Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Almighty Buck The Internet

MasterCard, VISA To Stop Processing Payments On Pornhub (reuters.com) 114

Posted by BeauHD from the it's-official dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: Mastercard Inc said on Thursday it was ending the use of its cards on Pornhub after its investigation confirmed the presence of unlawful content on the sex videos site. Pornhub said on Tuesday it had banned video downloads and was allowing only certain partner accounts to upload content after a New York Times column reported that many videos posted on the adult website depicted sexual assault of children. The newspaper column had also described some videos on the site as recordings of assaults on unconscious women and girls. Pornhub has denied the allegations. Billionaire investor Bill Ackman asked Visa Inc to follow suit. UPDATE: Following Mastercard's termination, an official Visa account tweeted: "Given the allegations of illegal activity, Visa is suspending Pornhub's acceptance privileges pending the completion of our ongoing investigation. We are instructing the financial institutions who serve MindGeek to suspend processing of payments through the Visa network."

"These actions are exceptionally disappointing, as they come just two days after Pornhub instituted the most far-reaching safeguards in user-generated platform history," Pornhub said in a statement. "Unverified users are now banned from uploading content -- a policy no other platform has put in place, including Facebook, which reported 84 million instances of child sexual abuse material over the last three years. In comparison, the Internet Watch Foundation reported 118 incidents on Pornhub over the last three years. This news is crushing for the hundreds of thousands of models who rely on our platform for their livelihoods."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

MasterCard, VISA To Stop Processing Payments On Pornhub More

MasterCard, VISA To Stop Processing Payments On Pornhub

Comments Filter:

  • "Hey Bob, please turn off the porn filters. You know for research purposes?"

  • the Bitcoin boosters will come in droves to claim their usual hype now.

  • news is crushing for the hundreds of thousands of models who rely on our platform for their livelihoods."

    I'm pretty sure anyone who actually wants to make money exposing themselves online can pretty easily move to OnlyFans. Assuming they aren't there already.

    • Re: Lol (Score:3, Insightful)

      by reicast ( 7451646 )
      the hub will probably reverse the rule changes since it was only done to appease visa and mastercard and they kicked the hub off anyway so at this point the hub is only punishing itself by keeping them. If there is truth to the allegations (and im not saying there isnt) visa and mastercard should hand the evidence over to the authorities and let them handle it as its supposed to work. Trial by public opinion sucks and lets be honest here visa and mastercard are only booting out a major client because theyr

    • Thing is, the ones that are there are quickly finding out that there is a LOT of competition, the stakes are way higher, people are wanting more product for the price, and due to the sheer volume of users that they aren't making anywhere near the money that they thought they were going to make.

      OnlyFans "creators" have now resorted to spamming reddit like crazy, and setting up fake profiles on legit dating sites (like POF, Tinder, Match, Okcupid) to try to lure in followers. It's complete garbage. They're ev

  • Obvious followup (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Thursday December 10, 2020 @05:18PM (#60817338)

    Y'all wonder why Bitcoin is increasing in value, when within years many businesses will be squeezed out of traditional payment markets altogether ....

    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      So... you're arguing... that Visa and MasterCard are "squeezing [Pornhub] out of traditional payment markets" because they decided to not just take their word for it when they say they've totally stopped selling child pornography? That it's actually bad for a payment processor to decide that it doesn't want to be complicit in child abuse? That Bitcoin is superior because it allows selling child abuse videos?

      • Re:Obvious followup (Score:4, Insightful)

        by JcMorin ( 930466 ) on Thursday December 10, 2020 @06:51PM (#60817596)
        Pornhub, like facebook and youtube have user uploaded content and like all of these it's near impossible to control what you get on. Pornhub in NOT in the industries of child porn... we all know that. The fact Visa and MasterCard decide to cut them it's their own choice, but I can clearly see a case here for bitcoin where the currency will work regardless.

      • they decided to not just take their word for it when they say they've totally stopped selling child pornography?

        They decided to do so before anything was proven in court, and also just after PornHub took further measures to try and prevent such content from getting into their system.

        Since even a porn site trying to be legal will not be able to use Visa, what this means of course is that more and more porn sites that actually host child porn will thrive, as more people get used to paying for things using s

        • I wonder if MasterCard & Visa process payments to churches, considering the high number of actual child molestation that is perpetrated by priests, youth directors and ministers. Or if they will be dropping Facebook, Reddit or any of the other internet services that have had a challenge removing child pornography. They seem to be targeting PornHub specifically though.

