Patreon Is Suspending Adult Content Creators Because of Its Payment Partners (vice.com) 234
Some adult content creators on crowdfunding site Patreon are being suspended due to the suggestive material they produce. The platform said that they are increasing efforts to review content, due to payment processor pressure. Motherboard reports: In late 2017, Patreon expanded its adult content guidelines, to include stricter guidelines for "bestiality, incest, sexual depiction of minors, and suggestive sexual violence." At the time, it resulted in suspensions and bans of many adult content creators whose work Patreon previously permitted, but no longer fell in line with new guidelines. Now, many more adult content creators are reporting that they're experiencing a renewed wave of suspensions on the platform. Patreon's guidelines for adult content state that "all public content on your page be appropriate for all audiences," and "content with mature themes must be marked as a patron-only post." For several of these reports, Patreon warned that "implied nudity" was the reason for the suspension, where it appeared in public areas or publicly-visible patron tiers and banners. "You can't use Patreon to raise funds in order to produce pornographic material such as maintaining a website, funding the production of movies, or providing a private webcam session," the guidelines state.
Middlemen should be invisible (Score:2, Insightful)
Now they're propping themselves up like kings.
Re:Middlemen should be invisible (Score:5, Insightful)
This. A payment processor should never be allowed to refuse any legal transaction, when in a doubt that's the police's work not theirs. An ISP should never be allowed to ban or slow down any sites, any questions of legality need to go to the police not to the middlemen (and even then, it's not up to the ISP to enact bans). A non-curated (ie, done by the public rather than exclusively by the provider) news/blog/etc site should never be allowed to discriminate content based on political views. Etc, etc.
The transactions are high risk (Score:4, Interesting)
With corporations always, always, always follow the money. Anything bigger than a leomonade stand is completely amoral.
Re:The transactions are high risk (Score:5, Interesting)
That's why we need a way of making payments that can't be arbitrarily denied by middle-men. Bitcoin was great before it got hijacked by ponzi scheme "investors".
The credit card mafia speaks with one voice, with Mastercard differing from VISA by nothing but name. They collude for prices, collude for policies, collude for denying business. And collude for bribing legislators to deny competitors who are not a part of the cartel.
Re:The transactions are high risk (Score:4, Interesting)
There's no ponzi scheme for bitcoin that is any different from the ponzi scheme of fiat currency... only the volatility is different. Bitcoin doesn't have a Federal Reserve or equivalent to stabilize itself. No one is moving banking interest rates in order to stabilize the Bitcoin currency, so it fluctuates on pure demand. That's how currency works.
Re:The transactions are high risk (Score:4, Interesting)
In the beginning, batshit crazy Bitcoinerites touted the "off the grid" anonymous, fee-less utopia of cryptocurrencies.
We of sound mind informed that as soon as Bitcoin found a way to convert to more traditional currency, the shit would hit the fan.
And, that's precisely what's happened.
Now Bitcoin is subject to regulation, has lost its anonymity, is a commodity with exchange rates to fiat, and the IRS is working to tax transactions.
Effectively, across the planet, Bitcoin is a proxy USD.
Re: (Score:2)
> Effectively, across the planet, Bitcoin is a proxy USD.
Seen that way, it's also a proxy for all the other fiat currencies that people use to buy/sell bitcoins. I've seen a fair number of European traders working in euros. It's a commodity, like oil or gold, but with some very currency-like behaviors in its production that make it useful as a transactional c
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you.
I'm skeptical of cryptocurrencies and blockchain right now , because I think we'll be looking back after we get both in versions 2.0 and above.
I'm a retired IT guy and I was not an early adopter.
Re: (Score:2)
....it's called a transaction, using a currency.
Yep.
But at the outset there was a bitter battle about whether Bitcoin was a currency.
We just settled that, right?
Re:The transactions are high risk (Score:4, Informative)
That's a curious 'correction', given that it's unfortunately very wrong.
VISA and Mastercard are both in public ownership and are very different companies.
Re: (Score:3)
What the fuck do merchant agreements have to do with company ownership?
Re:The transactions are high risk (Score:5, Insightful)
If these disputes were half as onerous as you claim then the porno industry would have packed up business years ago.
It hasn't. Umm, or so I'm told.
Re: (Score:2)
The beastiality industry on the other hand has been completely destroyed. The GP is right that porn represents risk in the general sense, but is very wrong that the payment processors don't also act as a moral police.
Re:The transactions are high risk (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The transactions are high risk (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It makes you wonder how porn sites take any payments.
