Visa, Mastercard suspend payments for ad purchases on PornHub, MindGeek(cnbc.com)
cnbc.com
Visa, Mastercard suspend payments for ad purchases on PornHub, MindGeek
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/04/visa-suspends-card-payments-for-ad-purchases-on-pornhub-and-mindgeek-amid-controversy.html
243 comments
I have two completely different takes on this.
On one hand, if a business generating almost $500M in revenue per year[1] is doing something illegal, it shouldn't be allowed to operate. Simple as that. If it is allowed to operate, then it should have access to the same payment methods as any other business.
On another hand, if I belonged to a group of people who believe that such companies shouldn't exist[2] and had no way of getting them banned completely, that's exactly what I would try to do: force their biggest business partners to cut ties with them.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MindGeek
[2] https://exoduscry.com/
On one hand, if a business generating almost $500M in revenue per year[1] is doing something illegal, it shouldn't be allowed to operate. Simple as that. If it is allowed to operate, then it should have access to the same payment methods as any other business.
On another hand, if I belonged to a group of people who believe that such companies shouldn't exist[2] and had no way of getting them banned completely, that's exactly what I would try to do: force their biggest business partners to cut ties with them.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MindGeek
[2] https://exoduscry.com/
> On one hand, if a business generating almost $500M in revenue per year[1] is doing something illegal, it shouldn't be allowed to operate. Simple as that. If it is allowed to operate, then it should have access to the same payment methods as any other business
I suspect if all businesses were held to this standard perfectly, there would be no businesses operating that generated $500M in revenue per year. Every business at that scale is doing something illegal somewhere. Not saying I agree with the state of things, but it seems businesses have decided occasional penalties for getting caught things illegal in jurisdictions that are capable of compelling them to pay the fine, are part of doing business.
I suspect if all businesses were held to this standard perfectly, there would be no businesses operating that generated $500M in revenue per year. Every business at that scale is doing something illegal somewhere. Not saying I agree with the state of things, but it seems businesses have decided occasional penalties for getting caught things illegal in jurisdictions that are capable of compelling them to pay the fine, are part of doing business.
> I suspect if all businesses were held to this standard perfectly, there would be no businesses operating that generated $500M in revenue per year.
If this standard were held perfectly and everyone knew it would be applied to them, businesses wanting to generate more revenue would adapt accordingly. Obviously violators of this standard exist today _because_ this standard is not enforced (i.e. laws without any "teeth" are not sufficiently motivating).
If this standard were held perfectly and everyone knew it would be applied to them, businesses wanting to generate more revenue would adapt accordingly. Obviously violators of this standard exist today _because_ this standard is not enforced (i.e. laws without any "teeth" are not sufficiently motivating).
If this standard was applied perfectly, every company under the threshold would be trying to shut its large competitors down with moles to sabotage them with a single documented illegal act.
If this standard was applied perfectly, large competitors would actually follow the laws... just like large businesses do today with laws that are actually enforced (MUCH more so than small businesses especially)... and why do you think they wouldn't be the ones trying to sabotage the upstart competitors? That's historically much more likely (although I'm sure it would in fact happen in both directions).
Moreover, is that bad? Is punishing people when they do something illegal bad?
Moreover, is that bad? Is punishing people when they do something illegal bad?
What did Visa do that was illegal?
“ If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.”
I find it quite odd that payment providers are being singled out. They aren’t going after the cloud provider, or the other services helping this company run their operations.
> if I belonged to a group of people who believe that such companies shouldn’t exist..
This seems to be the only plausible explanation. Going after them by exploiting a legal technicality (hacking the law). I don’t know if I feel any better about this approach, than I do about the original allegation.
Perhaps, it’s the part of me seeking some order in this world, holding out for a more pure form of justice. An ideal that doesn’t exist in reality.
> if I belonged to a group of people who believe that such companies shouldn’t exist..
This seems to be the only plausible explanation. Going after them by exploiting a legal technicality (hacking the law). I don’t know if I feel any better about this approach, than I do about the original allegation.
Perhaps, it’s the part of me seeking some order in this world, holding out for a more pure form of justice. An ideal that doesn’t exist in reality.
> a business generating almost $500M in revenue per year[1] is doing something illegal
But this is like going after McDonald's because some drug dealers use their parking lots to conduct business.
But this is like going after McDonald's because some drug dealers use their parking lots to conduct business.