    • Re:Obvious followup (Score:5, Informative)

      by Trailer Trash ( 60756 ) on Thursday December 10, 2020 @10:47PM (#60818236) Homepage

      Gab.ai lost the ability to process card payments, and then MC and Visa found out the founder's wife also had a business unrelated to Gab but cut her off as well. There's no reason these companies - who are absolutely an oligopoly - should be allowed to decide who gets to process card payments. And, no, Gab doesn't allow anything that isn't allowed on Twitter (at least not with the races reversed).

      • At least nothing of value was lost in their case.

        • At least nothing of value was lost in their case.

          Really? According to who? Torba's wife lost her business, so even if you find Gab worthless (and it's not more worthless than Twitter) there's no reason to punish her. We shouldn't have companies that have that kind of power.

    • Y'all wonder why Bitcoin is increasing in value

      The only thing we wonder is why you think Bitcoin's value is at all remotely tied to an event that occurred after the value spiked. Bitcoin's value has had precisely zero to do with anything Mastercard or Visa has done since it's inception.

    • Are you an idiot? Making or accepting payments in an unstable currency is foolish. You can end up paying much more for a product or selling a product for pennies on the dollar.

  • The Children of Pornhub (Score:3, Informative)

    by scybolt ( 4600303 ) on Thursday December 10, 2020 @05:21PM (#60817356)
    Mindgeek headquarters are in my city - Montreal, and I personally know people who have investigated some of the allegations and have also protested on the streets. I also know people who have filmed and uploaded to this site. PornHub is facing some pretty serious allegations. For example, refer to "The Children of Pornhub" by the NY Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/1... [nytimes.com] PornHub may only be one of many, but they are a big player. It's a tough battle to fight, but children of our next generation deserve our utmost protection.

    • blah blah blah (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 10, 2020 @06:54PM (#60817600)
      So after some vague sentences that say nothing, you point back to the NY Times article that kicked this all off. The vast vast majority of videos on the porn sharing sites are completely legit. There's also a lot of conflation between different issues - like they talk about a 12 year old who went missing and then years later was found on Pornhub. Yeah, well she wasn't 12 when she was filmed was she? Sounds like Pornhub should have gotten an award for finding a runaway. There are a tiny number of objectionable videos and those get removed. It's like saying GoDaddy should be put out of business because some domains are sold for objectionable purposes. There's a lot of awful shit in the world, forgive me if I don't get worked up about this one. Have you eaten chocolate recently? Almost all chocolate is the product of child slavery and other kinds of labor abuse. What about mobile phones? They don't have those suicide nets in the factory to make the feng shui better. You don't get to pick one cause to feel high and mighty about while being equally hypocritical about everything else.
    • If Pornhub is facing those allegations, why isn't FaceBook? Face book has repeatedly been found to host millions of posts of child abuse including child porn and nothing happens to FaceBook. People find a few hundred instances out of the millions of uploads on PornHub and the primary reason PornHub is being targeted is the "Porn" in their name.

  • Thanks a lot, jerks. You just killed PornHub!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dohzer ( 867770 )

      Not really. It's worked for years without anyone paying anything.
      That's the beauty of porn; it's plentiful and all free!
      I never even knew they had a payment option until this story was posted.

  • A stunning and brave move (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rogoshen1 ( 2922505 ) on Thursday December 10, 2020 @05:36PM (#60817394)

    So basically this puts MC in the same situation as a lot of other online platforms that try to straddle the:
    "we're not responsible for our user's content, until we are; and we take it down" line.

    How about granting all platforms (be it payment processors or message forums) complete immunity from whatever their users do, provided they aid law enforcement with investigations (CP, actual violent crime, etc.). However! once they start censoring or de-platforming, they then can be liable (this sounds familiar...)

    But what we're low-key creating here is a mechanism by which people with unpopular, or unapproved viewpoints can be locked out of society. It starts with the undesirables of course; and you might cheer for it, but at some point you might just find yourself the victim of the next online purge. Freedom of speech and expression should be more valuable than 'owning' people you disagree with.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gwills ( 3593013 )
      *use-case for bitcoin intensifies*
      • Again, one has to be a fool to accept or make payment in an extremely unstable currency. Bitcoin is an extremely unstable currency.

