that benefits all of them, they always choose the lowest common denominator views on such topics. It does not matter what you really think about it, it matters that you do the trick when the command is given: gasp with others, murmur with others, shake your head with others, decide that it must be stopped by existing powers with others (and therefore let them decide for you).
PornHub was famously not immune to the same thing. Porn industry attacked free streaming sites to remove everything that was not actively copyrighted, and directly provided by industry. It probably cost them a lot to organise that through politicians, journalists, activists — and payment processors. Ironically, the rhetoric you might call religious was used to help porn business.
Info on its conservative lobbyist leader, their extreme views and hypocrisies: https://www.reddit.com/r/Steam/s/1FHaaaIs6T
As for why they do it?
Because conservative Christian lobbying is a lucrative grift: https://youtu.be/ms26YefUNds?si=3KLCj1RALES3aKDT
The owner runs a for-profit speaking engagement business alongside the registered charity. Many such people get into right wing politics without necessarily holding real conviction for the causes because it’s an easy way to get lots of money.
It’s kind of like the market for drill music - fans love the stories of gang violence and aura of lawlessness, so artists will exaggerate and pretend or even foment actual violence so the market buys the product they’re looking for regardless of authenticity. The fans form the artists because of what they finance. The result is a product of the fandom more than a reflection of the artists true selves, though it relies on preserving the deception of extreme authenticity.
A similar American lobbyist group is Moms for Liberty. They’re funded by a billionaire and groups like the Heritage Foundation, the ones behind Project 2025.