Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Fri Sep 24 01:56:28 2021

Utopia Talk / Politics / Oligopoly destroys only fans
Habebe
Member
Sat Aug 21 13:53:01
Visa and MasterCard just told only fans no sexual material.

Regardless of whether or not you like this , its a scary thought to think of how much power financial transaction companies have because, 3 of them control too much ofnthe market.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sat Aug 21 13:59:49
Onlyfans needs to move to the blockchain.
Habebe
Member
Sat Aug 21 14:04:14
Nimatzo, I was thinking that would be their best bet.
Rugian
Member
Sat Aug 21 14:19:29
Weaponizing companies to enforce political and moral views on their customers is such a disgusting trend.
Sam Adams
Member
Sat Aug 21 14:25:49
Left wing hoes mad tho, so lol.
Habebe
Member
Sat Aug 21 16:38:53
Rugian, Yep, loopholes around the laws to make a corporate/government blend where the government allows near monopolies (encourages really) and then tries to claim "oh its just a free enterprise"

"People of the same trade rarely fraternize with each other, not even for merriment and diversion, but when they do the outcome is always the same, a conspiracy against the public"_Adam Smith.
kargen
Member
Sat Aug 21 17:53:03
"Weaponizing companies to enforce political and moral views on their customers is such a disgusting trend."

I'm going to blame the over reaching laws on this one. Someone uses a credit card to pay to view child pornography and they can come after the credit card company the way the laws go now. Part of the new trend.
Someone gets drunk in a bar and wraps his car around a tree on the way home sue the bar. Someone gets pissed and kills all his neighbors sue the gun manufacturer.
This is fucking lawyers looking at who has the most money and then finding a way to go after them. Credit card companies are smart to bail on sites that can't guarantee no illegal content. Has nothing to do with moral values. When was the last time a huge company made decisions based on moral values. Doing this will cost them money and with large companies it pretty much is all about the money.
They decided to take the initial loss to protect a much larger loss down the road.
It isn't political nor moral views that caused the decision.
Dukhat
Member
Sat Aug 21 19:24:18
Kargen is right for once. But only fans is being stupid. They will lose a shitton of business. Should have started their own intermediary instead like Paypal or something.
Pillz
Member
Sun Aug 22 07:27:36
They're geniuses. They a literal fortune, and now they're covering their asses before anything can eat into that fortune. Sure the platform will die but the owners save face for doing the right thing.

So many unemployed women entering the job market now, gonna see car repossessions and house repossessions etc. Gon b gud
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sun Aug 22 10:09:58
I have never used onlyfans, I am old fashioned and just use the boomer source, but I honestly thought this was a positive development for porn. The platform empowered the individual actors and removed the need for the "industry" and minimize the risk for exploitation.
nhill
Member
Sun Aug 22 17:15:00
OnlyFans' Porn Ban Is 'Catalyst' for Sex Workers to Move to Cryptocurrency

Let's go, baby! Crypto eating the world again!

Man all my haters going to be groveling over the next decade.

Hello...hello...mr nhill, can u teach me how to setup a metamask wallet sir...i'm sorry for what I said... _(._.)_

lmao, sure bros. i gotchu
Habebe
Member
Sun Aug 22 17:43:27
Cause ain't no business like hoe business.
Pillz
Member
Sun Aug 22 17:58:04
Nimatzo

It isn't about porn. Most porn stars are escorts, and probably 80% of women on only fans were or will become escorts.

Also the only person I only to have used onlyfans is a man hating dike who decided her money was better spent supporting onlyfans than Starbucks because fuck capitalism.
Seb
Member
Mon Aug 23 02:49:35
Habebe:

Not so much "no sexual material", as "what systems do you have in place to guarantee you don't have kiddie porn".

OnlyFans doesn't have a kyc system and it is easier to introduce a blanket ban than introduce a kyc process.

I have very little sympathy for companies whose business model is "scalable" not by automating key processes, but by disregarding them and externalising the consequences to society.

Such businesses are not tech businesses, they are regulatory arbitrage businesses.
nhill
Member
Mon Aug 23 02:56:46
Seb

Habebe's statement is also hyperbole, as far as I'm aware. Sexual explicit content, like porn videos, is banned, but things like nude pictures and the such are still allowed.

Habebe

That's not a knock on you, I see a bunch of people saying the same thing. Visa/Mastercard doesn't want to be a delivery system for hardcore pr0n, but they are fine with people sharing n00ds.
Habebe
Member
Mon Aug 23 04:02:25
I mean as far as only fans goes, I have no horse in that race.

My real issue is with the ABILITY for 2-3 companies to at will bottleneck huge swaths of the National/international economy.

Yes, some can go to cash, or Crypto, but as it stands now the infrastructure to use crypto as readily as digital currency (like debit card) just isn't there yet.

Its more of an ease of use issue ATM.

Nhill, "Habebe

That's not a knock on you"

I consider it a personal threat upon my life and an insult to the great spirit and will respond in kind, I will now take all your base.

Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Aug 23 04:03:47
Pillz
How does someone like you, know a person like that? Family? Co-worker?
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Aug 23 04:08:23
Habebe
Well the Binance card actually allows you do to that. It isn’t a direct usage of the crypto as currency, but the user experience is that same.
Habebe
Member
Mon Aug 23 04:11:14
So whats really happening is the government is using them to arbitrarily enforce "the law".

Easier to pick and choose favorites who "play ball".

This has almost nothing to do with only fans.

The gist that I got was 5 posters had been flagged and shutdown for possible underage content.

Well some of The laws would make it possible to sue visa and PayPal etc. for such issues.

Whores gonna whore no matter what, they will find new avenues.
nhill
Member
Mon Aug 23 04:23:59
"I consider it a personal threat upon my life and an insult to the great spirit and will respond in kind, I will now take all your base."

A duel at dawn it is!
nhill
Member
Mon Aug 23 04:26:05
Crypto's only issue right now is ease of use and discoverability.

These aren't hard problems, but the focus has been, and still is, the underlying tech. For now.

Anyone missing out is going to be behind for years.
Seb
Member
Mon Aug 23 05:50:23
Nhill:

" Visa/Mastercard doesn't want to be a delivery system for hardcore pr0n,"

They are fine with hardcore pr0n: they did this to MindGeek and its sites and they switched away from amateur to verified/registered content producers only.