More like going after McDonald's/Visa because their franchisees/PornHub are letting people deal drugs/child porn in the building/website (because it brings paying customers/ad revenue into their place of business) and McDonald's/Visa knew about it...
(I don't necessarily agree with the allegation, but that is the allegation.)
(I don't necessarily agree with the allegation, but that is the allegation.)
No, this is different because in your example you can't show McDonald's has an increase in revenue due to those drug dealers selling in their parking lots.
Well, it has, because since you drove all the way to McDonald's to buy your drugs you might eat there as well.
And if they're taking drugs, they're probably hungrier than they would be if they didn't.
There's no clear way to show McDonald's encourages the use of its parking lot for drug dealings in order to generate foot traffic to their restaurants. What you're saying is conjecture. It may be true, but not relevant legally as McDonald's essentially has plausible deniability until they address it with any written, internal or external, policy.
Is Visa encouraging crimes Pornhub is alleged to have committed?
I personally disagree, but the answer to this question is the crux of the case. Visa is allegedly a co-conspirator because by choosing to providing a platform, Visa also benefits from the traffic generated by CSAM on Pornhub. Visa doesn't directly encourage or control what is uploaded to Pornhub, and no one is suggesting it does in a legal context either. But, Visa knowingly choose to continue working with Mindgeek properties after a NYT op-ed came out highlighting the CSAM available on the platform. There's no "alleged" with respect to Pornhub, it did host CSAM and it did make money from advertisements, and according to the case filing, also had internal software to tag and promote CSAM algorithmically. Visa profited by providing a merchant platform to the advertising arm of Mindgeek despite knowing CSAM existed.
I don't agree with the overall precedent that would be set, but it's hard to argue when Visa chose to stop working with certain parts of Mindgeek showing they knew CSAM existed. Visa made itself a moderator of content by deciding who it does and doesn't work with based on the kind of content they serve and that decision exposed them up to the consequences of Mindgeek's actions.
Payment processors are in a difficult position but I believe they should be treated like a utility, similar to electricity. If net neutrality was solidified in the US, Visa could potentially argue that it treats all data in a similar way and then the lack of moderation and Pornhub/Mindgeek alone would be at fault. But by by choosing what should and shouldn't be allowed on the platform of its customers, Visa becomes a responsible for when its customers break the law using its platform.
I don't agree with the overall precedent that would be set, but it's hard to argue when Visa chose to stop working with certain parts of Mindgeek showing they knew CSAM existed. Visa made itself a moderator of content by deciding who it does and doesn't work with based on the kind of content they serve and that decision exposed them up to the consequences of Mindgeek's actions.
Payment processors are in a difficult position but I believe they should be treated like a utility, similar to electricity. If net neutrality was solidified in the US, Visa could potentially argue that it treats all data in a similar way and then the lack of moderation and Pornhub/Mindgeek alone would be at fault. But by by choosing what should and shouldn't be allowed on the platform of its customers, Visa becomes a responsible for when its customers break the law using its platform.
Is pornhub actively sourcing child porn?
If, say, 20% of parking lots has used for drug activities, McDonald’s would get a problem.
I'm going to go out on a limb and claim that 100% of McDonalds parking lots have been used for drug activity. At least once a week. 20% of them, probably once per day. And McDonalds is aware of this.
I think a payment processor has some – but not much – responsibility for the transactions they enable.
But you're right in that if a thing is illegal, it should be targeted directly and not by making private companies responsible for defining and enforcing "law".
But you're right in that if a thing is illegal, it should be targeted directly and not by making private companies responsible for defining and enforcing "law".
Do you think there could be situations where they should deny processing payments over moral/political/ideological objections?
It is one thing to choose to deny payment processing of your own free will, and entirely another to be extorted by the courts into doing so. If Pornhub is acting illegally, it should be shut down. If it isn't, neither payment processors nor anyone else should face legal jeopardy for doing business with a legally operating company.
I would were I to manage a payment company.
I'd want to, but not at the expense of people's freedoms, same as how I wouldn't censor things I didn't like if I were a bookseller or an ISP. If I thought they were involved in something illegal I'd turn the info over to the cops to investigate (I'm not HSBC!), but I'd just have to accept that people are going to do things I don't care for. There are plenty of companies I don't do business with now because I can't support them or what they stand for, but I have that luxury because I don't run a company that is (for some reason) allowed to insert itself in between people's private lawful transactions. I've got no business dictating what other people can or can't spend their money on.