Re: The transactions are high risk (Score:3)
Probably by having tight relationships with a small set of sympathetic payment providers, keeping very detailed records, eating the excessive chargeback fees, and building their entire pricing structure based on the reality in which they operate.
Re:The transactions are high risk (Score:5, Insightful)
Adult content has a high percentage of disputes (probably from guys who's wives/girlfriends notice the charge).
That doesn't apply to Patreon though, since Patreon charges just show up as "Patreon" on the credit card statement; the specific creators that received the money are listed in an e-mail instead.
Re:The transactions are high risk (Score:5, Interesting)
's not nothing to do with moral policing. Credit card transactions are effectively loans. In large parts of the world you have a legal right to dispute any charge on your card as a result. Adult content has a high percentage of disputes (probably from guys who's wives/girlfriends notice the charge). Even if you can prove the charge is valid it's still expensive to do so. Hence why nobody wants to be involved in it.
It has little to do with disputed CC charges.
It has everything to do with government pressure applied to banks/CC companies to remove the ability to perform financial transactions from certain select legal businesses/individuals without due process or any proof of any crime. It was called "Operation Choke Point" under Obama and Holder.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The same tactics are being used selectively against many adult/sex-related industries as well as gun dealers/stores and others the government considers "unsavory" for whatever political/ideological/moral/financial/religious reasons they choose.
It was bad under Obama, it's bad under Trump. This should not be partisan at all. If the Rule of Law were still a thing in the US, those responsible would be seeing a prison cell, but sadly... .
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
It has little to do with disputed CC charges.
It has everything to do with government pressure applied to banks/CC companies to remove the ability to perform financial transactions from certain select legal businesses/individuals without due process
From your link 'companies believed to be at higher risk for fraud and money laundering.'
I'm pretty sure that fraud and money laundering aren't legal business...
Re: (Score:3)
From your link 'companies believed to be at higher risk for fraud and money laundering.'
I'm pretty sure that fraud and money laundering aren't legal business...
Those were the reasons given but they were not the only reasons.
But the reasons are irrelevant to the fact that such threats by the federal government are blatantly unconstitutional as they attack legal businesses without any charges or due process involved. It is entirely unilateral with no judicial review or oversight nor authorized by any law or Act of Congress. The government cannot skirt the Constitution by using a monkey's paw.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
it's not nothing to do with moral policing.
Actually it has plenty to do with moral policing. Credit card processors were single handedly implicated in the end of the beasiality porn industry in the USA even before *some* states passed laws banning the practice. Credit card processors have led some very targetted moral campaigns in the past. You're right in the general case that porn represents a high-risk to them, but within the industry they are very effective moral police.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
it's not nothing to do with moral policing. Credit card transactions are effectively loans. In large parts of the world you have a legal right to dispute any charge on your card as a result. Adult content has a high percentage of disputes (probably from guys who's wives/girlfriends notice the charge). Even if you can prove the charge is valid it's still expensive to do so. Hence why nobody wants to be involved in it.
With corporations always, always, always follow the money. Anything bigger than a leomonade stand is completely amoral.
This is a great take.... and unfortunately it is just not correct.
This move is the direct result of Operation Choke Point. [wikipedia.org]
The US Federal government began threatening banks back in 2013 that if they did business with disfavored industries, they risked being taken down by the Feds. It is often sold as being about "money laundering", but it targeted legal business that were in disfavor with the administration like firearms dealers, check cashing services and payday lenders. Along with this other groups w
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
At the end of the week I'm going to make a payment of round 4k GBP online.
I could use my debit card, I could use a direct bank transfer, I could be a total fuckwit and use paypal.
Instead I'm going to use the payment mechanism that includes free fraud protection, so that in the event I'm totally fucked up and transferred 4k to a scammer I'll get my money back.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that with an insured bank transfer, you pay the cost of the transfer (probably with an extra fee for the insurance). With a credit card transaction, the seller pays that cost, and it gets built into the cost of the product. It makes the accounting easier if you can point to a single line ite
Re:Middlemen should be invisible (Score:5, Insightful)
Think of it this way. If I'm a payment processor I get paid by processing payments. I really don't care if those are for groceries, commissioned artworks, illicit drugs, or prostitutes. I get paid either way and it's in my best interest to process as many payments as possible. However, the government isn't powerful enough to be able to even put a dent in behavior it doesn't like and can't even begin to unilaterally enforce it. So they make laws that make processing payments for certain things illegal. It's much easier for them to go after me than it is hundreds of people buying drugs, so it's in my interest to not let anyone pay for anything that looks like illegal drugs using my system even if that means I inadvertently prevent some hippies from buying some herbal tea that's in no way illegal from time to time. You can still get that without laws (say that 90% of my customers are Mormons and don't want me to process payments for coffee) but it's rare.