        • Again, Bitcoin's primary use is to enable illegal activity.

          Sometimes that's just, sometimes it isn't.

          Using it to pay for content from someone who deliberately avoids filtering out revenge porn and CP isn't just. It's being an enabler.

    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

      How about granting all platforms (be it payment processors or message forums) complete immunity from whatever their users do, provided they aid law enforcement with investigations (CP, actual violent crime, etc.). However! once they start censoring or de-platforming, they then can be liable (this sounds familiar...)

      Oh look, now people are trying to argue that MasterCard and Visa are "common carriers." Ones that publish nothing, but somehow become liable for what their users receive when sending a payment b

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Xenx ( 2211586 )
        Visa and Mastercard are defacto standards for online payments. It's like all the anti-trust crap going on with Facebook, Google, Apple, etc. You could make a valid argument for Visa and Mastercard to be required to process payments for any legal business. And to be clear, this isn't a statement about PornHub. It's only about Visa/Mastercard.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

          Visa and Mastercard are defacto standards for online payments. It's like all the anti-trust crap going on with Facebook, Google, Apple, etc.

          Bull. Amex, Discover, ACH, Paypal, Bitcoin for God's sake.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Xenx ( 2211586 )
            At least use your head before responding. I never said there aren't other online payment methods. I'm saying Visa and Mastercard are the two most widely used payment methods. They are so prevalent that while different sites might offer other methods of payment, they almost always include at least Visa and Mastercard. When you get a debit card for a checking account, it's almost always tied to either Visa or Mastercard.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

              At least use your head before responding. I never said there aren't other online payment methods. I'm saying Visa and Mastercard are the two most widely used payment methods. They are so prevalent that while different sites might offer other methods of payment, they almost always include at least Visa and Mastercard. When you get a debit card for a checking account, it's almost always tied to either Visa or Mastercard.

              Now justify forcing Visa and Mastercard to take all comers after admitting that there are

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by Xenx ( 2211586 )
                You clearly don't know how de facto monopolies and anti-trust work. I'm not saying I know a lot, but I at least know you're clearly lacking knowledge. Anti-trust laws exist to mitigate the potential harm of de facto monopolies. Anti-trust laws exist SPECIFICALLY to force businesses to do something they wouldn't want to otherwise. That is the point, and they exist for good reason. That isn't to say all applications of them are for good reason, only that they exist for good reason.

                "They're popular so they have to let me use them." No. No they don't.

                Actually.... that is pretty

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

                  You clearly don't know how de facto monopolies and anti-trust work.

                  He says to the multi-state-licensed attrorney.

                  Anti-trust laws exist to mitigate the potential harm of de facto monopolies. Anti-trust laws exist SPECIFICALLY to force businesses to do something they wouldn't want to otherwise. That is the point, and they exist for good reason. That isn't to say all applications of them are for good reason, only that they exist for good reason.

                  Monopoly does not equal popular. The term monopoly does not apply

                  • Re: (Score:2)

                    by Xenx ( 2211586 )

                    He says to the multi-state-licensed attrorney.

                    Being an attorney means nothing, in regards to whether you understand what a de facto monopoly is. That isn't to say you may not be knowledgeable about other things, but you keep missing the meaning here. Please, go look it up.

                    Monopoly does not equal popular. The term monopoly does not apply when you're talking about a vertical relationship (business provider to business client) with readily available alternatives. But let's play your game. What's Mastercard's market share? What's Visa's? But they both hold a monopoly? Now what about all those others that I mentioned.

                    First, again, de facto monopoly does mean popular. It just means popular to the point where it's so difficult for other companies to compete they may as well not try. As for market share, that would depend on how you want to measure market share. Visa is around 50% of sales by dollar

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

                      Being an attorney means nothing, in regards to whether you understand what a de facto monopoly is.

                      Yes, the antitrust cases taught me nothing.

                      That isn't to say you may not be knowledgeable about other things, but you keep missing the meaning here. Please, go look it up.

                      I'll tell you what, why don't you provide some authority for your claims. Prove your case, don't expect me to research things that don't exist to do so.

                      First, again, de facto monopoly does mean popular.

                      Citation needed.

