Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Advertising The Almighty Buck

Visa, Mastercard Suspend Payment For Ad Purchases On PornHub and MindGeek (cnbc.com) 90

Posted by BeauHD from the embroiled-in-controversy dept.
Visa and Mastercard said Thursday card payments for advertising on Pornhub and its parent company MindGeek would be suspended after a lawsuit stoked controversy over whether the payments giants could be facilitating child pornography. CNBC reports: A federal judge in California on Friday denied Visa's motion to dismiss a lawsuit by a woman who accuses the payment processor of knowingly facilitating the distribution of child pornography on Pornhub and other sites operated by parent company MindGeek. Visa CEO and Chairman Al Kelly said in a statement Thursday that he strongly disagrees with this court and is confident in his position. "Visa condemns sex trafficking, sexual exploitation, and child sexual abuse," Kelly said. "It is illegal, and Visa does not permit the use of our network for illegal activity. Our rules explicitly and unequivocally prohibit the use of our products to pay for content that depicts nonconsensual sexual behavior or child sexual abuse. We are vigilant in our efforts to deter this, and other illegal activity on our network."

Kelly said the court decision created uncertainty about the role of TrafficJunky, MindGeek's advertising arm, and accordingly, the company will suspend its Visa acceptance privileges until further notice. During this suspension, Visa cards will not be able to be used to purchase advertising on any sites, including Pornhub or other MindGeek-affiliated sites, Kelly said. "It is Visa's policy to follow the law of every country in which we do business. We do not make moral judgments on legal purchases made by consumers, and we respect the rightful role of lawmakers to make decisions about what is legal and what is not," Kelly said. "Visa can be used only at MindGeek studio sites that feature adult professional actors in legal adult entertainment."

Separately, Mastercard told CNBC it's directing financial institutions to suspend acceptance of its products at TrafficJunky following the court ruling. "New facts from last week's court ruling made us aware of advertising revenue outside of our view that appears to provide Pornhub with indirect funding," a statement from Mastercard said. "This step will further enforce our December 2020 decision to terminate the use of our products on that site." At that time, Visa also suspended sites that contained user-generated content and acceptance on those sites has not been reinstated.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Visa, Mastercard Suspend Payment For Ad Purchases On PornHub and MindGeek More

Visa, Mastercard Suspend Payment For Ad Purchases On PornHub and MindGeek

Comments Filter:

  • Seems to me (Score:5, Insightful)

    by saloomy ( 2817221 ) on Thursday August 04, 2022 @06:53PM (#62763282)
    This lawsuit should have been thrown out, and a lawsuit against mind geek would be more appropriate. Visa has nothing to do with the context curation on pornhub. They are a professor or credit cards. Whats next? Sue the bank that holds their checking account? This type of infrastructure weaponizing is dangerous, and then people wonder why so many support cryptocurrency.

    • Re:Seems to me (Score:4, Interesting)

      by dowhileor ( 7796472 ) on Thursday August 04, 2022 @07:16PM (#62763318)

      ... and then people wonder why so many support cryptocurrency.

      To make 40% a year on their investment for no reason, to have a hard to trace currency once stolen, to pay for service anonymously that needs to be tracked,...just the first few to come to mind.

    • Re:Seems to me (Score:5, Informative)

      by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Thursday August 04, 2022 @07:52PM (#62763376)

      Maybe the judge's reasoning would be worth reading?

      https://storage.courtlistener.... [courtlistener.com]

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

        Most critical part of the thing:

        >The Court is also not so sure that deterrence will not be had if Visa—as a result of this order or further developments in this case—ceases to recognize MindGeek as a merchant. The last time Visa did that, MindGeek allegedly cleaned up its websites to the tune of 80% of its content. That looks a lot like effective deterrence. This alleged fact is something both Visa and ICLE ignore in their briefing.

        They bent the knee to the censors once. Blood is in the water

        • Just because 80% of its content was reduced doesnt mean it should have been. We assumed it was cleaned up, methodically. But after reading, all they did was kick off all armatures who were monetizing their content. The vast majority can safely be presumed to be adult entertainment that is above board. This is not how our justice system works, and I am dismayed that you champion corporate justice over actual justice from within a courthouse.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

            Wrong. This is not what "we assumed".

            This is what court ruled.

            I literally quoted the legal decision posted above. What you, I and whoever it is you count as "we" assumes, thinks or daydreams is borderline irrelevant. What court rules on the other hand is supremely important.

            Just ask Visa and Mastercard. Second wasn't even a party to the lawsuit.

        • The last time Visa did that, MindGeek allegedly cleaned up its websites to the tune of 80% of its content. That looks a lot like effective deterrence.