I.e. it boils down to "what is your mechanisms to ensure you aren't selling revenge porn, upskirts, exploitation of sex trafficked women and images of child sexual abuse? We don't want to facilitate that trade".

This, to me, seems perfectly reasonable questions for a site like onlyfans to have considered answers for.

And if their only answer to that is "actually, we are banning sexually explicit material", it strikes me that they aren't ready to scale. Generally, we should be tighter on this sort of thing, and a market led approach is probably better than a legislative one. Not that it will be definitive given the inevitable rise of shadier outfits using crypto currencies instead.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Aug 23 06:35:47
"Mastercard's decision was lobbied for by Conservative groups such as National Center on Sexual Exploitation (NCOSE), formerly known as Morality in Media, and Exodus Cry."

"They're being lobbied by anti-porn interests, which usually is a strange conference of radical feminists and fundamentalist Christians who just object to pornography."

The two brands of religiously crazy that I reject and rebuke, united in their crusade against masturbation.

Every day my crypto looks less speculative and more like the actual hedge against insanity.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Aug 23 06:36:08
http://www...it-content-pornography-1621570

The quotes.
Seb
Member
Mon Aug 23 07:16:23
"the banks that connect merchants to our network... to certify that the seller of adult content has effective controls in place to monitor, block and, where necessary, take down all illegal content."

Is it insane to want to dissociate yourself from selling child pornography?

Sure, these conservative groups may have a broader agenda, but the thing Mastercard and Visa are responding to is specifically that by providing payment services to websites without controls, they are making money from illegal content.

But porn, in itself, is not illegal. Hence PornHub simply instituted some checks to ensure otherwise.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Aug 23 07:40:24
Classic, "what about the children" argument, an emotionally pleading fallacious argument. I have to balance such trivial nonsense with another George Carlin quote, "Fuck the children".

"But porn, in itself, is not illegal."

In fact the financial industry have been making life difficult for the porn industry for many years. This article is from 2013.

http://www...oans-and-opening-bank-accounts

And it wasn't that long ago Riley Reid was on the Portal podcast with Eric Weinstein explaining all the ways in which banks discriminate against porn stars.
Seb
Member
Mon Aug 23 07:53:02
Nim:

It's not classic "what about the Children" as we can see by the fact that MindGeek put in place some basic checks on its sites to ensure that illegal material was not put on the site, and that if it was it would be quickly and expeditiously removed; and Mastercard and Visa accepted that.

So there is objective proof that this is, indeed, about stopping illegal material. Such as kiddie porn.

Visa and Mastercard are not in the business of giving mortgages or opening personal bank accounts - so I'm not sure what you are trying to prove with this claim that the financial industry are just discriminating against porn stars. After all, they've been providing banking services for years to these sites and you yourself were attributing it to pressure from Christian groups.

Seb
Member
Mon Aug 23 07:55:55
Nim, do you really think Sex Trafficking, Revenge Porn and abuse of minors are trivial issues?

Mastercard and Visa, on being pushed, think not. But unlike you they are grown up enough to work out how to have the cake and eat it.

Unless of course, people think the sex trafficking, revenge porn and abuse or minors *is* the cake... but I would surely hope that is not the case.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Aug 23 08:28:52
Nothing you said merits a response. Your posts read like a pile of dog shit that you avoid stepping in.
Seb
Member
Mon Aug 23 09:01:35
One must draw their own assumptions on how seriously you take the matter.
Seb
Member
Mon Aug 23 09:04:53
As you said, positions can't be divorced from character - so clearly you must be someone whose sense of entitlement to their personal preferences eclipses any "trivial" concerns like reducing the market for sex trafficking.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Aug 23 09:12:16
Indeed, to some degree a position can not be divorced from character, especially when patterns emerge. The only thing to add here is that over 20 years time and god knows how many topics, posts and words, your ability to understand my position or most other posters position has not even had the accuracy of a broken watch. That is impressive, not the kind you brag about, but still.
Seb
Member
Mon Aug 23 09:49:24
Nim:

Or perhaps you can't infer someone's position on one matter based on a poorly constructed model you have confabulated to explain that persons positions on other, entirely different matters, in terms of bad faith motivations you have incorrectly ascribed them?

It's a truth old enough to have been recognised formally as a number of fallacies.

I wonder how long we are going to have to keep doing this until you figure that out.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Aug 23 10:26:38
I know I will regret this, but which two things I do you think are "entirely different"?
Seb
Member
Mon Aug 23 11:07:41
Nim:

Whatever two things come into your mind, frankly.

You spend all of your time re-interpreting arguments in light of values I don't hold, principles I don't subscribe to, and modes of analysis I don't - all of which you have constructed yourself without any need whatsoever. Words speak for themselves, they don't need you to turn the speaker into some caricature in whatever story you believe you are living out.

Every conversation becomes a tiresome game whereby you spend all of your efforts attempting to construct a circular argument in moral terms - the actual substance plays a back seat.

It's beyond idiotic but has got to be simply vituperative in recent months.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Aug 23 13:22:17
You complained about my behavior, I asked for specifics and you conveniently deflect.

"Words speak for themselves, they don't need you to turn the speaker into some caricature in whatever story you believe you are living out."

Unfortunately that isn't how that works outside of math maybe, there are many things that are ambiguous in language, words carry different meaning culturally plus we all make mistakes. The caricature here is the that words "speak for itself".

Furthermore, there was a time when I felt you were bending over back-wards to misunderstand everything I was saying, well you never really stopped doing that and it isn't just me. What happened was I grew tired and started doing the same thing and apparently you do not like it? I can't blame you, but I tried, several times, I was treated very uncharitably. I am open for anything, good discussions, just picking someones brain about something they know well or just shit talk. When in Rome and all that stuff.

Pillz
Member
Mon Aug 23 13:52:22
Nimatzo

A co-worker
Seb
Member
Mon Aug 23 15:58:52
Nim:

You've been provided with specifics. You just don't want to face.

"Unfortunately that isn't how that works outside of math"

Yes. That's why the schools of rhetoric call it the ad hominem fallacy. Which famously means "math dweeb" in ancient Greek.

Come off is Nim, you can't go parading your pig ignorance around as some kind of salt of the earth wisdom. There are rules of logic and behaviours for good faith debate. The fact you have abandoned them in favour of your incohate feels doesn't make them cease to exist or irrelevant - it just marks you as piss poor at reasoning: using your spleen to think rather than your brain.