                      No matter how you look a

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by Xenx ( 2211586 )
                      At this point, you're either unable to understand what I'm actually saying or you're a troll. You're picking and choosing pieces of the whole to imply I'm saying something I'm not. You even complain about how I "switched my market" when I explicitly explained the incomplete data, and why the incomplete data doesn't actually matter in relation to my original point.

                      So, good day to you.

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

                      At this point, you're either unable to understand what I'm actually saying or you're a troll.

                      At this point I understand you exactly, and understand that you're suffering from a severe case of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

                      Prove your case with links to authorities or slink away.

      • I do see a difference between payment providers and social networks, though the line between them can be rather fine. Payment processors fall into the "things which should be dumb pipes" category of internet services, in my mind. They're essential, they don't have functional alternatives, and their role is that of go-between: they don't act as host or enabler of the content that their customers provide. I don't have a problem with forcing certain companies, like ISPs, from operating in a certain way - as qu

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

          You say in another post that Visa and Mastercard have competition, but that isn't really true. For one thing, Amex has always banned payments for digital pornography.

          You don't become "essential" simply because others independently adopt the same policy.

          Paypal is also out - they stopped payments to models who work on Pornhub last year, for an unspecified reason which is likely related to sex worker legislation.

          Bingo. But rather than work on the exploitation problem, some are demanding that payment processor

          • Good luck winning it given the reasons why they're doing it and conservatives' stances towards sex work in general.

            The partisan angle would be easy enough to spin, there are plenty of skinheads and such who have also been banned by payment providers. Lots of sympathetic figureheads.

            So your criticisms are that the ability to accept money isn't "essential," and there have been some other laws related to sex work which you imply are related to exploitation. Let me address the second thing first: nuh-uh. The legislation that they're talking about is most likely SESTA-FOSTA, which manipulated public confusion over the ter

    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      by quonset ( 4839537 )

      "we're not responsible for our user's content, until we are; and we take it down" line.

      This is no different than a company pulling its ads from the Fox tabloid when one of the talking heads goes on a rant how women are the evil of the world and that rape isn't a big deal. Once the misogynist is fired, they'll put their ads back. They just don't want to be seen supporting the misogynist.

      Freedom of speech and expression should be more valuable than 'owning' people you disagree with.

      Stop with this crap. No

    • There's a big difference between taking someone's content down and deciding to not being the conduit to profit from it. Financial institutions decide not to, or are legally compelled to not do business with specific individuals, businesses, or industries all the time, and they have since like forever.

    • Plainly, MC and Visa are guilty of anti-market collusion. They're editorializing their users like the social media websites which makes them Publications rather than Platforms.

    • Anyone who thinks that allowing Visa and MC to effectively privatize the question of who gets to engage in lawful but awful commerce should read about how far Visa has gone after Gab and its founder [gab.com]. They have:

      1. Blacklisted Gab so that no one who processes money through Visa can do business with them; ostensibly this means even PayPal couldn't change their mind and reinstate them.
      2. Blacklisted Andrew Torba and even his wife by virtue of her living at his home address!
      3. They allegedly have an employee who

      • How is PornHub to know if any complaint is a legitimate complaint if it is not legal? Why should all women get the right to send frivolous DMCA style take-down notices and not RIAA/MPAA?

        PornHub receives thousands of hours worth of videos on its website. It must be receiving thousands of mails daily from random people claiming they should take down some video because they don't like it. They can't watch all the videos and waiting for a legal notice is the right thing. What is this obsession of providing extr

        • How is PornHub to know if any complaint is a legitimate complaint if it is not legal?

          They have reporting tools on their site. A human reviews it and makes a judgment call. They have had numerous cases of women reporting that a video of them showed rape, they were underage, etc. This is how the system is legally supposed to work now and actually works with these sites right now.

          So some rando on the internet emails you saying something is CP and PornHub must blindly remove it?

          Because there is a legal obligati

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by The_Assimilator ( 7344480 )

        Also from that Gab post:

        The Communist revolutionaries taking over the United States are coming for us all.

        Andrew Torba is a bat fuck insane piece of human garbage who built and runs a platform designed to facilitate hate speech. He should be thankful that getting blacklisted by Visa is the worst thing that's happened in his privileged piece of shit life. Fuck him, fuck his wife, fuck Gab and every one of its mouth-breathing denizens, and fuck you for having the gall to use his whiny entitled bullshit as an argument about corporate power.

