52
RantCry more, EFF. The world doesn't owe you Pornhub.
Visa and Mastercard are Trying to Dictate What You Can Watch on Pornhub
No, credit card companies are not trying to dictate what CoomerWorld can watch. They're businesses covering their asses both legally and reputation-wise. They're not required to fund video spank banks, especially not ones that may have broken laws.
EFF has gotten a lot of things right, but this isn't one of them.
Hilarious. Stopping payment processing has nothing to do with free speech. Mastercard is only declining to help Pornhub earn money from these recorded crimes. Big difference.
Yep, they're not upset that there's corporate message is not woke enough or something.
Both card brands prohibit all illegal activity. It's in their guidelines. If they didn't, the governments would impose regulations - something they try to avoid happening by having their own regulations. Just search these documents for "illegal" and see how many times it's mentioned and in how many ways.
They aren't "controlling what you can watch" - they shut down any merchant that is involved in copyright or intellectual property disputes, or doing anything illegal, or even engaging in "card brand damaging activity".
Unfortunately there is a large portion of the digital rights/security community that is deeply entrenched in the idea that ANY regulation will lead to the birth of precedence that will ultimately hinder digital rights for the rest of the internet.
While I would normally agree with this sentiment I disagree with this current issue, these decisions are based off private companies doing everything within their power to cover their collective asses in the face of massive criminal lawsuits being launched in at least 3 countries meaning the potential for an international trial that threatens not only the companies but potentially lawsuits against the payment systems themselves.
Do they cry because you can't use your Visa or Mastercard to pay for other illegal activities online? Or is it just rape and child porn they are upset about?
I think they bring up a good point but I also want to know what they think the solution is, because 'rely on the courts' sounds like a fudge; as others have pointed out, the companies are taking steps to comply with existing law. So how do the EFF envision that law being enforced? What alternative would they propose? I also wonder how many of these men who complain about precedent give a shit about the real, current situation of women being censored online-- maybe I missed it but I haven't seen them say a thing. I also care about precedent, but if people have already just jumped straight ahead to censoring women and any other political dissidents, I no longer have motivation for caring about the supposed markers on the way to preventing that.
I don't think their point is good. There is a difference between not endorsing illegal content and withdrawing support because of a disagreement
Depends on how corrupt the laws are, which in turn depends (at least in part) on who's making the laws. I can see the dangers, I just don't see what alternative they think is better, and so far, from what I can tell, they haven't said a thing about the large scale, coordinated efforts to silence women on the internet. They can't really argue "slippery slope" if there's already a chasm uphill.
I mean, sex trafficking and rape are pretty universally considered a crime. I don't think it's controversial at all for companies to not do business with companies that violate those basic human rights laws.
Sure, my issue is with people trying to extend the definition of 'basic human rights' to absolute bullshit and then employing the same tactics.
Yes, but this is something that is universally illegal. It's not even remotely a slippery slope, actually not acting on it is a slippery slope (if we do business with companies that profit off of videos of rape and abuse, why not do the same with companies that profit off of filming torture or genocide?)
I can see the argument that it should never be the role of a payment processor to restrict who they do business with, and rather that people/groups breaking the law should only be punished directly through the courts, to stop pressure groups manipulating things extra-judicially. But it's not obvious to me that encouraging people to go straight to court is a better result for online freedoms, and as you say, leaving things as they are doesn't work either. So I don't know what kind of alternative they're envisioning that could work better, and I suspect they haven't given it any thought.
Actually, by knowingly doing business with a company that is engaged in illegal stuff they're themselves committing a crime. If it's not illegal to knowingly help an illegal business, it should be. I'm pretty sure Visa and Mastercard don't want the legal liability.
A huge part of the issue is the credit card companies could be held criminally liable for being involved with businesses they know to be engaged in illegal activity
They can eff right off. (What, how was I supposed to resist that?)
If PH is at least partially supported through banner ads, then who is buying those banner ads? Are these regular businesses and politicians or are these other porn companies? Does anyone know?
Wow. Super disappointed in these guys, who’ve done some excellent work in the past.
The EFF has a lot of silicon valley corporate money, which means lots of libertarian and sexist influence as we all know too well from our experiences in other parts of the internet. In the end their principles aren't based on material reality except the bits that go with capitalism. Yasha Levine has several interesting articles about the origins and activities of the EFF. He is not a fan of the EFF and doesn't try to hide it, and his articles are sharp and well-researched.
Here's a link to the specific one I'm thinking of on the EFF: https://thebaffler.com/salvos/all-effd-up-levine
Visa and Mastercard do not have the skills, expertise, or position to determine complex issues of digital speech.
Visa and Mastercard are businesses, right? Wouldn't this then be just enacting the “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone” call? It's simply following the rules of agreement on Visa & Mastercard's part.
Not even that, it's more like "We refuse to help fund illegal transactions".
Excuse me, excuse me, who are we talking about here? In my country the EFF is a very bad political party, and Google doesn:t give me other options. Please help!
That's not censorship, that's companies reacting to ILLEGAL stuff, not stuff they disagree with.
So rape is now “digital speech?” And because they’re not experts in this “digital speech”, they are obligated to continue supporting it financially? That is one of the dumbest arguments I have ever heard.
I’ve never seen EFF before, but from this article, I’m going to guess they’re a bunch of pornsick assholes.
[Comment deleted]