          No they didn't. Last time they did that MindGeek purged its website to the tune of 80% of legitimate content. They required *every* video to be verified. EVERY SINGLE ONE. Videos from users who may not exist. Videos from users who may have changed email addresses. Videos who don't give a shit. Videos from users representing studios who have gone bankrupt.

          If Slashdot decided tomorrow that it needs re-verification of historical content and you didn't get the memo, do we assume your posts were nothing but garb

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

            You're not arguing against me or slashdot. You're arguing against legally binding legal decision made by a court of law.

            Using arguments they specifically debunked in the decision as either irrelevant or patently false.

    • The issue is that they had once suspended MindGeek as a merchant for this very reason, then agreed to reinstate them. Discovery may or may not turn up some sort of bad faith behavior on Visa's part in doing so, but that's plenty to get Plaintiff here the opportunity to find out.
      • The thing is, I dont want visa or any other company to be dictating who commits and crime and issuing punishment. I feel the same way with most sports franchises. The proper authorities should be referred the complains and the criminal justice system should issue its decree from there. Certainly not Visa.

        • I say grant their wish. If they are policing use to this extent then hold them liable for how people use their systems. Accessory to drug trafficking if a smuggler uses their Visa or Mastercard to book transport.

        • That's not even remotely what this is. This is a civil case. The Plaintiff isn't alleging that Visa should have been investigating MindGeek. They are alleging that Visa knew they were acting in such a manner as to harm people like Plaintiff, had in fact demonstrated actual knowledge of it, and were assisting them in doing so by processing payments for them. You aren't, and shouldn't be, allowed to knowingly facilitate someone else harming another without being held liable.

          • You aren't, and shouldn't be, allowed to knowingly facilitate someone else harming another without being held liable.

            No. If you have actual knowledge, you report it to the criminal justice system, and let a court determine harm and recourse. Not you, not I, and certainly not Visa.

            • I can't tell if you're just this thick or trolling.

              Visa is not being held accountable for knowing about something. They are being held accountable for knowing about it and continuing to help keep it funded. I really don't know what about that you aren't getting. Let's try this:

              MindGeek do bad thing.
              Visa know MindGeek do bad thing.
              Visa help MindGeek keep doing bad thing.
              Visa know it help MindGeek keep doing bad thing.
              People hurt by bad thing want MindGeek stop do bad thing.
              People hurt by bad thing

    • Re:Seems to me (Score:5, Insightful)

      by arglebargle_xiv ( 2212710 ) on Thursday August 04, 2022 @09:50PM (#62763532)

      Visa, and financial institutions in general, have very deep pockets and are a great target for lawsuits. Also, the magic phrase CSAM short-circuits peoples brains and makes them blindly go with whatever crusade is being pursued. It's a dangerous combination, an accusation that's impossible to defend against combined with an accused with very deep pockets.

      Digging through the hype, it seems to be about some guy uploading a video he made of his girlfriend when she was underage. Was the guy prosecuted for creating and distributing child pr0n, or was it just a case of going straight for whoever had the most money? Because if you're going to go for an organisation five steps away from the issue you definitely need to be going after the person who created the problem in the first place.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      A previous ruling said that there is enough evidence Visa knew it was processing payments for access to illegal material to proceed with a lawsuit against them.

      Once they know they are doing it and decide to ignore the warnings, they become liable.

      Visa is not a blind payment processor. They get involved in transactions and know the nature of them. They charge porn sites a greater percentage because the number of chargebacks are higher, for example. They can't have their cake and eat it; either they are a bli

    • The same thing happened to a Palestinian charity in UK, Interpal.

      Perhaps the most highly audited charity in UK history, but "UK Lawyers for Israel [uklfi.com]" had been going after them for quite a long time through courts, but without any evidence on wrongdoing on Interpal's part, so court cases were thrown out. They then went after the media, publishing false articles about Interpal, but were taken to court, the charity won, and they were forced to publish an apology.

      So then, UK Lawyers for Israel took a different ap

  • God invented cryptocurrency.

  • You better learn to cook for yourself. because demanding that a whole chain of services stock, prepare, deliver, finance,,.. your meals means that they have some responsibilities to consider concerning...your meal.

  • Slippery slopes (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Iamthecheese ( 1264298 ) on Thursday August 04, 2022 @07:51PM (#62763372)
    Tyranny in the name of safety, or just to be careful, or in the name of staying well away from certain laws is a slope we've been sliding down for a long time. The slide won't stop until enough people stand up and demand less safety. Mindgeek is the most mainstream porn conglomerate out there. They don't even allow searched for the word "forced". It doesn't get more milquetoast without no longer being porn.