Yes, that's what anybody would try. And it's up to the government to cut that crap up and punish the people that are harassing innocent third parties due to a personal crusade.
Absent punishment, everybody will just drag all bystanders (from around any scene, there is somebody that disagrees with anything) into a court.
Absent punishment, everybody will just drag all bystanders (from around any scene, there is somebody that disagrees with anything) into a court.
> the people that are harassing innocent third parties due to a personal crusade.
> Absent punishment, everybody will just drag all bystanders (from around any scene, there is somebody that disagrees with anything) into a court.
What a great description of the dysfunction of the US judicial system.
> Absent punishment, everybody will just drag all bystanders (from around any scene, there is somebody that disagrees with anything) into a court.
What a great description of the dysfunction of the US judicial system.
1) For years PH used to do the stuff that should totally, unequivocally never be allowed. Then they did a 180, some damage control and a spring cleaning. You can argue that what PH does now should be allowed, but then one of its victims lawyers up and brings up something from dark past in which PH is totally implicated. Now what?
2) Visa, like any other business, must be allowed to use own judgement when deciding whom it's dealing with. They are no saint, though, because they probably noticed that they were dealing with PH (given its size) long enough ago and ignored what was going on there.
2) Visa, like any other business, must be allowed to use own judgement when deciding whom it's dealing with. They are no saint, though, because they probably noticed that they were dealing with PH (given its size) long enough ago and ignored what was going on there.
But it isn't doing something illegal, their users do. They profit from it, but we are back to the problem that platform providers are responsible for user content. Now just if financial transactions are involved luckily.
Not a pornhub fan, but I believe there are far more exploitative companies out there.
Not a pornhub fan, but I believe there are far more exploitative companies out there.
If you belonged to a group of people who believe that such companies shouldn't exist, then you should lobby for it to be outlawed, not try to rule by (small!) minority.
So are the internet providers then, and the electricity companies.
Prime example of "think of the children" laws giving judges the power to legislate from the bench. The closer we try to achieve the fantasy of ultimate safety we destroy freedom in the process, and nobody was protected.
Meanwhile Netflix is hosting soft core child porn.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/net...
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/net...
That's an interesting take.
Would other companies that support pornhub/across in any way also be considered participants? Water supply/electricity/ internet providers/whoever sells them dildos/food
Would other companies that support pornhub/across in any way also be considered participants? Water supply/electricity/ internet providers/whoever sells them dildos/food
I think a more interesting analogy than water/electricity would be storage.
Selling child porn has a special place in the law in a way that "feeding suspected CP criminals" does not.
But storing is also special. Storing child porn is very illegal, so how far does that extend? Does AWS renting an EC2 instance to pornhub, knowing pornhub may store CP on it, mean AWS is complicit in storing child porn?
Does Western Digital selling an SSD to pornhub for their datacenter make WD complicit in storing child porn?
Does the data-center that leases them a server become complicit in storing and distributing CP?
Selling child porn has a special place in the law in a way that "feeding suspected CP criminals" does not.
But storing is also special. Storing child porn is very illegal, so how far does that extend? Does AWS renting an EC2 instance to pornhub, knowing pornhub may store CP on it, mean AWS is complicit in storing child porn?
Does Western Digital selling an SSD to pornhub for their datacenter make WD complicit in storing child porn?
Does the data-center that leases them a server become complicit in storing and distributing CP?
That analogy breaks down when the idea of encryption is considered. AWS has end to end encryption for customer data in motion, and optionally at rest. Pornhub is the only party that has absolute control and access of the data. The data centers are not at fault any more than the government is, for owning a road, when someone driving a tesla car in autopilot causes a crash.
In this analogy, Visa is in the same position as a power plant that provides electricity for Tesla cars.
I believe Visa should not be held legally accountable for the lack of action on Mindgeek/Pornhub in taking down and blocking reuploads of reported CSAM. However the issue is that Visa themselves have chosen to be a moderator of what content is allowed by its customers, regardless of the actual legality of the content. They do it indirectly by accepting and rejecting customers based on these guidelines that are not in line with what is or isn't allowed by law.
Based on a shallow reading of the court documents, Visa made essentially the same argument, that it stands an independent of the decisions of Mindgeek and those who uploaded the CSAM. The counter is the idea that Visa is at fault for giving Mindgeek/Pornhub/Uploaders of CSAM a platform to make money in the first place. That was a decision made by Visa. The fact that Visa already stopped being a payment processor for Pornhub/Mindgeek once in 2020 due to a NYT article about CSM shows that Visa was aware of and had control over how strictly Mindgeek/Pornhub polices the uploads for CSAM.