"there was a time when I felt you were bending over back-wards to misunderstand everything I was saying"

Actually I was pointing out the inconsistency with applying one set of principles to two analogous situations and coming up with completely different positions which you claimed to be from one set of principles; but you didn't seem to understand that point - you got far too caught up in the fact that your position on the second point was not as your stated principles suggested. Which was in fact the point: what you claimed to be a position based on objective facts and reasoned from sensible principles was actually a string of arbitrary preferences with no coherence to them whatsoever.

This is rather different from explicitly choosing to read the precise literal opposite and justifying that obvious misreading beceause it is more consistent with the character you have attributed to someone.

At no point did I start with this stupid cod psychology stuff and descend into Sam Adams bullshit of just making shit up. Which is what you have been doing of late.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Aug 23 16:48:56
"You've been provided with specifics."

I read your frankly incoherent rant and can not find a reference to a topic or instance where:

"Or perhaps you can't infer someone's position on one matter based on a poorly constructed model you have confabulated to explain that persons positions on other, entirely different matters"

Seriously what are you on about here?
nhill
Member
Mon Aug 23 18:24:06
Seb

"I.e. it boils down to "what is your mechanisms to ensure you aren't selling revenge porn, upskirts, exploitation of sex trafficked women and images of child sexual abuse? We don't want to facilitate that trade"."

Then why do they allow nudes without that mechanism in place? It's okay to share nudes of children or something?

Makes no sense.
nhill
Member
Mon Aug 23 18:31:08
Also, Visa/Mastercard still don't allow payments for Pr0nHub, so I'm not sure why you keep bringing up Mindgeek.
Seb
Member
Tue Aug 24 05:10:34
nhill:

"Then why do they allow nudes without that mechanism in place? It's okay to share nudes of children or something?"

Um, perhaps we are speaking at cross purposes, but that's the point: Visa and Mastercard will only do business with firms operating in this space if they can show they have mechanisms and processes for detecting illegal activity. This isn't a particularly high bar: they are not asking for every image to be eyeballed and approved by a moderator or some fancy automated system either.


"Also, Visa/Mastercard still don't allow payments for Pr0nHub, so I'm not sure why you keep bringing up Mindgeek."

I thought they did - that was one of the reasons pornhub switched to a verification model - but it appears they haven't resumed for pornhub, but have for other sites. To speculate, I assume PH needs time to roll out verification of existing content producers and transition to the point that Visa and Mastercard lawyers are content.

The point is fundamentally this is about checks against abusive/illegal material - at least as far as Visa and Mastercard are concerned - as that is *their* point of vulnerability. Christian groups can't exert sufficient pressure on stuff that's legal. But stuff that is illegal and the most publicly hated kind of illegal exposes them to risk. The lobby groups can tie them up in high profile law suites that would damage them even if individual court cases fell through.

http://www...ze-on-pornhub/?sh=2d2c246e1663

Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Aug 24 06:27:19
"I thought they did"

Muh objective proof!! lol :)

"The point is fundamentally this is about checks against abusive/illegal material"

Nope, banks and financial services have as I explained been messing with the porn industry for decades. Long before the internet came around, the same lobby groups of feminists and Christians were doing everything to shut porn down. Actually protesting outside of porn stores!

This is _fundamentally_ about certain groups, feminists' (you curiously keep omitting them) and Christians' religious resistance against all porn on moral grounds. That is the main driver behind this. In this crusade they often use emotional and dishonest arguments like the ones you are using, about child porn and trafficking things any sane person would rather see eradicated and that will pluck the strings of the public. And as soon you give them that finger, well then you should support this piece of legislation. Unless! And I quote you seb: "Unless of course, people think the sex trafficking, revenge porn and abuse or minors *is* the cake... but I would surely hope that is not the case."

Indeed let us surely hope that is not the case! Do you see my frowns of worry?!?!

Remember, you pulled the child porn card out of your ass in the first crypto thread too. BE WARNED crypto users, you are funding child porn! Would you be surprised that this is the exact same style of argument used in the war against drugs: BE WARNED pot smokers, you are pumping money into criminal gangs! You don't want to support criminal gangs DO YOU?? YOU THINK GANG SHOOTINGS ARE TRIVIAL??

Where is this fucking substance you want us to engage?
Habebe
Member
Tue Aug 24 09:22:36
Run ET its criminal gangs here to sell us the devils lettuce so they can fund their terror campaign on the children!
Habebe
Member
Tue Aug 24 09:22:37
Run ET its criminal gangs here to sell us the devils lettuce so they can fund their terror campaign on the children!
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Aug 24 09:51:08
"well then you should support this piece of legislation"

or policy.

Although I think it is clear from the context the salient point isn't the means by which these loud minorities try to achieve their goals I think that needed to be clarified, so as to not leave out something that will so obviously be "misunderstood" by seb.
Seb
Member
Tue Aug 24 10:03:09
Nim:

"Muh objective proof!! lol :)"

Not really - PornHub is only one of MindGeeks porn sites, and the one that they haven't restored services to yet.

"Nope, banks and financial services have as I explained been messing with the porn industry for decades."

Lets unpick this for a second:

1. mortgage companies have in the past not easily offered mortgages to sex workers*, and mortgage companies are part of the finance industry;

2. Credit card companies are part of the finance industry also.

...

n. It follows that credit card providers who will not serve some porn sites (specifically and demonstrably those without KYC/safeguarding measures) is clearly motivated by ideological/aesthetic opposition to pornography that they share with Mortgage companies on account of them both being part of the industries we call "finance".

It feels there are a few leaps of logic here between 2 and n to get n to follow.

*Do you think this might be more due to mortgages being related to long term creditworthiness, and porn stars have a relatively limited shelf life in terms of their ability to command reliable revenues; on top of being self employed?

"This is _fundamentally_ about certain groups, feminists' (you curiously keep omitting them) and Christians'"

Because the articles that specifically mention bodies and organisations threatening law suites and which MC and Visa are responding to are a few specific Christian lobby groups.

I note that feminists groups are split on this. The anti-porn radicals are for it, but the more numerous and influential groups see it as a backward step that increase risk of abuse for trafficking (particularly as this is part of a wider push that these Christian groups have been pushing following on from changes to the law on sex trafficking that are couched in similar terms).

" In this crusade they often use emotional and dishonest arguments like the ones you are using, about child porn and trafficking"

Firstly, they aren't factually incorrect: without checks these platforms can and demonstrably have been used to distribute illegal materials. They are dishonest because the Christian groups motivation isn't to make the pornography safe, it is to eliminate pornography.