      • NO one trusts the legal system to be tough enough. No one, no matter their politics, thinks any case they wanted tried will be dealt with harshly enough for their liking.

        And it is probably not even illegal. FB probably has 10 times the cp uploaded onto their platform, for good or ill section 203 exempts everyone with money from worrying about publisher liability.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by godrik ( 1287354 )

      So you are saying that if I create a company called "Hit Men For Hire" that takes money in exchange of murdering people, then Mastercard should be REQUIRED to provide my company with financial service, that Amazon should be REQUIRED to sell a gun to my employees, and that private investigators should be REQUIRED to locate the people that my company has been contracted to murder, that George Clooney should be REQUIRED to perform in the ad that ESPN will be REQUIRED to air.

      And if one of these companies refuse

      • Isnt that what Bitdcoin is for? It's precisely what happened to the Silk Road exchange, whose founder was hiring hit men to kill staff. who threatened to reveal criminal activity.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by DarkOx ( 621550 )

        And you may not want to HAVE to go to trial to explain to a jury that your company had lots of doubts but no actual proof, so technically "your company did not know".

        And that might not even save you. A lot of laws state, something to the effect of 'or reasonably could/should have known.'

        "Look I did not know he was trafficking here when I let the use our bus service".

        Prosecutor: "This is a video that shows the victim could not stand on her own, was covered in bruises and barely conscience, likely drugged."

        "I totally thought she was an amateur boxer, you know how into day drinking those types are.."

        Jury: "We find the defendant guilty!

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • a balanced thoughtful post on slashdot? clutch my pearls. I'd argue you shouldn't need to go to such lengths to express an opinion.

        I agree pornhub is an unsavory client, with a whole raft of baggage. It just irks me to see companies enjoying the fruits of a network effect lock-in flexing that muscle. There's VISA, mastercard, discover, paypal and a few others i'm likely missing --regardless it is a very small club of companies who get to decide commerce on the web.

        It should be worrisome the sheer amount

        • If a company wants monopoly/oligopoly like power, it should respect a degree of neutrality in their dealings with all viewpoints;

          This is not about morality, this is about legality. If you knowingly enable illegal commerce, you're a party to it. This is not like web comments which are covered by S.230 of the CDA. This is actual money changing hands, and that has actual consequences, and that's why there are actual laws covering it.

          In this thread people have talked stupid shit about "common carrier" when that has nothing to do with payment processors. That phrase has a specific legal meaning which does not apply here. In fact, they hav

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by physick ( 146658 )

      I'm not familiar with the nuances of freedom of speech in the USA, so can you explain why uploading illegal content is an "unpopular or unapproved viewpoint"? It seems to be an action to me. And how does not being able to upload such content constitute being "locked out of society"?

      Does freedom of speech include the right to harm people, and distribute documentary evidence of the harm for fun or profit?

      Your argument of a slippery slope is a reductio ad absurdum; should I be worried about not being able to

    • All online plate form which take that stance make it out of sheer practicability, same reason we have S230. If you want to enforce eyeball checking all content, then you may as well PULL THE PLUG on user generated content. That NYT article said nothing of the prevalence of issues. And if I was a betting man I would say the prevalence was very very low. The issue is this is being used to drop porn plateforme, when in reality you cannot have a perfect system catching illegal stuff without having to check EVER
      • How many underage people getting drugged and raped and then having their rapes shown on the internet is an acceptable level of prevalence for you?

        If you want to use Visa and MC to purchase porn, there are tens of thousands of other places you can go to do that. This has nothing to do with Visa and MC avoiding porn and everything to do with them not being associated with child rape.

      • If payment processors don't want to process porn payments, all they have to do is put in their T&C that they don't do that, and then not do it. But that's not the case at all. They want the money. What they don't want is negative publicity. They also don't want to be punished for facilitating illegal activity, and the way they avoid that is to take seriously any credible and voluble claims that they are doing so. Since there is substantial evidence that pornhub is in fact a haven for criminal activity,

    • Re:A stunning and brave move (Score:4, Insightful)

      by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Friday December 11, 2020 @06:49AM (#60818856)

      How about granting all platforms (be it payment processors or message forums) complete immunity

      Immunity from what? How do you promise immunity from moral outrage? I mean it's not like Pornhub is in trouble with a government here, or has any criminal or even civil claims against them.