The case isn't about the existence of CSAM on Pornhub either, it's specifically calling out how Visa and Mindgeek has already profited from traffic generated by CSAM hosted on Pornhub.
In my analogy, it would be a power plant knowing the electricity they provide will be used in Tesla cars used by criminals to rob places. Tesla, in this example, knowingly selling cars that they know will be used for robberies and not doing anything about it. Tesla cars can't run without electricity, and the power plant makes money from selling the electricity to a group they know will use it up faster than the general driver.
Electricity and transportation is a regulated utility. I wonder if this case would not have a legal standing if net neutrality existed and a counter was made by Visa that it treats Mindgeek like any other media content provider and won't reject customers it provides services to, because it doesn't differentiate based on the specifics of the data. The website owners would still be responsible for host CSAM in that situation. Visa could potentially argue no joint understanding if net neutrality existed. Right now it's in contention because Visa has already shown it rejects and accepts customers based on their own rules about what kind of data is being served by its customers.
Visa's previous action to stop and then restart providing a platform to Mindgeek/Pornhub, after they removed unverified content, shows a clear understanding of what kind of media is served. By re-accepting them as a merchant, Visa opened itself up to being a beneficiary and conspirator in Pornhub making money from CSAM, by being the company that provides a way for Mindgeek to make money. Not from pornhub directly but by being a payment processor for the advertising arm of Mindgeek.
The specific issue is making money from CSAM, not the existence of CSAM.
In this analogy, Visa is in the same position as a power plant that provides electricity for Tesla cars.
I believe Visa should not be held legally accountable for the lack of action on Mindgeek/Pornhub in taking down and blocking reuploads of reported CSAM. However the issue is that Visa themselves have chosen to be a moderator of what content is allowed by its customers, regardless of the actual legality of the content. They do it indirectly by accepting and rejecting customers based on these guidelines that are not in line with what is or isn't allowed by law.
Based on a shallow reading of the court documents, Visa made essentially the same argument, that it stands an independent of the decisions of Mindgeek and those who uploaded the CSAM. The counter is the idea that Visa is at fault for giving Mindgeek/Pornhub/Uploaders of CSAM a platform to make money in the first place. That was a decision made by Visa. The fact that Visa already stopped being a payment processor for Pornhub/Mindgeek once in 2020 due to a NYT article about CSM shows that Visa was aware of and had control over how strictly Mindgeek/Pornhub polices the uploads for CSAM.
The case isn't about the existence of CSAM on Pornhub either, it's specifically calling out how Visa and Mindgeek has already profited from traffic generated by CSAM hosted on Pornhub.
In my analogy, it would be a power plant knowing the electricity they provide will be used in Tesla cars used by criminals to rob places. Tesla, in this example, knowingly selling cars that they know will be used for robberies and not doing anything about it. Tesla cars can't run without electricity, and the power plant makes money from selling the electricity to a group they know will use it up faster than the general driver.
Electricity and transportation is a regulated utility. I wonder if this case would not have a legal standing if net neutrality existed and a counter was made by Visa that it treats Mindgeek like any other media content provider and won't reject customers it provides services to, because it doesn't differentiate based on the specifics of the data. The website owners would still be responsible for host CSAM in that situation. Visa could potentially argue no joint understanding if net neutrality existed. Right now it's in contention because Visa has already shown it rejects and accepts customers based on their own rules about what kind of data is being served by its customers.
Visa's previous action to stop and then restart providing a platform to Mindgeek/Pornhub, after they removed unverified content, shows a clear understanding of what kind of media is served. By re-accepting them as a merchant, Visa opened itself up to being a beneficiary and conspirator in Pornhub making money from CSAM, by being the company that provides a way for Mindgeek to make money. Not from pornhub directly but by being a payment processor for the advertising arm of Mindgeek.
The specific issue is making money from CSAM, not the existence of CSAM.
> Electricity and transportation is a regulated utility.
Maybe it's time to regulate payment processors and turn them into utilities. That or create a national payment processor that does one thing and one thing only (process payments) under a transparent set of laws treating every traction equally.
I have no love for Visa or Mastercard. I'd rather not deal with them at all if I had an alternative that was just as convenient. It kind of crazy that with our modern tech and banking system we don't have that easy alternative and still have to keep these dinosaurs around just to easily pass numbers back and forth between banks.