HOWEVER MC and Visas's response is motivated by the safety issue, because that creates points of actual vulnerability for them.

I have been explicit and clear about that - but much as the Christians are dishonest in advancing the real issue of illegal material to advance a broader ideological agenda; so you are being just as despicably dishonest. Firstly, by equating MC and Visa's objectives that are reasonable and limited to what is needed to avoid distribution of illegal material, with the Christian groups agenda. Secondly by equating my summary of the issue and motivations of Visa and Mastercard with sharing the dishonest motivation of the Christian pressure groups.

And of course, you know this. It is just another tiresome example of you engaging in bad faith discourse.

"Remember, you pulled the child porn card out of your ass in the first crypto thread too."
Actually, you seem to have picked that one out of a broad list of harmful business models that are illegal, evasion of enforcement being one of the USPs of crypto currencies. And of course, isn't the immediate response to Visa and MC withdrawing services here "lets use crypto to enable it instead".

"BE WARNED pot smokers, you are pumping money into criminal gangs!"

That's one reason why weed should be decriminalised. Swing and a miss. Try again.


"Where is this fucking substance you want us to engage?"

This whole situation was triggered by Christian lobby groups confronting law makers and visa and mastercard with specific evidenced examples of porn sites being used to distribute illegal material.

That is the substantive issue here - which you seem to want to pretend doesn't exist. If that couldn't have been provided, Visa and Mastercard would simply have shrugged and continue to provide payment services as they have been doing since the 1990s - nearly as long as the internet has existed.

What they have asked for is minimal mechanisms to prevent illegal material - which protects both the site and the payment companies and to some extent* those who are being abused to generate illegal content.


Real engagement with that substance starts with acknowledging it is a real point, not ridiculous appeals to the entire financial industry being prejudiced against sex workers (Visa and Mastercard have clearly only juts woken up to one of the largest online industries of the last 30 years!), and an implication that the entire issue of illegal material is illusory and doesn't exist.

That just comes across as fundamentally unserious.
*this is actually complicated - real engagement might be on the lines of the dreaded feminist groups that argue that actually this will create more harm than good to victims of sex trafficking etc.
Seb
Member
Tue Aug 24 10:09:59
Nim:

"YOU THINK GANG SHOOTINGS ARE TRIVIAL??"

You can't really complain if I use your own description of the point.

It is a documented fact that some porn sites without verification checks are used to distribute illegal material. That is what gave the Christian groups traction here.

So to dismiss that fact as "trivial nonsense" either is based on a failure to appreciate the factual basis; or it is because you do genuinely think it is trivial.

The simple answer is: "require sites to put in reasonable/proportional checks against illegal material".

In what sane world do we require this for copyright infringement without concern, but not for CSAM, sex trafficking and other such?

nhill
Member
Tue Aug 24 10:13:41
Seb

I'm curious why OnlyFans is still allowed to post nudes if it was about policing underage content. As far as I'm aware, nudes of underage people are illegal.

OnlyFans is specifically banning the more explicit & hardcore sexual content.

Which is why I stick to my thesis that they don't want to be a delivery system for hardcore pr0n when the services are as well known as PH and OF.

Happy to be proven wrong, though, I honestly don't know.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Aug 24 10:19:41
"It follows that"

No, it doesn't follow from some strawman "logic" you constructed, it follows from the observation that it is these groups that are lobbying for these kinds of legislation and policy. They did it in the past and they do it presently.

"It feels there are a few leaps of logic here between 2 and n to get n to follow."

Amazing! Who knew?

"Do you think this might be more due to mortgages being related to long term creditworthiness, and porn stars have a relatively limited shelf life in terms of their ability to command reliable revenues; on top of being self employed"

No. Because I, unlike you, have done at least the bare minimum of reading on this.

"Last week it was revealed that Chase Bank made the decision to cancel hundreds of accounts belonging to porn performers, at least one of which was a personal account belonging to a retired performer."

http://www...-stars-high-risk-bank-accounts

Anyway I stopped reading here.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Aug 24 10:24:57
Getting refused bank accounts is even in the first article I posted and yet seb decided to make up some strawman logic trap about mortgages and credit rating.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Aug 24 10:29:53
Nhill

http://end...-work-with-payment-processors/

"OnlyFans Forced to Change Thanks to NCOSE’s Work with Payment Processors"
Seb
Member
Tue Aug 24 11:02:47
Nhill

"I'm curious why OnlyFans is still allowed to post nudes if it was about policing underage content. As far as I'm aware, nudes of underage people are illegal."

Checking the terms and conditions, there was already policies preventing illegal material and under 18s.

The issue was probably more about how those are enforced, rather than what they were. It's easy to say "no child sexual imagery" in your ToS but the questions Visa and MC ask are about what mechanisms and checks are in place.

As to what the difference between nudes and porn, I suspect now this is more driven by their own marketing. Perhaps they put in the checks, but are using the situation up reset their branding back to the original pitch aimed at allowing the famous and influencers to monetise access, rather than porn. So you get the young wannabe actresses that are selling "tasteful art" to fans of their art who can kid themselves they aren't doing porn on the side, and also not scare off those not using it as a channel for selling porn.

Seb
Member
Tue Aug 24 11:17:44
Nim:

"follows from the observation that it is these groups that are lobbying for these kinds of legislation and policy."

But it doesn't follow, that's my point: MC and Visa aren't lobbying, they are being lobbied and there's no evidence at all this is in any way connected to historic and ongoing mortgages or personal banking other than the fact that these are all businesses involving finance. You've simply asserted it as proof. There's a giant hole in your argument.

The article about Chase references two changes that might motivate Chase's policy change (which the article describes as a first) - one a crackdown on risk factors driven by regulation, two pressure from socially conservative customers.

The latter would be directly attributable to the same groups putting pressure on Visa and MasterCard.

So you've managed to post an article that supports my position.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Aug 24 11:29:50
I didn't say Visa and Mastercard are lobbying! I said Christian and Feminist groups lobby for regulation and (private) policy. The same groups that have always lobbied against the porn industry and sexworkers broadly are doing that now. Those are the facts and evidence. I am not interested in what cognitive hick up you have that stops you from seeing the relationship between that lobbying, the fact that the finance industry is a very conservative place and these outcomes.

Seriously, the conversation is incoherent!