And even though I disagree with the new age puritanism that's making the rounds, I don't think it's my right to tell a company that they can't give in to pressure from their customers if they want to. If they think keeping the 90% Mormon customers at the expense of losing the other 10% is better than potentially losing a good chunk of 90% of their customers, that's their own business decision. If it's a bad business move, they'll fail and get replaced by a company that does a better job of serving consumers.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that all sounds good, until you realize that those laws don't actually push them to do this at all. They just don't want their name on the document subpoena, because they communicate with the world in such a way that nobody believes anything they say, and if they're asked about they'll put their foot in their mouth by default because their communications are all stuffed full of horseshit by policy.
That's the real reason, because their PR drones can't answer a question about an investigation without m
Re: (Score:3)
Sounds like you're advocating making "Republican use only" roads in some states and "Democrat use only" in others. That's why the concept of common carrier is so important.
Re: (Score:3)
Because payment processors have a defacto monopoly and allowing them to arbitrarily restrict legal commercial speech gives them power which should be restricted to government.
Re: (Score:2)
You make me glad I'm American and not under the gun of a government with your theory about the breadth of their management responsibilities.
Re: (Score:2)
Your supreme court just invokes the commerce clause to allow government to regulate anything it damn well pleases. If there was a recognized church of porn games then Patreon/Paypal/Mastercard/Visa would all be forced to cooperate with the transactions for instance ...
So having established that you're already under their gun lets just determine when they should use it.
Re: (Score:3)
Online payments (primarily credit card based, but I include things like Paypal and Bitcoin) are effectively forms of banking transactions. While it would be nice from a libertarian point of view to consider financial transaction providers as common carriers like the post and telephone networks, the reality is that they can't be. There is a large amo
Re: (Score:2)
Lol, no they just don't like the publicity of being called into an investigation for some sort of sex trafficking that has used their service. And the lines between good and bad sex are so blurred they have taken the path they've taken.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now shut up and draw me the Michelle Obama doing Barry in the ass while eating a cake, you fucking bigot.
Take that request to a company that makes its money on drawing pictures for the public and you may have a point.
Only in America (Score:3, Insightful)
is "implied nudity" a reason to ban something but banning weapons that enable you to massacre a crowd from a quarter of a mile away is controversial.
Re:Only in America (Score:5, Informative)
“If you suck on a tit the movie gets an R rating. If you hack the tit off with an axe it will be PG.”
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The odds of my kid getting gunned down (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The odds of my kid getting gunned down (Score:5, Interesting)
There are two different approaches to the question of truth.
The scientific approach: Make up some theory, compare it against reality, adapt it as necessary to be a better fit, repeat until you can't think of improvements anymore
The religious approach: Make up some theory, tell everyone else about it, build a system around it, selectively pick those facts that confirm your theory and with the support of the system you built, push these facts and suppress the others
The US is an outlier in western civilisation. The importance of religious is comparable to 3rd world countries, but not to other western countries. As is the attitude towards anything sexual.
(note that attitude doesn't mean people don't have massive businesses in this area. it just means they are considered smutty)
The "abstinence programs" that the entire developed world (and good parts of the developing world) laugh about are not explainable in terms of western civilisation or education or anything except the backwater religiousity of the USA. Once you understood that religious thinking is the cause for such insanities, you understand that contradictory facts have zero effect.
If anything, contradictions strengthen religious belief.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The odds of my kid getting gunned down (Score:5, Funny)
pretending sex doesn't exist
But sex doesn't exist. At least not around me, anyway. ;-(
Re: (Score:2)
It's even worse when it's near, but not near enough to see or touch.
Noisy sex is fun when both you and your flatmates are getting it on like dueling saxes.
Not so much when it's just them, and you are trying to drown it out with the headphones on.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah because sex education as a deterrent to unplanned pregnancies has worked so well for the past 40 years.
The best birth control, abstinence is 100% effective.