Maybe it's time to regulate payment processors and turn them into utilities. That or create a national payment processor that does one thing and one thing only (process payments) under a transparent set of laws treating every traction equally.
I have no love for Visa or Mastercard. I'd rather not deal with them at all if I had an alternative that was just as convenient. It kind of crazy that with our modern tech and banking system we don't have that easy alternative and still have to keep these dinosaurs around just to easily pass numbers back and forth between banks.
> The fact that Visa already stopped being a payment processor for Pornhub/Mindgeek once in 2020 due to a NYT article about CSM shows that Visa was aware of and had control over how strictly Mindgeek/Pornhub polices the uploads for CSAM.
Yes, which shows that when Visa was aware that Pornhub was (allegedly?) breaking the law, they stopped providing service to them. Only once Pornhub tightened their policies significantly (and removed all of their content from unverified users) did Visa resume...
And it definitely is about the existence of it, actually; one of the allegations is specifically that Pornhub had child porn, failed to police it, and Visa knew both of those things.
Yes, which shows that when Visa was aware that Pornhub was (allegedly?) breaking the law, they stopped providing service to them. Only once Pornhub tightened their policies significantly (and removed all of their content from unverified users) did Visa resume...
And it definitely is about the existence of it, actually; one of the allegations is specifically that Pornhub had child porn, failed to police it, and Visa knew both of those things.
Payments are a pretty specific aspect of trafficking, and while it's feasible some of those other areas you mention could be problematic, Visa has to be much more worried than the caterer.
The argument specifically relies on the financial processing role:
> MindGeek is being sued for knowingly monetizing child porn. Visa’s act of continuing to recognize MindGeek as a merchant is directly linked to MindGeek’s criminal act, as Visa’s act served to keep open the means through which MindGeek completed its criminal act knowing that that criminal act was being committed. At this early stage of the proceedings, before Plaintiff has had any discovery from which to derive Visa’s state of mind, the Court can comfortably infer that Visa intended to help MindGeek monetize child porn from the very fact that Visa continued to provide MindGeek the means to do so and knew MindGeek was indeed doing so. Put yet another way, Visa is not alleged to have simply created an incentive to commit a crime, it is alleged to have knowingly provided the tool used to complete a crime.
> MindGeek is being sued for knowingly monetizing child porn. Visa’s act of continuing to recognize MindGeek as a merchant is directly linked to MindGeek’s criminal act, as Visa’s act served to keep open the means through which MindGeek completed its criminal act knowing that that criminal act was being committed. At this early stage of the proceedings, before Plaintiff has had any discovery from which to derive Visa’s state of mind, the Court can comfortably infer that Visa intended to help MindGeek monetize child porn from the very fact that Visa continued to provide MindGeek the means to do so and knew MindGeek was indeed doing so. Put yet another way, Visa is not alleged to have simply created an incentive to commit a crime, it is alleged to have knowingly provided the tool used to complete a crime.
Wouldn't a crime and court ruling need to occur before Visa is of "knowing" status?
These utilities likely have laws that shield them from liability for these things, otherwise every illegal grow-op would cause the power company to be criminally liable for having supplied power to the grower's house and that makes no sense.
In this case Visa knows full well what they are enabling, by allowing payments to be processed on PH, especially given the volume of transactions, there's no way they don't know what they are supporting.
In this case Visa knows full well what they are enabling, by allowing payments to be processed on PH, especially given the volume of transactions, there's no way they don't know what they are supporting.
This is a great decision to fight human sex trafficking and child pornography. Pornography is a giant societal scourge which funds a ton of human misery and social problems and anything we can do to make it harder for these businesses to operate is great news IMO.
Visa has not been found guilty of anything in this case yet. The court merely didn't fully grant their motion to dismiss.
That only establishes that Visa is actually being accused of something illegal, i.e. Pornhub allegedly knowingly profiting from child porn and Visa allegedly providing payment services to Pornhub while allegedly knowing that Pornhub was using those payment services to profit from child porn (allegedly) would make Visa a participant in the alleged crime, if those allegiations turn out to be true. Hence Visa is a defendant in the court case where the truth of the allegiations will then be debated.
That's why the document you linked uses the word "allegedly" so often.