Anyway, like I said at the start. I think this is ultimately good for crypto.
Seb
Member
Tue Aug 24 12:24:32
Nim, everyone knows and gets the lobby groups agenda.

However, the reason mastercard and visa are influenced by it is because the specific issue the lobbiests raise is real. However there are also reasonable steps that sites can take to neutralise that issue.

Dismissing the issue out of hand in the way you do, to well that's not serious, or
plain disingenuous.
Seb
Member
Tue Aug 24 12:38:11
To remind you, what I wrote:

"Is it insane to want to dissociate yourself from selling child pornography?

Sure, these conservative groups may have a broader agenda, but the thing Mastercard and Visa are responding to is specifically that by providing payment services to websites without controls, they are making money from illegal content.

But porn, in itself, is not illegal. Hence PornHub simply instituted some checks to ensure otherwise."

Which you said was emotionally pleading, fallacious and trivial nonsense and to me pointing out that porn was not illegal, and so outside the scope of what Visa and Mastercard said they would not support you said:

"In fact the financial industry have been making life difficult for the porn industry for many years."

Suggesting that Visa and Mastercard has a broader agenda here than simply neutralising the conservative lobbyists line of attack around specifically illegal material - even if what the conservatives want is to ban all pornography.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Aug 24 12:48:13
"by it is because the specific issue the lobbiests raise is real."

There is no evidence that onlyfans specifically or pornhub or any one of these place are/were especially infected with these kinds of problems. Storm a tea cup is the bread and butter of this kind of activism, together with all the other things I have explained.

"Dismissing the issue out of hand in the way you do"

You and your obnoxious, barely coherent and tiresome debating style are dismissed out of hand. I am positive real grown ups can have a conversation about this, without a need to establish the articles of common decency like you seem to need. Without the need for constant reassurance that the people they are talking with are ordinary people who do not support the behavior of child molesting predators.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Aug 24 12:54:20
"Suggesting that Visa and Mastercard has a broader agenda here than simply neutralising the conservative lobbyists"

Your conclusion while wrong, is also completely immaterial even if true. I honestly do not know why you even bring it up. I am on record multiple times expressing sentiments around spineless corporations and institutes who cave into mob pressure and minority rule.
Seb
Member
Tue Aug 24 14:26:24
Nim:

"There is no evidence that onlyfans specifically or pornhub or any one of these place are/were especially infected with these kinds of problems."

That's not correct - there were documented instances of this, which was why what forced Visa and MC to draft policies which they then need to apply consistently to other providers to avoid legal challenge.

Saying "especially" is a bizarre qualification: "oh, we don't distribute illegal materials more than any one else"

"You and your obnoxious, barely coherent and tiresome debating style are dismissed out of hand."

I see, so you were triggered and decided to write words that had a meaning you now don't stand by, and I'm the one incoherent.

There was nothing obnoxious or incoherent about my post you were responding to.

"Your conclusion while wrong,"
Except, as pointed out several times now, Visa and MC have both restored payment services to porn sites run by mindgeek that can provide assurances. So it's not wrong, it is absolutely correct.

"is also completely immaterial even if true."
It is immaterial how exactly? Visa and MC are businesses and they are entitled to withold services if they think they are going to be exposed to legal risk. It's simple due diligence and you might not like that a Christian lobby group can use the law to get an outcome you don't like in advance of an agenda you don't like.

"who cave into mob pressure and minority rule."
Except they aren't are they, they are specifically constraining their actions to the minimum to ensure that they aren't party to an illegal transaction.

And this is my point: in failure to address the nuance here, you're basically asking that Visa and MC stand up to the Christian right by *not* taking *any* steps to ensure they aren't party to a transaction involving illegal content.

That's pretty insane and hard to defend.
Seb
Member
Tue Aug 24 14:38:14
http://www...d-visa-rape-child-abuse-images

"They reacted following an investigation by the opinion columnist Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times that also alleged the site depicts revenge pornography and video taken without the consent of participants. Pornhub has denied the allegations.

Mastercard said it is terminating use of its cards on Pornhub after its own investigation confirmed violations of standards prohibiting unlawful conduct on the site. Mastercard said it was also investigating other websites for potential illegal content."

So Mastercard did it's own investigation here, in addition to what was reported in the NYT.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Aug 25 04:40:40
"Christian right by *not* taking *any* steps to ensure they aren't party to a transaction involving illegal content."

They where not taking _any_ steps to ensure these things? What is your evidence for this?

"So Mastercard did it's own investigation here"

That is how that usually goes doesn't it? Lobby campaigns rely a lot on the media, you do understand that I think. And then the company does it's own "investigation" and based on business decisions (not some objective science) including the risks to themselves becoming the target of the anti-porn propaganda. Who considered that Visa and master cards actions here basically amounts to a mass layoff in the sex industry? Or worse in some cases the banks refusal to allow you to have a banking account, is basically being denied entry to the modern world. Imagine your life if banks refused you a bank account. These things are rarely taken into consideration and that is why "especially" isn't a "bizarre" qualifier. You have a dozen illegal videos, while the punative action will result in thousands of people losing their livelihood. Speaking of considering the nuances on the issue.

You keep bringing up that visa and mastercard restored services to some of mindgeeks sites, have you even read the details of that? My guess is no, but it basically stops all content created outside of pro studios. Effectively banning any individual actor who want's do their own thing. A lot of thing wrong with that.

The heart of the matter for me is that there are so many ways of talking about this in a sober and adult manner to try and reach a constructive solution, but the risk of going on a third rail when dealing with the sex industry and yes the dark side of human sexuality is very high. The response is thus often swift, brutal and feels punitive and unforgiving. The sex workers are thrown under the bus.

Hence me mocking you, because you did precisely that. You trample nuance and reason, you load an already loaded topic when it needs more sober thinking. You become a corrosive caricature.

I don't think that the very few instances of illegal material on these sites, defines them or is a huge problems. They are problems that need to be worked on all the time for sure, without these mass layoffs. It is ethically unacceptable to me, especially in countries and areas where the workers have no or very low unionization or other forms of collective leverage. People like that get fucked over easy and no one really cares, our brains stopped thinking the moment we heard CHILD RAPE. That is your destructive contribution to this topic.