The pill is 99.9% effective. That sounds pretty good right? So If you have sex 1000 times, or three times a day for a year you have 100% chance the pill will fail and you will end up with an unwanted pregnancy. Much more likely if you have sex once a day for three years your chance of having an unwanted pregnancy is likewise 100%
No one wants to pret
Actually you don't regulate sex (Score:5, Informative)
This is bollocks because you DO NOT regulate sex. Want you want to do ? Stop two teen having sex ? how ? Having them a iron udnerwaer with a lock for which you have only the key ? Just get real. No you don't regulate sex (except the separation adult/minor). What you do is restrict access to information. And what happen when access to information is restricted ? Well kids STILL have sex, but they do it without being fully aware of the consequence, or use and info rumor gossip and hoax circulating (like "you can't get pregnant if it is a rape". oh wait my bad that one was a politician - but sad joke aside misinformation is bad). That is why where teen get sex ed, they have consistently LESS unwanted pregnancy, and abstinence policy lead to MORE pregnancy. This is simply plain statistic and whether you are religious or not cannot deny, you can refuse them, pretend they do not exists, but we can all see them for what thy are.
Re: (Score:2)
are still pretty low. The odds of her getting knocked up are much higher.
For 50% of the population, getting pregnant is impossible...
anyone who's had an unplanned pregnancy or had one yourself you know it's just as life changingly devastating. Maybe moreso. Blow me away and my life insurance kicks in
This is possibly the stupidest thing I've ever read on Slashdot. Having a family member is no big deal because think of the money!
FWIW my wife had an unplanned pregnancy, it turned out to be one the best things that ever happened. Not devastating at all...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Only in America (Score:2)
Patreon want a competitor (Score:3)
Since Patreon takes a slice of the pie, it would be nice to see how happy they'd be if everybody who had material even a little bit suggestive took their projects to a new site that dealt unabashedly with porn. Such a site would be well-advised to reserve an area for head-to-head competition with Patreon for family friendly projects. I'll leave the social dynamics of the situation for another day, but I think we can all agree that the people most interested in pornography are sometimes the same ones who would love to have an excuse for "accidentally" straying into the wrong area.
Call the site "Pudtreon" or something.
Re: (Score:2)
We need to get away from credit card type transactions for these small amounts. Paypal needs far too much overhead to deal with charge backs.
Leave it to the court. Keep every transaction in escrow for say a month and freeze his account if you can present evidence that the recipient is being sued by someone who send him money. That should cut way down on nuisance charge backs and overhead, but still allow money sent to a scammer to be recovered. Obviously you couldn't do this through credit card companies th
Re: (Score:2)
1. websites should take crypto-currencies as payments (it doesn't have to be Bitcoin, there's hundreds of crypto-currencies, ex: Litecoin, Reddcoin, Dogecoin, Dash, Monero, etc).
2. websites could then exchange those crypto-currencies for money on any crypto-currencies exchange.
Big opportunity (Score:5, Insightful)
The same thing is happening to firearms dealers doing online sales (which have all the same safeguards and background checks as in-person sales — and actually more traceability because credit card sales are more traceable than cash sales).
Presumably these payment processors won't allow legal marijuana sales either. The realm of socially disapproved behavior grows larger every day.
This creates a big, expanding opportunity for a payment processor who won't bow to the Twitter mobs and their blacklists and witch hunts.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't just process payments on a wish and prayer, though. How does the money eventually move? Existing payment processors are owned by banking conglomerates, and banks already have agreements to move money.
It is easy to imagine making a new user-facing part, or imagining what your merchant policies would be, but how does the money get from the consumer to the merchant? Does the consumer have to mail you dollar bills, or what? Maybe they mail you a check or money order in advance, and then you mail the m
Re: (Score:2)
Presumably these payment processors won't allow legal marijuana sales either. The realm of socially disapproved behavior grows larger every day.
Interesting thought process you have there. You presume something based on nothing more that hot air, then proceed to form a conclusion based on that presumption that has no basis in reality.?
I used to work in a bank and I can assure that bankers have no morals. Every decision made in a bank is about money or the risks of losing that money. This has nothing do with any perceived moral crusade, it is merely a higher risk of fraud which might coast a bank exec his/her bonus. If porn and marijuana is being ta
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting thought process you have there. You presume something based on nothing more that hot air, then proceed to form a conclusion based on that presumption that has no basis in reality.?
Yeah, predicting the future is more or less always like that because no one knows the future.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, but if you read up on backpage you will see why they ended up that way. The stories I read said backpage was helping to rewrite ads offering sex with minors to avoid legal scrutiny.
The market for porn and guns may not be huge. The market for anything the Twitter mobs don't approve of is growing to include more and more things every day. @jack just had to apologize for going to Chick-fil-A a couple weeks ago to avoid being bullied.
