Credit-Card Firms Are Becoming Reluctant Regulators of the Web (economist.com) 97
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Economist: Who should police the internet? For some time now the question has tied companies, regulators and campaigners in knots. Social networks spend billions moderating content posted on their platforms, but are still criticized either for not removing enough toxic material or for stifling free speech. They are not the only ones to grapple with the problem. Banks and credit-card companies too are finding themselves playing a bigger role in what is said and done in the public square -- to their, and their customers', discomfort. Now the boundary of censorship is being extended further, into the pornography business. From October 15th adult websites worldwide will have to verify the age and identity of anyone featured in a picture or video, as well as the ID of the person uploading it. They will need to operate a fast complaints process, and will have to review all content before publication. These requirements are being imposed not by regulators but by Mastercard, a credit-card giant. Websites can always choose not to work with Mastercard. But given that the company handles about 30% of all card payments made outside China, to do so would be costly. Visa, which manages a further 60% of payments, is also taking a firmer line on adult sites. And the trend goes beyond porn. In the shadier corners of the web, and in industries where the law is unclear or out of date, financial firms are finding themselves acting as de facto regulators.
[...]
Visa and Mastercard's near-duopoly on card payments makes their decisions more powerful -- and the firms prime targets for protesters. In 2019 SumOfUs, a left-wing pressure group, tabled a proposal at Mastercard's annual meeting meant to stop payments to far-right groups. (The proposal was defeated.) Thirty-four women are suing Visa along with the owners of Pornhub, an adult site which they say hosted unconsenting footage of them. Illegal-porn sites "care a lot more about their finances than they do about the law," says Laila Mickelwait, whose Justice Defense Fund helps sex-abuse victims litigate. And, she adds, when financial firms change their policies it applies globally. Last year Visa and Mastercard cut off Pornhub over its hosting of potentially unlawful material. Payment companies in particular face a philosophical dilemma. "On one hand they try to be very open, accepting, willing to facilitate payments for whomever. They're not taking any sort of political or moral stance," says Lisa Ellis of MoffettNathanson, a research firm. "But on the other hand, they also feel like they have a very strong responsibility in making sure that they're not aiding and abetting any sort of crime."
Visa and Mastercard both say that, as global companies, their guiding principle is local legality. (This can throw up some surprises: one executive recalls being informed by clients from a Scandinavian country that bestiality was legal there at the time.) Things are not always black and white. In 2017, after a far-right march in Charlottesville, Virginia, Mastercard shut down the use of its cards on websites that had made "specific threats or incite[d] violence," but kept dealing with other sites labelled hate-groups. "Our standard is whether a merchant's activity is lawful, even when we disagree with what they say or do," the company said at the time. In grey areas they have reason to err on the side of caution. Payment networks' risk of liability tends to be low, since they operate at one remove from the merchants. But being named in a sex-trafficking complaint or accused of helping Nazis does not look good. In working with a borderline adult site, for instance, there's "not a lot of upside and a lot of downside", says Ms Ellis. And in legally tricky areas it can be cheaper to issue a blanket ban than pick through every difficult case. Banks may steer clear of countries that are not embargoed but which have a lot of people on the banned list, "to minimize the burden of determining whether every transaction is compliant," says Jonathan Cross of Herbert Smith Freehills, a law firm. [...] For as long as legislation lags behind, financial institutions will be left in a difficult position: either accused of being the "moral police," as one executive puts it, or of enabling wrongdoing. As Richard Haythornthwaite, then Mastercard's chairman, told the protesters at the firm's annual meeting in 2019: "If it is lawful, then we need to respect that transaction. If it is something that is swimming against the tide of society, it's for the society to rise up and change the law."
[...]
Visa and Mastercard's near-duopoly on card payments makes their decisions more powerful -- and the firms prime targets for protesters. In 2019 SumOfUs, a left-wing pressure group, tabled a proposal at Mastercard's annual meeting meant to stop payments to far-right groups. (The proposal was defeated.) Thirty-four women are suing Visa along with the owners of Pornhub, an adult site which they say hosted unconsenting footage of them. Illegal-porn sites "care a lot more about their finances than they do about the law," says Laila Mickelwait, whose Justice Defense Fund helps sex-abuse victims litigate. And, she adds, when financial firms change their policies it applies globally. Last year Visa and Mastercard cut off Pornhub over its hosting of potentially unlawful material. Payment companies in particular face a philosophical dilemma. "On one hand they try to be very open, accepting, willing to facilitate payments for whomever. They're not taking any sort of political or moral stance," says Lisa Ellis of MoffettNathanson, a research firm. "But on the other hand, they also feel like they have a very strong responsibility in making sure that they're not aiding and abetting any sort of crime."
