petermc
I get the impression that SLR are perhaps being overly safe and taking out stuff that could possibly be problematic rather than just stuff that is definitely prohibited.
The rules about what is and is not permitted are fairly vague. As well as specific rules against a set number of practices, both the major card networks ban "obscenity" and also some variation on "brand damaging transactions." What constitutes a brand damaging transaction is not specified. What IS specified are the penalties for any bank allowing such transactions on the network.
The end result of this is that the acquiring banks and payment processors further down the line set their own boundaries about what is and is not acceptable based on their own risk appetite. We then have to set boundaries taking these rules into account.
I can’t accept that someone at Mastercard is watching every second of every scene on every site to see what sex acts are included...
You are correct. It's not the card networks who carry out this activity. However the banks further down the chain absolutely do carry out content audits, using a combination of automated tools and human intelligence. Additionally any card member can complain to their issuing bank about a transaction which violates the policies of the network in question, and this can potentially trigger an investigation. There are certain evangelical groups who have a habit of doing this.
The most infamous pornographer of all time (Max Hardcore) still operates a site with credit card billing that includes piss and vomit content. Surely he’d be under more scrutiny than most.
Paul F. Little (Max Hardcore) went to prison after being convicted of obscenity.
Laws do change over time, and over time what is acceptable changes. As a worked example, previously Canada banned as obscene any content featuring the ingestion of urine. There was a case where two films from Lucas Entertainment were seized by border officials for containing this activity. In 2017 Canada decided that community tolerance had changed, so they updated their definition to only cover non-consensual consumption of urine.
Now, everything would be fine if the Canadian standard applied worldwide, but it doesn't. There have been two fairly recent cases involving urine consumption that reached the United States Supreme court. One is the USA v Paul F Little case which resulted in him going to prison, the other is the USA v Extreme Associates Inc case, which also resulted in prison time for the producers.
There verdicts have been taken into account by the people further up the chain who set the rules and we have to respect that decision.
We are not just an average porn site. We are a technology company, a platform, an ecosystem. A huge number of people rely on us for their livelihoods. They rely on us to keep a roof over their heads, and to put food on the table.
We do our best every day to bring you the content you want and to push the boundaries of what is possible with technology. To do that we need to be able to function within the financial system.
Just to be clear, we don't enjoy removing any content. We understand that every piece of content represents a significant investment by the creators, and speaking personally, I don't believe that the Church or State has any right to interfere with what consenting adults do for fun, as long as no-one is being harmed.
We actively explore what the boundaries are, and how we can (compliantly,) push them. Later this week I will be speaking to industry colleagues who lobby on behalf of the industry about how we can continue to make things better for everyone involved in the industry.