Institutional capture, be it the markets capture of the legislature or activists/lobby isn't an on or off thing. It varies in degree across time and business area. That is a good thing to mention. To paraphrase one of your old lines, none of these things are happening all the time and everywhere, not even within the same sector.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Aug 25 04:44:05
"..or activists/lobby *capture of corporation* isn't.."
Seb
Member
Wed Aug 25 08:16:14
Nim:

"They where not taking _any_ steps to ensure these things? What is your evidence for this?"

Learn to read FFS, that sentence is pointing out the implication of your stance; it isn't about what steps a service should reasonably take.

It is saying that by refusing to accept there is an issue for service providers to address in the first place, you are demanding that Visa and Mastercard have no requirements at all for due diligence. This is absurd.

Now, if you accepted that there is in fact an issue, then we can have a productive conversation about whether it is reasonable for Visa and Mastercard to take action in the first place (i.e. is it their problem if some of their clients enable illegal activity, or should they have some kind of indemnity); and what is a reasonable requirement for them to have.

But simply refusing to accept that there is in fact an issue with illegal material being distributed by these sites in the first place is not that.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Aug 25 08:22:37
I don’t really care what implications you see when I don’t like a child hold your hand through the scary stuff, I already explained everything in the last post.
Seb
Member
Wed Aug 25 08:53:57
"That is how that usually goes doesn't it? Lobby campaigns rely a lot on the media, you do understand that I think. And then the company does it's own "investigation" and based on business decisions (not some objective science) including the risks to themselves becoming the target of the anti-porn propaganda."

I don't know why you think risk to the business is not objective - but the primary goal of the business would be to understand here how they could both retain the business and revenues of their existing client while fending off attacks on their reputation. c.f. highly successful campaigns by fossil fuel industry against global warming, or tobacco companies regarding the link between cancer and smoking.

Simplest would be if they could find no evidence of a problem. Evidently, their internal investigations replicated the findings of the NYT investigation. They knew they could not defend themselves on the basis of factual evidence, and that the Christian Lobby groups would be able to show direct examples of Mastercard getting revenue from processing a transaction for sale of illegal material.

So they move to their next defensive line: how can we show that we, *mastercard* have sensible and robust requirements that mean we can reasonably continue doing business with these companies.

This is not an affront to justice, this is simply capitalism and the free market in action.

"Who considered that Visa and master cards actions here basically amounts to a mass layoff in the sex industry?"
Similar decisions result in mass layoffs all the time. And to the extent that someone's job is producing porn films, why can they or their production house not get registered with the platform like plenty of other sites that Visa and Mastercard have continued to serve?

"Or worse in some cases the banks refusal to allow you to have a banking account, is basically being denied entry to the modern world"
Lack of banking facilities is a major problem in many countries - and I absolutely think that every individual ought to have access to basic personal banking services. Isn't the issue here that regulation does not require retail banks to do this, and allows them to refuse basic retail banking to people they consider "at risk", which includes all sorts of people, not just sex workers?

That said, I don't at all agree that an individuals right to basic personal banking services somehow translates into an obligation by Visa and Mastercard to process transactions from any client, especially if said client cannot offer reasonable assurances that the transaction is legal.

"Effectively banning any individual actor who want's do their own thing. A lot of thing wrong with that."
Again, all that requires is that the porn selling platforms institute verification processes. These porn sites have high revenue from subscription and direct sales, and many also hyper-pesonalised targeting adds. Mindgeeks revenue is something like $460m/a

A verification or content moderating system is easily absorbable within its cashflows.

Historically, porn actors would have had to be part of a production house to get work. The entire model of self-production is in part enabled by these platforms in the first place - is it not reasonable to ask that they perform the same kinds of checks a production house would?

Otherwise, it's just a business model based on being an online production company, but not subject to the same regulatory requirements.

"The response is thus often swift, brutal and feels punitive and unforgiving. The sex workers are thrown under the bus."

But is that any different from the argument from all sorts of traditional industry were environmental legislation or automation has thrown workers under a bus? This is just the nature of capitalism. Company A decides to offshore its manufacturing, a factory is closed, people are laid off. Company B decides to get out of an unpopular business line, people are laid off. Company C is subject to new tax regulations (e.g. IR35 in the UK), it lays off all of it's contractors.

"You trample nuance and reason"
Bullshit Nim, nuance and reason starts only when you accept that the illegal materials issue is a real problem in that it exists and that Visa and Mastercard haven't got defences against that. Everything else is just waving hands and saying "I want this problem to go away, because it's all made up by bad people I don't like".

It's not made up by bad people. It's a real issue. The question is what to do about it.

"I don't think that the very few instances of illegal material on these sites, defines them or is a huge problems."
I think that is a catastrophic misjudgement of both the legal risk and the business risk. Visa and Mastercard are within their rights here - and the obligation has to be on the porn platforms to provide mitigation - which they are financially and technically equipped to do if they want to. It is they you should be addressing for cutting off part of their - effectively - workforce that they have made huge profits on.

" our brains stopped thinking the moment we heard CHILD RAPE"

I think the only persons brain stopped thinking here was yours.

There is *no* level at which a company should get indemnity for association with a criminal act simply because it is sectorially important to the economy and livelihood of others. Banks have to demonstrate they don't enable money laundering and fraud which has enormous impacts and deadweight costs across the economy, why the hell shouldn't the same be true of other companies?

Thinking that Visa and Mastercard shouldn't be allowed to require that clients have meaningful checks against illegal activity - like distributing paedophilic material - because otherwise pornsites might stop providing services to independents as they don't think it is economically viable to verify them or risk becoming seen as an employer is a heck of a hill to die on.

Seb
Member
Wed Aug 25 09:02:12
Nim:

In none of your posts have you actually accepted the idea that it is reasonable for Visa and Mastercard to take action here.

This is not engaging with the real world. In the real world, Visa and Mastercard have shareholders and clients that react viscerally to even "small and ignorable" amounts of child porn, and competition those customers may turn to, and legal liabilities they are exposed to from being entangled in the sale of criminally illegal materials.

You may not like the outcome. You may think that the greater harm is to independent content producers. You may think (bizzarely) that somehow the platforms have no obligation here, despite having created the entire market for independent content producer and a very lucrative business model and externalising social, regulatory and tax costs of being an actual employer like a production company.

But the reality of the world is different. If everyone thought like you, then MC and Visa wouldn't need to stop providing services. They would continue as they have always done.