Visa and Mastercard both say that, as global companies, their guiding principle is local legality. (This can throw up some surprises: one executive recalls being informed by clients from a Scandinavian country that bestiality was legal there at the time.) Things are not always black and white. In 2017, after a far-right march in Charlottesville, Virginia, Mastercard shut down the use of its cards on websites that had made "specific threats or incite[d] violence," but kept dealing with other sites labelled hate-groups. "Our standard is whether a merchant's activity is lawful, even when we disagree with what they say or do," the company said at the time. In grey areas they have reason to err on the side of caution. Payment networks' risk of liability tends to be low, since they operate at one remove from the merchants. But being named in a sex-trafficking complaint or accused of helping Nazis does not look good. In working with a borderline adult site, for instance, there's "not a lot of upside and a lot of downside", says Ms Ellis. And in legally tricky areas it can be cheaper to issue a blanket ban than pick through every difficult case. Banks may steer clear of countries that are not embargoed but which have a lot of people on the banned list, "to minimize the burden of determining whether every transaction is compliant," says Jonathan Cross of Herbert Smith Freehills, a law firm. [...] For as long as legislation lags behind, financial institutions will be left in a difficult position: either accused of being the "moral police," as one executive puts it, or of enabling wrongdoing. As Richard Haythornthwaite, then Mastercard's chairman, told the protesters at the firm's annual meeting in 2019: "If it is lawful, then we need to respect that transaction. If it is something that is swimming against the tide of society, it's for the society to rise up and change the law."
Re: (Score:1)
I disagree: a fucking novel could've at least been a fun read.
Sex and QA. (Score:2)
Shouldn't this raise the quality of the industry and reduce abuse?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, but it will have two big effects
1) It will make sure there's more information to be had when these sites are hacked.
2) It will drive people uploading illegal porn to provide stolen information, putting suspicion on random people who were likely already struggling with the results of identity theft
Just follow the law (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't want Visa and Mastercard deciding what I can buy or from where. They are payment processors, not self appointed nannies
Re:Just follow the law (Score:5, Insightful)
Just like a bank can't refuse to process a check because of who I wrote it too, payment processors should not be able to choose what purchases to honor. Unless its illegal it is none of their business.
This is even more true as we move more and more to a cashless society.
Re: (Score:2)
They agree except that without knowing if child abuse is happening on these platforms or not, they don't want to get caught up in pushing of child porn or even revenge porn. Maybe some broke dude uploads his ex girlfriends photos, and she then decides to sue Visa for processing payments to gain access to her photos being hosted on some porn site.
It's stretch but not really. Our society is really backwards now. The bank shouldn't be implicated but judges let all sorts of shit through these days.
Except the law was broken, where's your issue? (Score:2)
Just like a bank can't refuse to process a check because of who I wrote it too, payment processors should not be able to choose what purchases to honor. Unless its illegal it is none of their business.
If someone is uploading private content, particularly sexual content, without their permission, that is illegal. It's Illegal in nearly every state in the USA, including the one where PornHub is headquartered now.
I have no problem with a bank not wanting to be part of illegal activity. I am not why you're so upset about this. The payment card companies already follow what you stated. Want to get a group banned because you think they're mean?...sorry...VISA/MC don't care. Break the law?...they stop d
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
nearly every state in the USA, including the one where PornHub is headquartered now.
Pretty sure it's not a state unless Quebec was invaded by John Candy.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if John Candy was still alive, his invading Quebec wouldn't make it a part of the USA (I hope you do realize John Candy was Canadian). 8^)
Re: (Score:2)
Doh...
I guess I was a bit slow yesterday. I didn't pick up on the Canadian Bacon [imdb.com] reference until today.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Visa and MC don't process for Facebook, as far as I know. The site is free.
So is Pornhub.
(I heard, from a friend)
Re: (Score:2)
Where is the proof that the websites and say a specific end user are breaking the law? There isn't any.
This is a blanket statement of accusation against 100% of involved parties and has absolutely nothing to do with what is legal but with the Mastercard attempting to prevent frivolous lawsuits.
Not frivilous (Score:2)
Where is the proof that the websites and say a specific end user are breaking the law? There isn't any. This is a blanket statement of accusation against 100% of involved parties and has absolutely nothing to do with what is legal but with the Mastercard attempting to prevent frivolous lawsuits.