  • Discover and Amex, RISE UP! (Score:3)

    by williamyf ( 227051 ) on Thursday December 10, 2020 @05:42PM (#60817408)

    Pun intended.

  • "You can do that??"

  • Finally! (Score:3)

    by JustNiz ( 692889 ) on Thursday December 10, 2020 @07:04PM (#60817644)

    Looking forward to my carpal tunnel problems going away..

  • So XBiz did a good look into this whole thing, and they found a lot of similarities between the NY Times hit piece and old school Morality In Media evangelicals who are still very politically active even today. It is the same people who've been trying to take away your rights since the 60's. They are master manipulators and pulling all the strings. https://www.xbiz.com/news/2560... [xbiz.com] If we don't resist this, we'll end up with another federal task force on busting consensual adult sex, like we did under Bu

    • They're going after Pornhub/mindgeek using the newfound interest in "stop sex trafficking/save the children" because their main goal is to get Section 230 revoked.

      That's their goal. This is just a convenient scapegoat.

      • The same evangelicals who are behind Morality in Media are behind the dishonest conflation of prostitution, pron, human trafficking, forced sex trafficking, and child sex trafficking. These are the same people who claim that all Asian massage parlors are fronts for forced prostitution. Unfortunately for them, I know of a number of legitimate Asian massage parlors and I knew a couple of women who worked at the ones that offer "extras". Each lived in an apartment. Each chose when and where she worked. One d

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by DarkOx ( 621550 )

      Just because a few moral majority leaders and the NYT arrive at vilifying pornography (via very different routes of thought mind you, which actually ought to give you some pause to consider they might be right), does not mean its some conspiracy.

      I bet if you polled people involved with MIM/COSE etc as to their opinions on the NYT, you would not find much affection.

      Frankly, this is more dangerous than some federal task force ever could be. Personally I don't think ready access to pornographic material is go

  • History will say it began with 8chan... (Score:3)

    by Slugster ( 635830 ) on Thursday December 10, 2020 @10:02PM (#60818154)
    Look, this is no big deal.

    It's all perfectly natural, it is only big private business taking control of essentially all internet content.

    They just want to get rid of 'bad' people and stuff, and make sure that you see only things that you should see. There is nothing to worry about.

    And worrying is pointless anyway, because there's nothing you can do to stop it. You aren't anybody.

    And if you start complaining about it online, those posts might be removed, and your internet access might be disabled for a while. Because that's not good for online business.

    If you persist, then your internet access might be removed permanently. Big business has lots of experts on this, and they are certain that it's really the best outcome.

    They invested a great deal of money to provide the ideal environment for you. If you don't like it, then you are perfectly free to go build your own internet.

  • MasterCard and Visa too powerful (Score:3)

    by iamhassi ( 659463 ) on Friday December 11, 2020 @12:07AM (#60818378) Journal
    Anyone else thing MasterCard and Visa are monopolies and should be broken up? Combined they make up nearly the entire credit card processing industry.
  • on why the internet was invented in the first place!

  • Shrug. Let 1000 offshore pornhubs bloom. (Score:3)

    by gestalt_n_pepper ( 991155 ) on Friday December 11, 2020 @07:30AM (#60818902)

    Making internet-anything illegal in the USA is just political posturing with no real effect.

    Next?

  • There really should be a gov created payment card that cannot be cancelled unless something illegal is proven.
    If Visa and MasterCard are cancelling services because of alleged issues, they aren't doing anything but harming the folks that are using the site legally.
    Also, what is next for Visa and MasterCard. Are they going to stop taking payments from Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Apple, and Facebook. All the same kinds of shady shit happens on their platforms as well.

    Now if MindGeek/PornHub is in the wrong
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] She made a lot of videos when she was under 18 and then made some when she was of age. Supposedly, ALL the videos that she made under-age were destroyed. And only the of-age videos survived.

    Now, someone who has some under-age Lords videos who either doesn't know or care decides to keep his copies.

    30+ years later, he uploads them to the internet. Tags it as teen vintage - or something. Even Traci Lords.

    Then, some poor slob - thinking it's an 18 or 19 (or older) girl watc

Slashdot Top Deals

Some people manage by the book, even though they don't know who wrote the book or even what book.

Close