Whatever the consequences to independent producers, you can't just wish away the issue - and it is not as simple as "Visa and Mastercard should take the legal and business risk in order to ensure independents keep a livlihood".
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Aug 25 10:01:01
"I don't know why you think risk"

I said they make a _business_ decision, that isn't an objective decision, because it takes into account a lot context specific factors that may not apply elsewhere. What is a good move for one company can be a disaster for another. Ergo what is a risk to one company is an oppotunity for another.

"This is not an affront to justice, this is simply capitalism and the free market in action."

You can call it what you want, it isn't that important to me. But financial services is not a service like any other I think we agree, these places have a lot of power and they can crush people. There a few services like that, social media is imo another such´example, where being denied service will have huge consequences for social, proffesional and political life/rights.

"But is that any different from the argument from all sorts of traditional industry were environmental legislation or automation has thrown workers under a bus?"

There are significant differences between this issue and those. There is no global harm here that affect the entire planet, sex robots or some other tehcnical improvement are not disrupting the porn space. This is a moral issue where one of the cudgles are the very real facts of the dark side of human sexuality. It is used in an insidious way to shut down debates. Whores are one of the most spat on groups of people, even some of the people who associate with them spit on them. I honestly can't think of a profession more looked down upon, even drug dealers become heroes sometimes. Things have been rough on that front for the whores of the world since Mary Magdalene.

And btw generally people are not laid off en masse, because a few people commited a crime. There is an aspect of collective punishment involved I think you are missing.


"Bullshit Nim, nuance and reason starts only when you accept that the illegal materials issue is a real problem in"

I don't need to accept that dozens of illegal items among 13.5 million are a "real problem". I have no idea what that means btw, "real problem", of course they are all "real", but the salient point here is the size of the problem compared to the size of the ban hammer of our financial overlords. There is no proportionality, the "solution" is worse than the problem.

"It's a real issue."

And this is what I mean, apparently it is not possible to have an adult conversation before we all say things "that goes without saying". It is an extremely tiresome way of communicating.

"I think the only persons brain stopped thinking here was yours."

I just described a very real phenomena that happens when we are told certain types of bad news that broadly in our populations produce a very strong and emotional response. I am sorry that was above your head, another revelation on why you are unqualified to speak about these things. Go set up some servers.
Paramount
Member
Wed Aug 25 11:58:33
It looks like OnlyFans will continue to host porn. Maybe they were just trolling earlier, to get attention.


OnlyFans
@OnlyFans
Thank you to everyone for making your voices heard.

We have secured assurances necessary to support our diverse creator community and have suspended the planned October 1 policy change.

OnlyFans stands for inclusion and we will continue to provide a home for all creators.

http://twitter.com/OnlyFans/status/1430499277302816773
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Aug 26 03:48:47
"In none of your posts have you actually accepted the idea that it is reasonable for Visa and Mastercard to take action here."

None of your posts indicates that you have understood that I am against the scope and punitive aspects of the action taken, despite me explaining this for you. None of your posts indicate an adult ability to se the bigger picture and not having your brain shut down over the few instances of illegal activity.

This is not engaging in a good faith discussion. The rest of your post is full of windmills, straw men and outright bullshit that just reaffirms what I have been telling you for years about deep character flaws. You don't read, you have a low level of reading comprehension, you read the words in the worst light possible, you refuse to correct when correction are given. Whatever else there is to intelligence than to solve math problems, you have a deficit in those cognitive domains, bigly. Extremely biased and extremely quick to to try to shame people and gaslight. Which is extra retarded since no one here gives a fuck about you of all people trying to shame them.

When all those things are thrown back in your face, you have a fucking meltdown and go on completely non-sequitar ad homs. Every personal criticism I throw at you, are central to the failure in communication, meanwhile what did you say the other day? "Nim is a guy who has benefited from immigration.. bla bla bla"

What the fuck does that have to do with anything? See, even your ad homs are retardedly out of tune with the actual conversation!
Seb
Member
Thu Aug 26 05:28:40
Paramount:

As I said, given that they *have* had their agreements with Visa and MC restored, but are still offering nudes, I suspect actually this is more about using the opportunity to steer away from the recent coverage branding them as a porn site.

That is not how they want to be seen. Their USP is around being a channel for people to monetise fame, who do not see themselves or want to be associated with the porn industry - even if the main draw for "fans" is to nude or semi-nude pics of minor celebs. Clearly they are aiming to be something more like the 1990's Lads Mag platform, rather than top shelf material.

The Visa/MC stuff is a disaster for their branding when you think about it.
Seb
Member
Thu Aug 26 05:55:42
Nim:

"I said they make a _business_ decision, that isn't an objective decision, because it takes into account a lot context specific factors that may not apply elsewhere."

How is a decision that takes into account contextual facts *not* objective? Whatever definition of objective you are using, it is not the common one.

"What is a good move for one company can be a disaster for another."
Indeed, but there are only two companies that are making the decision here: Visa and Mastercard - and objectively this is a sensible and reasonable decision that allows them to maximise service and hence revenues to the porn industry while minimising risk of legal and pr damage to them.

"But financial services is not a service like any other I think we agree, these places have a lot of power and they can crush people."

And financial services have a lot of regulation to prevent that. But the regulations do not extend to providing them indemnity against being involved in an illegal trade (quite the opposite, it requires them to do due diligence to avoid doing so). I think you will have a hard time persuading any polity to adopt laws that indemnify financial institutions and/or impose an obligation on them to serve companies that are demonstrably involved in an illegal activity.

Part of the *reason* MC and Visa are pursuing these policies across the board to sites and services for where there is no evidence of a problem is precisely because legal obligations on them - given their market power - require them to be fair and non-discriminatory. It might be that most of the illegal material is found on only one platform; but they would be open to legal challenge if they creates some sort of arbitrary threshold (%age of illegal content), it's much more defensible that they are not abusing their market position if they create criteria around the assurances and policies that the platforms themselves use to prevent illegal activities. And exactly in line with how they operate (e.g. around fraud etc.).

But again, surely the issue here in terms of the impact on individual actors is around the role the platforms themselves play: they also have outside market power - the entire role of intendent content producer would not exist without them.

And there is a discussion also around employment and contracting. If you can some how put together all the elements of an integrated production house, but somehow all the tax, labour law and other regulatory obligations seem to have fallen through the cracks; there is a question here as to whether this entire business model is actually one we want to enable. Traditional production houses do not necessarily employ actors, but have regulatory obligations. Why do we think those regulatory obligations should not be met in this platform enabled business model? Or should we de-regulate the production houses and free them from the obligation of ensuring people appearing in their films are not under age, not trafficked etc?