If someone uploads porn of you against your consent, that can be career ruining and is illegal. It's also traumatic for most women. Suing a website for hosting illegally sourced material and not doing much to ensure it stays off your website is not frivolous. I am sure a few are, but generally, yeah, there are legitimate concerns Mastercard had for the way PornHub was running thing and many legitimate complaints about illegal content on their site. I'm not even saying it's the right call, but there was
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to have no idea what's really going on but that's because this article is shit. First of all, Mastercard, Visa and Discover already stopped allowing their cards to be used at Pornhub in 2020. That happened after a group of women sued, not just Pornhub, but Mastercard as well. Since not one of those lawsuits had merit against MasterCard, not a single person specifically used their card in connection to the illegal videos, they are frivolous. Pornhub also already had done things like deleting videos
Re:Just follow the law (Score:4, Interesting)
Pretty sure this is the exact reason why bitcoin was invented -- to restore control of how money is spent back to the person spending the money, instead of governments and big banks.
Re:Just follow the law (Score:5, Informative)
Just like a bank can't refuse to process a check because of who I wrote it too,
Chase closing accounts of porn stars: Report
https://www.cnbc.com/2014/04/2... [cnbc.com]
American banks regularly close the accounts of individuals who work in adult entertainment.
There's still check cashing stores, but that's not what you're talking about.
Re:Just follow the law (Score:4, Insightful)
IMO that shit should be illegal. If they want FDIC insurance they should have to give accounts to anyone who is not using it to violate federal law.
Re: Just follow the law (Score:2)
Thanks Obama!
Before modders are triggered, check the legislations...it really was black Nobel Jesus.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
And you'll find that the opposite is true.
The bank and likewise Visa and MasterCard and others will often refuse transactions based on bad history. A lot of places are banned not because they're morally "bad", but because they're likely sour
Re: (Score:2)
Pornography providers have a hard time with this because of high chargeback rates - wife sees credit card bill line for "Best Sex Inc", confronts husband who denies it, and wife calls and cancels the charge.
Bullshit. Most husbands will do it themselves to get out from under duress from the wife. It must be fraud, honey.
Re: (Score:2)
If this were the case then I should be able to go into any store and use any credit card that I want. That is not how credit cards work though. Just as no store can be forced to accept your check, no credit card company can be forced to accept your transaction.
Banks operate on a totally different set of rules.
Re: (Score:2)
Or becoming the vaccination police. [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Except that if they did process payments for a site found to facilitate trafficking, underage people, or people without their consent, they too can get hit by RICO.
So they are being careful because if they aren't careful about making sure the transactions they are facilitating are legal, they could end up with serious criminal and civil liabilities.
This is not some puritan crusade being carried out by payment processors, it's them protecting themselves from very bad legal consequences.
It's also hard to say
Re: Just follow the law (Score:5, Informative)
No, Visa doesnâ(TM)t get slapped with a RICO suit just because they process âoeillegalâ payments.
First of all, Visa has a ToS, if they are found to be processing payments for an illegal operation they just point and say the owner agreed not to use it for that.
Second of all, Visa has a tiered system for people that donâ(TM)t necessarily want to comply with all the rules and regulations, they authorize third party processors to do these kinds of things. The third party processor has much more leeway as they simply bulk transact, clearing Visa of any blame. There are various processors dedicated to the adult industry, I used to work with them, they are quite flexible in what theyâ(TM)ll allow, for an increasing fee as the risk increases off course, itâ(TM)s not unheard off for smaller adult business to pay $1+5% transaction fees.
Re: (Score:2)
There are various processors dedicated to the adult industry, I used to work with them, they are quite flexible in what theyâ(TM)ll allow, for an increasing fee as the risk increases off course, itâ(TM)s not unheard off for smaller adult business to pay $1+5% transaction fees.
Seems like the simplest explanation to me.
Re: (Score:2)
The ToS don't count for anything if Visa simply ignores crime when it comes to its attention, e.g. in the case of PornHub.
Third party processors are in the same boat, they are just more willing than Visa to check out the businesses they are offering services to.