    So you know what happens next? ALL porn searches and sites go undergound. All payment for all porn starts to find its way into grey and black markets. There are already fully functioning black market sties for consensual adult porn on TOR, so we're just going to see them become more active and wealthy. We're going to see more traffic in places governments can't get to. You think that's going to result in less CP being made??

    • They don't even allow searched for the word "forced". It doesn't get more milquetoast without no longer being porn.
       

      Those changes all stemmed from this suit being filed. They didn't do it out of sheer goodwill.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by LeeLynx ( 6219816 )
      Did you actually read what happened, or just look at the topic and go all Libertarian Warrior?

      Someone posted revenge porn of a 13-year-old on PornHub. MindGeek was notified, then did nothing about it for weeks.

      Visa had previously suspended MindGeek as a merchant for exactly this sort of behavior, with the immediate result being the removal of 80% of their content - because apparently only 20% of their content could be safely assumed to be legitimate. Visa then reinstated them based on, well, we don't

      • > because apparently only 20% of their content could be safely assumed to be legitimate.

        This doesn't remotely follow from their actions and there's absolutely no evidence to support it whatsoever. They simply took a drastic and public action for the sake of visibility and appeasement, without any meaningful investigation or evidence involved in the process. It's the equivalent of when China or the former USSR would kill a bunch of random innocent people in the name of looking like they'd done something a

        • I get that it certainly *seems* reasonable that PornHub would, to appease Visa, just haphazardly delete 80% of randomly selected content, knowing full well it would create the public impression that it was all kiddie or rape porn and lead to scrutiny over the remaining 20%. However, I think it may be slightly more likely that they preserved the content they knew was clearly defensible and deleted the rest. I've never run a porn site, it's certainly possible they are all run by idiots, but I'm guessing that

          • I never said they literally drew URLs out of a hat. I just said they did something baseless and extreme as a very public show of dosomethingism. Like you said, what they most likely did was keep the 20% of their content that was "retail" porn from major companies and then just wiped the entire rest of the site.

            Which was idiotic because it was then turned around back at them and claimed that every single bit of that 80% they deleted was rape, revenge porn, and child porn.

            • What I said the first time:

              the immediate result being the removal of 80% of their content - because apparently only 20% of their content could be safely assumed to be legitimate.

              What you said in response:

              This doesn't remotely follow from their actions and there's absolutely no evidence to support it whatsoever. They simply took a drastic and public action for the sake of visibility and appeasement, without any meaningful investigation or evidence involved in the process. It's the equivalent of when China or the former USSR would kill a bunch of random innocent people in the name of looking like they'd done something about accusations of harboring "reactionaries" and "counter-revolutionaries" (ie democracy and human rights advocates).

              Sorry, I guess between the part where you told me I was definitely wrong and the part where you were waving your arms about how deleting porn of unknown origin was just like China and the USSR murdering random innocents, I must have missed the part where you were actually agreeing with the exact thing I said. I'll read more carefully next time.

              • Sorry, I guess I overestimated your ability to mentally grasp the concept of a metaphor.

                • First, if you mean this:

                  It's the equivalent of when China or the former USSR would kill a bunch of random innocent people in the name of looking like they'd done something about accusations of harboring "reactionaries" and "counter-revolutionaries" (ie democracy and human rights advocates).

                  I think you need to look up the difference between a metaphor and a simile, because you apparently didn't learn it in grade school. Hence my restatement of your position as "deleting porn of unknown origin was just like China and the USSR murdering random innocents", because that's what 'equivalent' means.


                  Second, I'm still unclear as to where in any of that you were actually agreeing with me, what with the rest of your post. Perhaps, you are under the impression there is a meta

                  • Going back to grade school sounds like good advice that you should take. You apparently didn't learn that sentences can have multiple parts and words can refer to different pieces of them. For example I can say that something is the equivalent in terms of being a substanceless politically motivated public display of dosomethingism without also meaning that they're morally or literally the same thing.

                    • Let's break that down:

                      It's

                      Here, the contraction 'It's' stands in for 'it is', with 'it' being the removal of some pron from a website, and 'is' being the present tense of the verb 'to be'.

                      equivalent of

                      This is what you are describing 'it' as being, which is defined by Webster as "equal in force, amount, or value".

                      when China or the former USSR would kill a bunch of random innocent people

                      This is a description of the slaughter of millions of people, to which are indicating 'it' is "equal in force, amount, or value".

                      in the name of looking like they'd done something about accusations of harboring "reactionaries" and "counter-revolutionaries" (ie democracy and human rights advocates).

                      This is an explanation of the frankly horrifying reason the above regimes carr

                    • Again you're really giving solid advice that you yourself should be taking. This is just frankly embarrassing for you. You misread a sentence, it happens. Everything that's happened since has just been you digging that hole deeper trying to concoct some bad faith tortured backwards upside-down in a mirror interpretation of what I said.