The target of your ire ought to be the platforms such as pornhub here - they have the revenues to meet regulatory requirements which in turn would enable Visa and Mastercard to work with them.

"There is no global harm here that affect the entire planet,"
That's a bizarre criteria to use. Regulation exists to limit harms at all sorts of levels. IR35 tax laws don't exist to limit a harm that affects the entire planet. Neither do the labour laws that Uber's business manages to get around.

" Whores are one of the most spat on groups of people, even some of the people who associate with them spit on them."
Indeed, you might call them sex workers then?

"And btw generally people are not laid off en masse, because a few people commited a crime."

Indeed, generally a bank with a rogue employee that commits a crime will pay a fine, put in place more checks and compliance to avoid it happening. They will not get away with saying "Regulator, clients, we should face no consequences because otherwise we will have lay off our workers" - though if they find a way to automate parts of the process through which business risk arises, they absolutely will lay those people off.

That, in effect, is what the industry here is doing. They could invest in creating a central team that can manage the ID checks needed for individuals; or they can decide to outsource that problem to production houses and cut off individuals. They chose the latter in many cases.

What should emerge then is new platforms that build it in.

"There is an aspect of collective punishment involved I think you are missing."

No, there isn't an element of collective punishment here - tech and regulatory changes regularly disrupt entire businesses with large layoffs of workers. That is not punishment. That is called the market.

"I don't need to accept that dozens of illegal items among 13.5 million are a "real problem"."

Yes you do: it is a fact that Visa and Mastercard can be sued over the issue. It is a fact that they are exposed to public pressure. You may not like that. You may think that is disproportionate. But those are your personal views and biases, not objective facts.

You talk about an objective position, but this is the point: your position is not objective. It's based on your sympathy for the independent workers, which I share, but that doesn't make Visa and MC the bad guys here. Any payment system that is subject to regulatory oversight and legal challenge would have the same pressures on them and respond in the same way.

The discretion to mitigate the impact on independent content producers lie with the platforms and their shirking of their moral and legal responsibilities; and the failure of regulatory frameworks to catch up with platform business models and recognise that a great deal of the value of these business models to shareholders is to build the same business models that support companies but structure themselves in such a way they are not subject to existing law. This both distorts the market (unfairly disadvantages traditionally structured companies purely on the basis of how they are constituted rather than any real competitive advantage) and is a form of social dumping. Such regulations and laws having been created by society to address some form of harm, and if you think those rules are disproportionate, then the rules should be changed explicitly in legislation, not circumvented by what amounts to a technology enabled shell game.




Seb
Member
Thu Aug 26 06:46:23
Nim:

"None of your posts indicates that you have understood that I am against the scope and punitive aspects of the action taken"

This is what I mean - you describe these actions as punitive, which is to fundamentally misunderstand what is going on - and take an incredibly restricted and narrow view as to where social obligations towards independent contractors should sit.

There is no evidence or argument present that looks at the wider economic and business model here, the role of society and the state, or even a genuine understanding that Visa and Mastercard have actually got very little discretion on how they handle this.


"None of your posts indicate an adult ability to se the bigger picture"
I leave it to the reader to decide who is looking at the bigger picture: Galaxy brain Nim who can see only the harm done to independent content producers; or a more holistic view that looks at the obligations and capabilities of the platforms, the harm that even comparatively* small volumes of illegal material has, recognises the business risks and legal risks and constraints Mastercard and Visa of participating in such trade etc.


"and not having your brain shut down over the few instances of illegal activity."

Well, I've explained how the situation is far more complex and nuanced here. I think you are the one with a brain shut down. Faced with the exploitation of independent content producers, the only thing you can do is get mad at Mastercard and Visa as the proximate cause; and lash out at anyone who paints a more complex picture with adhominem attacks. It's sad really.



Seb
Member
Thu Aug 26 06:47:22
Simple question:

What alternative actions do you think Visa and Mastercard could take that would mitigate their business and legal risks, while also discharging their legal requirements to take an objectively fair approach to different providers?
Seb
Member
Thu Aug 26 06:51:14
Also, you keep going on about "Math problems" based on my credentials as a physics researcher, but seem to have a strange lacuna on a career working with business strategy and a career working on public policy development.

It fits your narrative to present yourself as the more complex thinker, but it is an example of confirmation bias and cherry picking. The reality is you have no particular basis for accepting that I have math skills but not the others.

The reality is you are *far* more reliant on reductionism in your approach to analysis than I am.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Aug 26 10:11:01
"I think you are the one with a brain shut down. Faced with the exploitation of independent content producers, the only thing you can do is get mad"

lol the first post in this thread I made what does it say? That was a solution to the problem. There in lies the answers to your "simple question" as well. I don't want visa and mastercard to do anything different, I admonish them for their disproportionate and punitive actions, even then it is i the vein of "and that's why we need crypto". The rest of the thread is me explaining to you how generically stupid the things you say are, what a corrosive and obnoxious style of communication you have and that you talk out of your ass.

And this is why this is such a waste of time. Because this is the story you have telling yourself, like all the other stories you fabricate about people here.

Seb
Member
Fri Aug 27 08:57:21
Nim:

"ol the first post in this thread I made what does it say? That was a solution to the problem"

OnlyFans should move to the blockchain - simplistic, doesn't address the problem, and comes back to endorsing the basic point I made about cryptocurrencies - it's only real USP is ability to evade regulations (something you criticised as being unfair and unreasonable).

Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Aug 27 10:41:05
The point was that you fabricated a story about me having no solution other than getting angry with visa and mc, classical gaslighting.

The fact that you now at the end of your patience find it "simplistic", is a dishonest pivot and I couldn't care less. If you were honestly curious about any details, well that shipped sailed a long time ago, didn't it.

It makes no sense to talk in-depth with someone that is so dishonest and so clearly acting in bad faith.

Things to keep in mind until next time.
Seb
Member
Fri Aug 27 11:08:50
Nim:

"The point was that you fabricated a story about me having no solution other than getting angry with visa and mc, classical gaslighting."

You literally just stated that you have no solution to the problem, and are just angry and Visa and Mastercard:

"I don't want visa and mastercard to do anything different, I admonish them for their disproportionate and punitive actions"

Do you actually read what you write or does it just go from spleen to fingers without passing your brain?

show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share