Re: (Score:2)
The ToS is only as strong as its enforcement. If they had not taken action when Pornhub got hit, then they could have gotten hit for knowingly turning a blind eye. Further, there isn't significant distinction between pornhub and many sites just like it, so it would logically follow that any site similarly lax in vetting content would be hosting the same sort of material that got pornhub in hot water, so a victim looking for reparations against some other site would probably have a strong case for the payme
Re:Just follow the law (Score:4, Informative)
Except that if they did process payments for a site found to facilitate trafficking, underage people, or people without their consent, they too can get hit by RICO.
Firstly no, As long as Visa/MC/et al. are not actively involved in the crime taking place they are not considered accessories.
Secondly, I've no issue with laws being enforced, I.E. against trafficking or other illegal activities. If you think an illegal activity shouldn't be, take that up with the legal system.
What I worry about are Visa/MC/AMEX/Et al. appointing themselves "moral" guardians and deciding what I can or cannot spend my money on because some Karen has decided that Boobs are bad and must be banned for everyone. Worse yet, it always seems to be an American code that gets enforced. Prostitution is legal where I live (pimping is not), so I don't see why some Karen over 4000 miles away should be able to have any say if I can buy some brass. So I do not see why they should have any say in whatever purchases I make that are not expressly illegal in the country I live or making the purchase in and for most of my purchases, neither party is in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
They are. In fact this has nothing to do with those lawsuits or the like.
The government literally set them on this path under Obama with Operation Choke Point, where the FDIC began pressuring these banks to cut ties to stuff like the porn industry and firearms industry.
The banks were not at all reluctant. They jumped on this with glee.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Just follow the law (Score:2)
And this is why bitcoins are more and more important in today's society.
Cut off the banks and creditors entirely from the equation. When you have bitcoins you don't need banks, nor credit cards to approve anything you do.
Mastercard, Visa, etc are stupid enough to not see that this will only speed up their demise, and it will not be fast enough.
Re: (Score:1)
I don't want Visa and Mastercard deciding what I can buy or from where. They are payment processors, not self appointed nannies
It's not Visa and Mastercard who are deciding - it's boycotting campaigns who attack them. At that point it becomes, as the article says "not a lot of upside and a lot of downside" for them as a business.
If you don't want payment processors to be influenced by commercial concerns then you need to nationalise them so that they are influenced by voters and the policies that they support.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't want Visa and Mastercard deciding what I can buy or from where. They are payment processors, not self appointed nannies
It's not Visa and Mastercard who are deciding - it's boycotting campaigns who attack them. At that point it becomes, as the article says "not a lot of upside and a lot of downside" for them as a business.
If you don't want payment processors to be influenced by commercial concerns then you need to nationalise them so that they are influenced by voters and the policies that they support.
I don't need to nationalize credit card companies. The are already federally regulated businesses.
Just mandate that they provide services without discriminating other than by credit and default risk, same as they do today.
Re: (Score:2)
Following this line of thought.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Money and Business (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
No. It's not censorship; the banks are private companies and can do business or not with whom they choose, as long as they aren't discriminating against protected classes. At least that's the line we get when wrong thinkers are getting ban hammered. Back when the pink and purple hair malcontents were being repressed the exact same thing was called corporate fascism. Slashdot has actually be around long enough to have played host the that narrative. Long ago.
Anyhow, the net outcome is corporate group-
Re:Money and Business (Score:5, Insightful)
the banks are private companies and can do business or not with whom they choose
Sigh... That same old canard again.
Yes, they're private companies and they can choose who they have as customers. The problem is, YOU can't choose NOT to do business with them because there's no alternatives. Visa / MC are a monopoly, and if they cut you off their network, you're SOL to do business.
Either the monopoly needs to be broken up, or they should be required by law to service everybody.
Re: (Score:1)
Dull as you are Rosco, it's still surprising you missed my contempt for all of this. All you had to do was read the next sentence.
Re: (Score:1)
Way to be a nice guy [/sarcasm]. Also, your post was a mess. Lay off the hyperbole and unexplained references.
Re: (Score:1)
who
Whites. Particularly, non-college educated ones, and the males especially.
why
Because they're nazis and they make the world horrible and deserve to suffer.
B.S. (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not regulation, that's being afraid of boycotts. Nothing new here whatsoever.
If the social pressure wasn't there they'd cheerfully do business with whoever can pay. IBM did.
Re:B.S. Minority, not majority (Score:4, Insightful)
I fixed that for you: "the only reason these companies "regulate" anything is they're afraid of backlash from the *MINORITY* of their customers if they don't."
Why are we being ruled or driven by those who yell or cry the loudest?
Re: (Score:3)
Why are we being ruled or driven by those who yell or cry the loudest?