Guns and porn today. Legal drugs tomorrow. Then church donations an
Re: (Score:2)
Guns and porn today. Legal drugs tomorrow. Then church donations and non-socialist political candidates will be blacklisted.
Patreon is mostly an American service. So no.
Re: (Score:2)
Patreon doesn't do payment processing, so it is not their call. They are at the mercy of 3rd party payment processors.
Re: (Score:2)
Coming soon to Britain. Outlawing kitchen knives that have points, plumbing parts, gumbands and nails.
Has nothing to do with Patreon ... (Score:2)
... FTA:
According to a Patreon blog about creator fees, these partners include Stripe and PayPal (which has a history of refusing to serve sex workers), but the pressure to turn sex workers away comes from major banking networks.
It's the payment partners .
Any objections should be addressed to those payment partners.
Patreon just wants to make a buck.
Re: (Score:2)
Which approach makes them more money, your approach or their decision to be capitulant [sic capitilating] little bitches?
Re: (Score:2)
All they need is to make money. They don't have any feet.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I thought Patreon was already on thin ice with their content creators?
No idea about content creators, but they're kilometers under cold water with possible patrons, at least as I'm concerned. Any content creator that relies exclusively on Patreon will not get a broken penny from me.
Re: (Score:3)
What subscription service would you recommend instead of Patreon?
Re: (Score:2)
What subscription service would you recommend instead of Patreon?
I for one would recommend none of them. The last thing I need is another recurring payment, which represents another opportunity for my payment details to be stolen.
I'd love to be able to make micropayments to sites, but there's still no decent service for that. (I tried flattr, it's crap.) But I won't subscribe.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have any idea the kind of hoops you have to go through so you are able to take electronic payments by credit card?
It takes a bit more work then just knowing some PHP.
Re: (Score:3)
You want to run your business as independently as possible? Don't build it on top of things like Facebook or YouTube or Patreon. Build it on top of things like HTML, CSS, JavaScript and PHP. If you don't want to learn these skills, hire someone who can do these things for you
Hmm. Why go to that expense when you can easily just outsource to someone that's already done this. Such as Patreon.
Sure, you'll save money in the short term by just dumping everything on a "free" platform, but then they own you
Patreon is not free, and they do not own the people that use their services.
Further to that, most people raising funds on Patreon are earning tens of dollars a month at most. That's not going to cover much bespoke development.
Re: (Score:2)
"Like what you see? Drop some coins in my hat at Hatreon." Got a nice ring to it.
Re:Good. (Score:4, Funny)
"Smut peddlers"? What year is it? 1938?
Re: (Score:2)
"Smut peddlers"? What year is it? 1938?
Has what's right and wrong changed since 1938?
Or are we just magically comparative super experts on what is right and wrong, in 2018, because reasons?
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Lots of things have changed since 1938. You can't refuse to serve an African-American, same sex marriage is equal, and so on and so forth.
Re: (Score:2)
If certain moral stances, or at least how strongly they are held or enforced has changed, then right and wrong are not fixed, but rather the product of social consensus. Nudity has never been that big a no no in art, and porn has become so mainstream that even the "smut peddlers" can't compete with the mom and pop shops.
Re: (Score:2)
Nudity has never been that big a no no in art
Uh, except for that period when the religious fanatics were in charge, and a whole bunch of nudes got painted over so as to clothe them or otherwise disguise their naughty bits...
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Has what's right and wrong changed since 1938?
Yes. "Right" and "wrong" are social constructs, and their meanings have indeed changed since 1938.
Or are we just magically comparative super experts on what is right and wrong, in 2018, because reasons?
We know that pornography is not harmful because we have studied it repeatedly and every time we do, not only can we not draw a link to harm, but it appears that it may have beneficial effects. (Also not proven, because there's no money in doing so; porn already sells.)
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't you get the memo? Puritanism is in again, and the sexual revolution all but forgotten.
Even schools are now teaching that 'porn is bad', which makes one wonder who is behind this new trend back to Dark-Ages values.
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't you get the memo? Puritanism is in again, and the sexual revolution all but forgotten. Even schools are now teaching that 'porn is bad', which makes one wonder who is behind this new trend back to Dark-Ages values.