That only establishes that Visa is actually being accused of something illegal, i.e. Pornhub allegedly knowingly profiting from child porn and Visa allegedly providing payment services to Pornhub while allegedly knowing that Pornhub was using those payment services to profit from child porn (allegedly) would make Visa a participant in the alleged crime, if those allegiations turn out to be true. Hence Visa is a defendant in the court case where the truth of the allegiations will then be debated.
That's why the document you linked uses the word "allegedly" so often.
These are the scenarios to keep in mind whenever people promote cashless societies. Every transaction that needs to go through a gatekeeper means there is a gate that might be closed on you.
Only cash is able to protect the ability to do private transactions withouth any possibility of external dependencies or interference.
Only cash is able to protect the ability to do private transactions withouth any possibility of external dependencies or interference.
The complexity in this situation comes from the fact that Visa rejected Pornhub as a merchant in 2020 due to the same issue, and after Pornhub removed millions of unverified videos, Visa resumed working with the advertising arm of them. Although never officially said, it is clear what the reasoning was for removing the content.
> As porn star Cherie DeVille explains, the story is, and has been, a lot weirder than that. Because Visa and Mastercard hold effective duopoly status all over the world — controlling 98% of credit transactions in the U.K., 80% in the E.U., and over 70% in the U.S. — no porn performer can afford to cross the rules for acceptable content the two companies have laid down. And those rules are beyond strange.
“Women are allowed to squirt, but we’re not allowed to urinate,” DeVille says. “We can’t insert our panties into our vaginas anymore, because that’s an object. I tried to use a carrot-shaped dildo. That’s a problem because that’s an object, too, but a phallic-shaped dildo is apparently okay.” She shakes her head in amazement. “The rules are completely nonsensical.”
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/meet-the-censored-cherie-devil...
“Women are allowed to squirt, but we’re not allowed to urinate,” DeVille says. “We can’t insert our panties into our vaginas anymore, because that’s an object. I tried to use a carrot-shaped dildo. That’s a problem because that’s an object, too, but a phallic-shaped dildo is apparently okay.” She shakes her head in amazement. “The rules are completely nonsensical.”
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/meet-the-censored-cherie-devil...
Relevant sub-thread from a previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24297406
"Fantastical" quote from the above:
> > Our banking partners recently notified us that they are no longer willing to support the sales of realistic sex toys. I understand that your products were designed to depict the body parts of mythological and fantastical creatures, and we have indicated this to our banking partners in an effort to advocate for continuing to support your business here on Stripe. As a result of these discussions, our banking partners have agreed that they are willing to continue supporting your business as long as you are not selling products that are colored such that they might be mistaken for human flesh.
"Fantastical" quote from the above:
> > Our banking partners recently notified us that they are no longer willing to support the sales of realistic sex toys. I understand that your products were designed to depict the body parts of mythological and fantastical creatures, and we have indicated this to our banking partners in an effort to advocate for continuing to support your business here on Stripe. As a result of these discussions, our banking partners have agreed that they are willing to continue supporting your business as long as you are not selling products that are colored such that they might be mistaken for human flesh.
That meeting must have looked like a Monty Python sketch
Forgive me, but I’m sat here wondering what “squirt” is in reference too. I don’t wish to google it. Diarrhoea related? So women can defacate but not urinate?
Look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_ejaculation
Note that both male and female ejaculation may be faked in a porn movie.
Note that both male and female ejaculation may be faked in a porn movie.
More to the point, squirting in porn is pretty much guaranteed to be urination, simply due to the volume and strength of ‘gushing’ involved.
Female ejaculation. There doesn't seem to be a consensus on if it is it's own fluid or just spontaneous urination.
My understanding is that the majority of the time it happens in porn, it's actually urination (but legally they might not be able to say that either)
The relevant law here is called SESTA-FOSTA. It forces companies to ensure they don't host content that facilitates sexual exploitation. This has impacted full-service workers (i.e., prostitutes). Before SESTA-FOSTA, they could put up ads on specialized websites, chat with the clients and then have them come to a room they had rented. This arrangement gave them basic security.
After SESTA-FOSTA, the pages hosting those ads folded, as they couldn't comply with the new rules. Many full-service workers are now walking the streets again and have to have sex in their clients' cars. It's obvious that this makes them much more vulnurable.
It even goes further: Banks will close your account if they think your business has something to do with "sex", even if what you do is legal. If they feel you might be a risk, they freeze your account.
This law has hurt many sex workers, often people already at the very bottom of society. On the other hand, it's unclear how many lives it saved from sexual exploitation.