It certainly doesn't help that some people are effectively putting megaphones up to those yelling mouths for personal gain.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, backlash of customers probably taking a back seat to fear of RICO being used to charge them for facilitating illegal content with payment processing services.
To freely do business with a site that gets caught with illegal content makes the payment processors also a target for criminal charges and civil lawsuits.
They may be imposing more work on the adult content providers to verify legality of content, but they are still willing to process payments for such businesses that are proving due diligence.
Nonsense...they can't be boycotted (Score:2)
That's not regulation, that's being afraid of boycotts. Nothing new here whatsoever. If the social pressure wasn't there they'd cheerfully do business with whoever can pay. IBM did.
You can't boycott a duopoly. If you're a business, that's suicide. You need to take payment from VISA/MC. People never carry cash these days, particularly for anything with a decent margin. If you're an ice cream truck at the playground, you MIGHT be able to get by with it, but not any nice restaurant or store.
If you're a customer, you have to carry cash everywhere...and some places won't even take cash...plus it would be impossible to make a dent in their bottom line. There's a restaurant chain in
Some of the censorship gets really disgusting (Score:3, Insightful)
For example, the creator of the YouTube channel Just Thinking Out Loud with Desi-Rae was barred from using PayPal. She just talked about her experience as an African migrant and gave genuine opinions. This is infrastructure level censorship, just like it happened with free-speech oriented sites and other competitors to big tech (anyone working with them risking their career/blacklisting). Authoritarian tendencies are on the rise and they're an affront to everything that Western societies are supposed to stand for - and to the pursuit of truth itself. There is no free society without open inquiry and a tolerance of individuality (which includes different opinions). It doesn't really matter where the consequences come from.
Re: (Score:2)
Make financial services "common carrier" (Score:1)
Eh, it's just like the weather, we can talk about it all day long, but whaddya gonna do?
Woe-is-me bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
This article's attempt to paint credit-card companies as victims of the culture war like social-media sites is laughable. They're not entertainment sites that people can just stop using if they're offended by what is being posted; they're an oligarchy that's a fundamental part of the modern economic infrastructure which is practically above the law, much less public opinion. They aren't being pressured by society to essentially destroy porn sites and other objectionable content; that shit is 100% a choice.
Rob
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Aren't they doing essentially the same thing backpage and craigslist did when they pushed nudity off their platform? They didn't want to be accused by idiots of turning a blind eye to sex trafficking.
That they even passed such a law that made these websites feel they had to do this is the problem. Some protect the children bs that doesn't actually protect any children, it just makes it harder for adults to meet other adults for stuff adults want to do, aka consensual sex.
Unintended consequences (Score:3)
"Reluctant" (Score:2)
Riiiight.
Hateless, Misinformation free Internet (Score:3, Interesting)
Because nazis we have to make the banks run the Internet.
An actual reason to use crypto? (Score:4, Insightful)
If the payment processors really want out of processing payments, maybe there will be a real reason to start using cryptocurrencies. It's more work and you lose money to transaction fees but if it's the only way to watch porn or order certain items online or whatever it is deemed bad by the local government.
It's almost like they want us to start using cryptocurrencies and at that point, may as well start working on dodging taxes as well.
For the children, I think they cried.
P.S. Who pays for porn though? Apparently many people but I just don't understand. Is there not enough free stuff to sate your interest? Get a girlfriend.
Re: (Score:2)
What if I want gifs of women sitting on cakes? There aren't too many of those around, so I may have to visit more specialist outlets to get such a thing.
I like how this post assumes such gifs exist. Probably correctly. Rule 34 is inescapable.
This is why a cashless society is bad. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The same tiny vocal authoritarian minority pressuring MC are the same ones who would prevent you from buying food without a vaccination card.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
So the Feds used this to shut down Insex in 2005 (Score:2)
Reluctant my ass. (Score:4, Informative)
It simply makes these companies more valuable to those who control over people through their money and ability to engage in commerce.
Alternatives (Score:2)
Every transaction they prohibit, every merchant they de-platform, creates a larger market for an alternative system, one that cannot censor and de-platform. Reluctantly or not, they sow the seeds of their own demise.
Congress can fix it (Score:2)
What Congress needs to do is protect online legal purchases by requiring all such transaction markets to allow any purchases cash is legal for. "All debts, public and private", and so on.
If you make a market in transactions online, you cannot use your market power to forbid legal purchases just because some faction is twisting your arm.
