Pornhub used to permit anonymous uploading by amateurs. Yes, plenty of amateur stuff was posted, but with such a system of course some stuff slipped through that shouldn't--copyright, revenge and kiddie porn. When the problem came to light Pornhub deleted all the stuff that didn't have a proven identity. (And the US standards for proof on porn are too high. They're fine for a big studio but impossible for amateurs and they preclude any attempt to keep identities secret.)
Only a sliver of the 80% of their database that got deleted was kiddie porn and note that not all kiddie porn is sexual abuse anyway--some of it is just teens being stupid.
Child, Pornography and Abuse ... each definition requires a multi-hour lecture at any law school. One can debate the definition of "child" for days without coming to any firm conclusion. But many states have very exacting laws, backed up by draconian punishments. It it perfectly reasonable for large corporations to take an equally harsh approach. The punishments for being "in possession" of such material are so dangerous that instantly deleting entire accounts/databases will be seen as reasonable business judgement. But I guess that is the point of such punishments. They are designed scare everyone into acting without hesitation.
I'm pretty sure in the new contract was something like you can't have anonymous uploads at all.
Pornhub is used, rarely and without their consent, to illegally transmit child pornography.
What sort of business are you in? I'm pretty sure that I can find a way that it facilitates some sort of illegal activity. Your HN profile says "Defense". Let's see now...
That's implying that PH is doing nothing to stop it. There's a difference between there being a few handful of examples of cases slipping through the cracks, vs PH intentionally allowing it to happen.
It's like Youtube, there will always be false positives and false negatives in their automatic and manual moderation. Online moderation is a hard problem, not a single platform has got a bulletproof solution.
Right, which does massive damage to that website as Visa is part of a duopoly with a complete stranglehold on the market
> If I don't agree with Visa's decision, I am free to walk away from Visa
Ok, and if Mastercard follows suit, where do you go?
The problem with essential services - monetary transmission, in this case - being monopolized by private companies is that your trite claim that "each party can walk away" is actually quite clearly untrue for the consumer in each such situation. Market actors should be free to make their own decisions, but monopoly and cartel situations need regulation to prevent consumer harm, and it's clear what this is.
There is a famous series of HN posts from some startup trying to get into this space (sorry, can't remember the details - maybe someone else can fill in). The horrorshow of getting "money transmitter licenses" and working through compliance issues in 50 different states (plus federal) made it impossible.
There is not a free market for transaction processing in this country. A small handful of companies are grandfathered into what is effectively a government enforced monopoly. So they need to be treated like the quasi-public utilities they are.
This has to be intentionally obtuse, we're talking about online payment processors...
> Bitcoin?
So easy to use, so stable
> PayPal
Yes, you're right, in the US it's more of a tri-opoly than a duopoly - you'll note globally it's more of a duopoly. But that's pretty far from supporting claims like "Visa doesn't have a stranglehold on financial transactions". Visa and MasterCard usually move in some form of legal tandem from what I've seen, which returns us to the original point: arguing about idealistic "market" conditions in a captured, distinctly not-free market is foolish at best and intentionally misleading in this case.
Is that in fact illegal?
How is that illegal? Illegal immigrants may be in the country illegally, but that doesn't mean that everything they do while in the country is also illegal. We don't have outlawry anymore. Such concepts don't work in the modern world.
It's the difference between selling a bag of rice to a killer for hire, and selling a gun to a killer for hire.
That's why you ship your drugs with the USPS. But this is more like mailing a check for drugs.