Sex workers are vulnerable, and many women are being abused. But the way this law was enacted, I can't help but think that pushing sex work further into illegality was a desired side-effect.
Source: I know a couple of sex workers in NYC.
After SESTA-FOSTA, the pages hosting those ads folded, as they couldn't comply with the new rules. Many full-service workers are now walking the streets again and have to have sex in their clients' cars. It's obvious that this makes them much more vulnurable.
It even goes further: Banks will close your account if they think your business has something to do with "sex", even if what you do is legal. If they feel you might be a risk, they freeze your account.
This law has hurt many sex workers, often people already at the very bottom of society. On the other hand, it's unclear how many lives it saved from sexual exploitation.
Sex workers are vulnerable, and many women are being abused. But the way this law was enacted, I can't help but think that pushing sex work further into illegality was a desired side-effect.
Source: I know a couple of sex workers in NYC.
You're right about SESTA-FOSTA being terrible, but I don't think it's the relevant law here.
The relevant code here is 1591(a)(2).
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1591
The opinion of the court is that the defendents benefit monetarily from a commercial sex act involving someone below 18 years of age.
The relevant code here is 1591(a)(2).
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1591
The opinion of the court is that the defendents benefit monetarily from a commercial sex act involving someone below 18 years of age.
Another win for the extremist anti-porn group Exodus Cry. They are just using a small handful of cases slipping through the cracks to make it look like PH is doing nothing to moderate this content. Their end goal was never to protect children, their goal is to eliminate all pornography from the internet.
>> goal is to eliminate all pornography from the internet.
Funny story: Pre-9/11 the Bush administration was talking about cracking down on internet pornography. The Christian right was saying the same things they had about magazines in decades past. So some industry people got together and founded websites dedicated to the most horrible pornography possible, in full expectation that they would be attacked. They were going to be champions of the first amendment in the same was that Hustler magazine had been a generation previously. But then 9/11. The expected crackdown didn't materialize. Those websites are still around, having evolved into some of the biggest names in the biz.
Funny story: Pre-9/11 the Bush administration was talking about cracking down on internet pornography. The Christian right was saying the same things they had about magazines in decades past. So some industry people got together and founded websites dedicated to the most horrible pornography possible, in full expectation that they would be attacked. They were going to be champions of the first amendment in the same was that Hustler magazine had been a generation previously. But then 9/11. The expected crackdown didn't materialize. Those websites are still around, having evolved into some of the biggest names in the biz.
Right now a lot of socialist parties in Europe want to shut down porn and sex work under the name of feminism as well. As an example Spain where they are also in power. Thinking only about American Christians is short sighted, there's a lot of pressure from people who want nothing to do with Christianity but see the industry as exploitive and anti woman.
Maybe, but there is a fundamental difference between being anti-abuse and anti-smut.
source?
https://www.wired.com/2001/01/bush-to-porn-run-for-cover/
06-Jan, 2001.
"The conservative queen of syndicated outrage, who happens to be George W. Bush's pick to head the Department of Labor, has repeatedly warned of what she describes as the perils of sexually explicit material online and urged government action against it. If the Senate gives her the nod, Chavez will not have any day-to-day responsibilities dealing with online speech. But her nomination signals the approach that a Bush presidency is likely to take toward sexually explicit material online."
For the rest of the story, you will have to dig into the history of certain websites that I shall not link to here on HN.
06-Jan, 2001.
"The conservative queen of syndicated outrage, who happens to be George W. Bush's pick to head the Department of Labor, has repeatedly warned of what she describes as the perils of sexually explicit material online and urged government action against it. If the Senate gives her the nod, Chavez will not have any day-to-day responsibilities dealing with online speech. But her nomination signals the approach that a Bush presidency is likely to take toward sexually explicit material online."
For the rest of the story, you will have to dig into the history of certain websites that I shall not link to here on HN.
sashenka(6)
In 1910, Emma Goldman wrote "The Traffic in Women" about how the supposed efforts against sex traffic in the day had nothing to do with helping women, and were all done for other purposes.
112 years later nothing has changed from what she described - fundamentalist churches in supposed campaigns against sex trafficking, yellow journalists printing sensationalist stories - 112 years and nothing has changed whatsoever.
112 years later nothing has changed from what she described - fundamentalist churches in supposed campaigns against sex trafficking, yellow journalists printing sensationalist stories - 112 years and nothing has changed whatsoever.