Providing a service is not an accessory (Score:3)
These companies are being sued (by people posted on Pornhub) because the law regards the providers of a service as accessories to a crime. This is a false view of the law. Companies can not, and SHOULD NOT BE ASSUMED to know whether their clients are acting lawfully. They are not courts, they are not prosecutors or cops. They are not judges or juries, and they can not determine guilt.
This is the core of the issue. The credit card agencies are doing it to avoid lawsuits from others claiming that they're accessories or aiding or abetting or otherwise responsible for the crimes of others.
I'm really surprised this hasn't been used by other groups, in other ways. It _has_ been used to regulate porn (credit cards). It _has_ been used to regulate canabis cultivation companies (banks), and banks have also refused to open, or closed accounts for porn stars. Credit cards cannot be used to buy into investment services. (Why would you want to do that, though?)
This is a violation of the first amendment, but one that's further encroached upon continually as the "right to not be offended" is growing.
Something is needed for payment services akin to Section 230: if you provide payment services for anyone who wants to accept payments, then you're not an accessory to criminal conduct. Hell, instead of making it specific to (information systems | payment processing | banking systems), codify it generally: If you generally provide a lawful service, and do not encourage or specifically instruct how the service can be used illegally (looking at you, one weird VPN provider advertising DMCA avoidance), then you are not an accessory not aiding or abetting in case of a crime, and you are not responsible for the criminal acts of your clients.
Without that, people will be suing Microsoft, because the criminal used a computer running Microsoft Windows. "A Harris County jury awarded $20 million in damages Wednesday to a rape victim who sued her apartment complex." Of course, this used to be the case -- and this is going by the wayside because of all the Karens who are apparently without sin.
Re: (Score:2)
Section 230 for payments sounds interesting, but it would need to be balanced against consumer protection. Chargebacks need to keep working and if the bank can't do proper vetting the losses when they can't claw the money back could mount up.
Re: (Score:2)
Chargebacks are always going to be a huge loophole to declare anything they don't like high risk. That's why we need a a convenient, no chargeback, no private censorship payment system ... either private or public, for the private option Diem is the only realistic option.
For Diem I'm assuming only onoff-ramps and Novi will have full KYC, third party wallets being essentially anonymous until they try to cash-in/out, same as with traditional cryptocurrency. This will make private censorship almost impossible,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
they were not reluctant at all, just a expansion (Score:2)
Originally started under Operation Choke point under Obama, the banks loved it and have since just expanded it.
Re: (Score:1)
Mob rule (Score:1)
On the motorway, cars could be transporting drugs, or dead bodies in the trunk. But surely we wouldn't accept requiring motorway companies to identify and record each passenger of every car at the tool booth in order to prevent this. It's i
Government by the Corporations (Score:2)
This is why crypto is inevitable (Score:2)
The desire to exert more and more control by increasingly tyrannical government to control this or that moral behaviour, will drive many, many businesses to accepting crypto for payments, because then they cannot be shut out of having any mechanism for payment.
If you are dealing at all with adult content, or anything that expresses conservative views you simply cannot trust that you'll be able to receive money through the credit card companies for much longer, eventually those options will be denied to you.
Monopoly issues (Score:2)
We need more than 4 major credit cards (AmEx, Discover, Visa, Mastercard). The internet based stuff (VenMo, Paypal, etc.) are not sufficiently accepted yet to solve our issues.
Self-inflicted injury (Score:2)
These requirements are being imposed not by regulators but by Mastercard, a credit-card giant. Websites can always choose not to work with Mastercard. But given that the company handles about 30% of all card payments made outside China, to do so would be costly. Visa, which manages a further 60% of payments, is also taking a firmer line on adult sites. And the trend goes beyond porn. In the shadier corners of the web, and in industries where the law is unclear or out of date, financial firms are finding themselves acting as de facto regulators.
The credit card companies are doing it to themselves because they are bowing to pressure from cancel culture and SJWs. If they don't want to be the "de facto regulators" of the internet, then they should stand up to those who are demanding that they regulate the internet.
The inherent problem with "hate speech" (Score:2)
This illustrates the problem with so-called "hate speech" or to use a broader term "undesirable speech". You have a group of unelected and unaccountable people deciding what is and isn't acceptable behavior especially when that behavior is legal. "We" don't think you should be in that business. Who the eff are YOU to decide that? Nobody voted for YOU. Your bullsh*t opinion wasn't voted on and tested in court.
Welcome to the conservative world of control (Score:1)