    • the problem with that type of content is the fact that enough people supported it that the internet as a whole was degraded. I remember talks at the un about this very topic and how it was a matter of economics and development to allow open, free access relative to the rest of the internet.

    • The ruling stresses and and over how Mindgeek is distributing child sexual abuse material. And yet, this is only a civil case: If Mindgeek really were responsible for this, why have they not faced any criminal prosecution?

  • First Uninformed Post Achievement (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Ed Tice ( 3732157 ) on Thursday August 04, 2022 @08:43PM (#62763456)
    Every time there's a story about this, the race is on to make the first post claiming that Visa should be summarily exonerated. Invariably those posts ignore the history of the case and the judge's ruling.

    My recollection of the events is as follows. Pornhub had both child-porn content and content featuring non-consenting adults. Pornhub failed to respond in a timely manner to requests to remove that content. In fact Pornhub was so uncooperative that victims started looking for alternative paths to get the content removed. The found one by having their lawyers send letters to Visa and other payment companies explaining the situation. Subsequent to pressure from the financial companies, Pornhub reluctantly took some actions. I am not familiar with more recent facts.

    If somebody robs a bank and then gets into a taxi, the taxi driver is not at fault. But if the taxi driver was involved in the scheme and knowingly worked as a getaway driver, they would be an accessory to the crime.

    The judge has ruled that there is at least some evidence that Visa was aware that they were processing payments supporting criminal activity and, therefore, legal proceedings should determine whether Visa is guilty or not. It isn't a finding of fact or guilt.

    I have no idea why there are so many posts suggesting that knowingly facilitating a crime shouldn't be a crime in and of itself just because you also facilitate non-crime. Again the key word there is knowing and that's what a court (probably via a jury) will decide.

    • because it can't be a crime if it means one's constitutional rights are being exercised, you see.

    • Because file of complaint indicates a suspicion of crime, not necessarily a crime. We shouldn't ask Visa or any banks / financial companies do the job of police + court to investigate whether an accusation of business practice of their clients are true or false. And criminal offenses should have been innocent until proven guilty.

      If the public sincerely think child porn or rape porn is THAT pervasive, then maybe there can be a mechanism similar to DMCA. But such mechanism would trivialize child abuse and

    • Per the first President's Commission on Obscenity and Pornography, the largest producer of child pornography was in fact the US government (for sting operations), and much of that is still avail able online.

      I await you advocating the prosecution of the DOJ.

      • I would like to read some citations of this. Your claim is that the US government created child pornography (that is what producer means), rather than used existing images (distributer). Do you have a citation for where the US government was exploiting children in order to produce CP to use in sting operations, or did you use the incorrect word?

    • Pornhub failed to respond in a timely manner to requests to remove that content.

      Failed to respond to whom? Pornhub had a policy against child pornography and actively worked with police on the matter. This has always been in place, and they removed such content long before the attack on them a couple of years back.

      This kind of curation indemnifies VISA. Now can you point to a case where the *legal system* has deemed Pornhub too slow? Or are you just buying VISA's PR hook line and sinker? I remind you that VISA has a long history of going after pornography driven by conservative actions

  • Or are we seeing the "war on porn" unfold here? XTube was shut down with some allegations of sex trafficking, now this, and I do remember a third site like this also having been shut down by cutting them off from their revenue stream.

    Someone trying to eliminate the competition or what's going on here?

    • Nope, PornHub and probably other such sites are knowingly benefiting from child sexual abuse material, rape videos, and from sex trafficking victims [traffickinghub.com], even refusing to remove content when highlighted by the victim or their friends and family members.

      "The one video Pornhub doesn't want you to see" [exoduscry.com]

      • Nope right back at you. Pornhub had active policies against what you cited and even worked with police on cases of uploaded child pornography. The distribution of what you cite is also highly illegal and very easy to litigate against, so it should be self evident that they were in the clear given how they were never prosecuted for your alleged crimes, instead relying on "victims" getting them booted off their payment processor thanks to the payment processors having some 5 decades of history as a morality p

    • Or are we seeing the "war on porn" unfold here?

      You're wrong. Nothing is "unfolding" here. This war has been ongoing for literally decades. E.g. Payment processors are almost exclusively responsible for killing bestiality despite it still being legal in several states, and being legal in nearly every state at the time they got their hate-boner against it (no don't pardon the pun just enjoy it).

      There is a long history of payment processors and financial institutions going after legal sexual content.

  • They have more modern ways to pay for things.

  • If you are doing MindGeek, might as well do Google and Microsoft.
    They have just as much as a burden when it comes to child porn as Visa/MC would.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Ninety percent of baseball is half mental." -- Yogi Berra

Close