I don't think teens got the memo, every indication I've seen is that teens have better access to porn, watch more porn and try to act more like in porn. And porn is bad if you think porn is an accurate representation of reality and not a staged and edited fantasy. It's full of pretty faces with silicone tits, botox lips, waxed slits, bleached assholes and men with really large dicks. Nobody in porn has erection problems or premature ejaculation or trouble coming or use any lube or let out a fart and everyon
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you, you just helped prove my point by regurgitating a string of the same irrational anti-porn talking points they're teaching kids in school - silly arguments that are popular with millenials as what is effectively the new Puritanism takes hold in our culture ... just a few decades ago it seemed we were entering an era of more enlightened, rational values. Now the curtains are closing and it's going dark again.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm glad to see payment processors taking an active role in what they facilitate.
Oh, really? And how would you feel if your Visa card was declined because they felt that you should stop stuffing your obese face at McDonalds 4 times a week? And PayPal rejected your payment to your church fundraiser because they thought the group had too many extreme-right racist undertones for their liking?
Payment processors should allow any legal transactions without trying to be the Morality Police. This is also the problem when a few middlemen consolidate too much power and is another reason why anyo
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Funny)
engaged in beastality or incest
Someone uploaded excerpts from the bible?
Re: (Score:2)
HAH! ROFL!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Tamest furry shit ever, they might as well go after Donald Duck.
Re: (Score:2)
They should! He never wears any pants!
Talking about TwoKinds, Kathrin Vaughan is the cutest. ^_^
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I was amused/annoyed that Patreon thought that the 2 Kinds side comic pics were too racy for public consumption. That pic of Kat having a bit too much to drink and Zen admiring her figure is obviously going to undermine the fabric of society and result in dogs and cats sleeping together. ;)
(For those who don't follow it, 2 Kinds is a furry comic that has side sketches on Patreon. The sketches often are idea submitted by the readers and are generally pretty harmless. You can find far worse searching on
Re: (Score:2)
Google's own logo [narvii.com] is suggestive too.
Re: (Score:2)
That was my reaction too. When I saw the "under review" message, I thought "wow, that must be a really great drawing" and then... well, it was Kat being her usual cute self so I was happy, but I was expecting more than that.
Re: (Score:2)
You haven't noticed that the major force behind censorship now is the left?
They're after people for sexual content (the serious feminists hate sexual content they don't approve of), for political content, and whatever else they can get away with.
The current political right just isn't that concerned with sexual censorship, no matter what you may think. They're too busy with other things, to start.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah they are to busy trying to get a theocracy started. Everything the right accuses the left of is what the right actually want for themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah they are to busy trying to get a theocracy started. Everything the right accuses the left of is what the right actually want for themselves.
You and the GP are both right. But the right isn't anywhere close to actually creating a theocracy and doesn't seem to be moving in that direction. However, the hard core feminists really do hate sex and right now this is the only type of action the left can get accomplished as its something the religious right and the feminists on the left agree upon. Also, neither group is very interested in looking at research on the topic and instead rely upon an ideology which often makes things worse for the folks
Re: (Score:2)
Yes woman started entering the workforce in large numbers at the end of WWII.
That is, single women started entering the workforce at the end of WWII. That is instead of immediately marrying. When they got married they quit. As a matter of fact many places went so far as to request married women quit so as not to take jobs away from single women who needed them. And in almost every case jobs were in areas that men did not work and pay was less, because single women did not "need" the high pay that a man who
Re: (Score:2)
The credit card system is run by cartels who extract billions in profit from every transaction in exchange for doing nothing.
And that won't change. Only the players will. Maybe it won't be credit cards anymore, but the new players will simply do the same thing - make profit on transactions.
(and remember: If you get a service or a good for free, that doesn't mean it actually is for free. It only means you are not the customer, you are the product)
Re: (Score:2)
WTF is SWIF?
Also, this single use token you think should be used. How do I validate that it's legitimate? Are the funds embedded within the token, and if not how do I validate the source? If so, how do I comply with AML laws and regulations such as financial sanctions against Russian oligarchs? Is the payee embedded within the token because if not it's now a transferable instrument and not single use at all.
Sounds like you're going to be terribly rich if you can make this work.
Re: (Score:2)
Use Hatreon. Yes, they accept absolutely deplorable projects, quite openly, but that's the price of no censorship.
Hatreon is invite-only. They are the opposite of no censorship.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know that they ever accepted Stripe as a means of payment in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
So this is the real question as far a Patreon is concerned.
If two people who support their stand to eject questionable content by donating to content creators they support, for every person who leaves in disgust over it, it's a win for them.
If two people leave in disgust for every new patron they get because they support Patreon's new limits it's a loser for them.
I guess we'll see which way it goes.