Totally agree. SESTA-FOSTA is just the current instalment of this pattern.
I think this time it was a win for activist investment given Bill Ackman's investment and tweet thread https://twitter.com/billackman/status/1553510104200351746?s=...
> Their end goal was never to protect children, their goal is to eliminate all pornography from the internet.
That's never going to happen. All it would do is drive regular porn to the same corners of the internet where snuff films and child porn live, and nobody wants that as that drives more people to those areas.
That's never going to happen. All it would do is drive regular porn to the same corners of the internet where snuff films and child porn live, and nobody wants that as that drives more people to those areas.
They probably know they can’t realistically drive it off the net, so they are likely well aware that it would end up in those corners… and with my cynicism hat firmly on I think that the organised puritanical groups know this and are hoping they can then use the association with more unpleasant things in those corners of the internet to push even harder on their puritanical agendas.
I am very worried about where this is going.
We already have enough issues with puritanical people pushing their views on everyone else, but I always felt at least some mild level of safety that I could still mostly do what I want if I was in certain states/cities.
I do realize that Visa was in a really hard place at this point and they likely had to make this decision, so I don't exactly blame Visa here. But it worries me that it could even get to this point that Visa is somehow responsible and I see they are not trying to go over Discover.
We already have enough issues with puritanical people pushing their views on everyone else, but I always felt at least some mild level of safety that I could still mostly do what I want if I was in certain states/cities.
I do realize that Visa was in a really hard place at this point and they likely had to make this decision, so I don't exactly blame Visa here. But it worries me that it could even get to this point that Visa is somehow responsible and I see they are not trying to go over Discover.
I believe that recent crackdowns are worse for people in the long run. Lets assume that most sexually active people look at porn now and then, which I think is a safe assumption, and that teens learn about sex from watching porn.
These changes and age verification requirements have eliminated all the normal amateur sex scenes between regular consenting adults (On RedTube for example) and left the age-verified professional porn, which depicts unrealistic sex between adults who don't give a sh*t about each other, but have perfect bodies and big parts. Instead of showing wholesome normal sex, now all we get is porn shop slut/stud sex
These changes and age verification requirements have eliminated all the normal amateur sex scenes between regular consenting adults (On RedTube for example) and left the age-verified professional porn, which depicts unrealistic sex between adults who don't give a sh*t about each other, but have perfect bodies and big parts. Instead of showing wholesome normal sex, now all we get is porn shop slut/stud sex
Studio shot material is definitely a bit more exaggerated and more selective with their performers. However, I don't really have the impression that amateur shot stuff is "showing wholesome normal sex". Some studios do produce more realistic video but in my experience the amateur stuff is just worse lit and self shot. Still usually made by someone just trying to get a few quick bucks.
All I'm saying is that amateurs are going to have amateur sex so it's closer to the norm than pro sex and probably better for teens to watch and it's too bad that a lot of it will be gone, leaving mostly pro stuff.
I understand the motivation: let's reduce the trafficking of women and revenge porn, but I'm not sure we're going about it in a good way.
I understand the motivation: let's reduce the trafficking of women and revenge porn, but I'm not sure we're going about it in a good way.
I think the main problem with studio work is that it sets highly unrealistic expectations for what a woman’s body looks like. It’s professionally groomed and unnatural and girls cannot possibly meet the same standard on any given Tuesday. Neither can guys but I feel like the expectations for guys are generally much lower anyway.
Except for the large member, which I've heard intimidates the less endowed.
If I’ve remembered the relevant studies about average penis length correctly, self reported penis length averages to a value between one and two inches longer than clinically measured lengths average to depending on which studies you pick. Which is definitely indicative of that endowment anxiety as a widespread issue.
Basically, a court recently ruled that, since Visa is processing payments for ad purchases on Pornhub, Visa is a co-conspirator on all sex trafficking and child porn that Pornhub is involved with. Apparently Pornhub merely being alleged to have engaged in those activities is sufficient knowledge to constitute a "meeting of the minds" for Visa to become a participant in those activities.
(As you might imagine, I vehemently disagree with that ruling. But as it's the ruling that stands, it's the situation that Visa finds itself in, and were I in Visa's shoes, I'd do exactly the same thing they're doing now. They really don't want to be a part of this--and they really shouldn't be a part of this, and dumping Pornhub's ad purchases is the fastest route they can take to not be a part of this, as problematic as it is.)