Protocol | Policy

OnlyFans shows Visa and Mastercard are 'choke-points' of online speech

OnlyFans' decision to ban sexually explicit content raises questions about credit card processors' power.

The Visa and Mastercard logos displayed on the door of a retail store

Beginning in October, OnlyFans will ban all "sexually explicit" content from its platform, following "requests of our banking partners and payout providers."

Photo: David McNew/Getty Images

Who gets to decide what stays and goes on the internet? It's the prevailing question for tech platforms today. Should it be Facebook? Google? The government? Users themselves?

In the case of OnlyFans, an online platform that caters to adult content, the answer as to who's calling the shots appears to be: Visa and MasterCard.

On Thursday, OnlyFans made a surprise announcement that beginning in October, it would ban all "sexually explicit" content from its platform, following "requests of our banking partners and payout providers." The news created an uproar among content creators who rely on the site for income.

Now, those creators and others are placing the blame squarely on credit card companies that have begun taking an increasingly hard-line stance against sites that host adult content and the banks that process their payments. These companies, they argue, have far too much power to influence online content, and they're flexing that power in ways that have dangerous consequences for content creators and sex workers.

"While many will blame OnlyFans for sacrificing sex workers in pursuit of investment capital and mainstream recognition, we need to be frank about where the true fault lies: with the banks and credit card companies like Mastercard, who have refused to stand up to a misguided and ill-intentioned evangelical War on Porn," the Free Speech Coalition, a trade association for the adult entertainment industry, said in a statement. "Companies like Mastercard are now accomplices in the disenfranchisement of millions of sex workers, complicit in pushing workers away from independence into potentially more dangerous and exploitative conditions."

Visa and MasterCard have a solid hold on the credit card industry in the U.S. According to Motley Fool, in 2018 nearly half of Americans had a Visa credit card, while nearly 40% had a Mastercard. Both companies have spent billions along the way to settle antitrust suits, but their continued dominance gives them enormous control over platforms' ability to make money.

Last year, following an op-ed in The New York Times about child sexual abuse material appearing on Pornhub, Visa, Mastercard and Discover cut Pornhub off from all payments. Pornhub responded by radically changing its policies to prohibit video uploads from unverified accounts, launching a new biometric verification system for performers and purging millions of unverified videos from its platform.

Mastercard has since updated its policies for banks that process payments from sites that host adult content. The new policies require that the sites have content review processes in place, as well as proof of consent, age and identification for people involved in the content. In July, after extensive meetings with Mastercard, the National Center on Sexual Exploitation awarded Mastercard with the corporate leadership award for its new policies.

Visa didn't respond to Protocol's request for comment about the role their policies may have played in OnlyFans' decision. Mastercard's senior vice president of communications Seth Eisen told Protocol the company found out about OnlyFans' policy changes through media reports. "It's a decision they came to themselves," Eisen said. "With respect to the registration requirements we put in place earlier this year, those are focused on preventing unauthorized and illegal adult content where our products are accepted. There's no impact on legal content and activity."

Voices in the adult entertainment industry are not alone in speaking out about consolidation in the payment-processing market. Advocates for free expression more broadly also frame OnlyFans' decision as an issue of corporate power. "Payment processing has long provided a convenient choke-point for censorship," Evan Greer, director of the digital rights group Fight for the Future, wrote in a Twitter thread Friday.

"As long as businesses like OnlyFans are reliant on centralized tech infrastructure, they will always behave like businesses that are 'renting' & not 'owning,' and they'll always be scared that their landlords (Mastercard/Visa, Paypal, Amazon Web Services) will evict them," Greer continued.

Free speech advocates have, of course, made similar arguments regarding content moderation decisions of tech giants like Facebook, arguing that any moderation risks censorship. The difference is, when Facebook bans a certain category of content, that doesn't automatically mean it's banned from other social networks. The policy decisions made by credit-card companies, by contrast, cut across industries.

This is one reason why content moderation by companies that run the infrastructure of the internet — whether that's payment processors or cloud service providers — is particularly fraught. In 2017, network security company Cloudflare cut off service to the neo-Nazi site The Daily Stormer, in a decision that even its CEO Matthew Prince described as "so dangerous." Despite the backlash to that decision and the company's own self-reflection, two years later, Cloudflare cut off service to 8chan in the wake of the mass shooting in El Paso. More recently, Amazon Web Services, as well as the Apple and Google app stores, banned Parler from their platforms following the Jan. 6 insurrection.

These and other decisions have raised thorny questions about how much power any company ought to have to prevent certain forms of speech, even the most odious, from existing on the internet at all. "There's a lot of consensus about this at ISP level, that's #NetNeutrality," Greer wrote, "but we need to think beyond that."

Protocol | Policy

Why Twitch’s 'hate raid' lawsuit isn’t just about Twitch

When is it OK for tech companies to unmask their anonymous users? And when should a violation of terms of service get someone sued?

The case Twitch is bringing against two hate raiders is hardly black and white.

Photo: Caspar Camille Rubin/Unsplash

It isn't hard to figure out who the bad guys are in Twitch's latest lawsuit against two of its users. On one side are two anonymous "hate raiders" who have been allegedly bombarding the gaming platform with abhorrent attacks on Black and LGBTQ+ users, using armies of bots to do it. On the other side is Twitch, a company that, for all the lumps it's taken for ignoring harassment on its platform, is finally standing up to protect its users against persistent violators whom it's been unable to stop any other way.

But the case Twitch is bringing against these hate raiders is hardly black and white. For starters, the plaintiff here isn't an aggrieved user suing another user for defamation on the platform. The plaintiff is the platform itself. Complicating matters more is the fact that, according to a spokesperson, at least part of Twitch's goal in the case is to "shed light on the identity of the individuals behind these attacks," raising complicated questions about when tech companies should be able to use the courts to unmask their own anonymous users and, just as critically, when they should be able to actually sue them for violating their speech policies.

Keep Reading Show less
Issie Lapowsky

Issie Lapowsky ( @issielapowsky) is Protocol's chief correspondent, covering the intersection of technology, politics, and national affairs. She also oversees Protocol's fellowship program. Previously, she was a senior writer at Wired, where she covered the 2016 election and the Facebook beat in its aftermath. Prior to that, Issie worked as a staff writer for Inc. magazine, writing about small business and entrepreneurship. She has also worked as an on-air contributor for CBS News and taught a graduate-level course at New York University's Center for Publishing on how tech giants have affected publishing.

While it's easy to get lost in the operational and technical side of a transaction, it's important to remember the third component of a payment. That is, the human behind the screen.

Over the last two years, many retailers have seen the benefit of investing in new, flexible payments. Ones that reflect the changing lifestyles of younger spenders, who are increasingly holding onto their cash — despite reports to the contrary. This means it's more important than ever for merchants to take note of the latest payment innovations so they can tap into the savings of the COVID-19 generation.

Keep Reading Show less
Antoine Nougue,Checkout.com

Antoine Nougue is Head of Europe at Checkout.com. He works with ambitious enterprise businesses to help them scale and grow their operations through payment processing services. He is responsible for leading the European sales, customer success, engineering & implementation teams and is based out of London, U.K.

Protocol | Fintech

When COVID rocked the insurance market, this startup saw opportunity

Ethos has outraised and outmarketed the competition in selling life insurance directly online — but there's still an $887 billion industry to transform.

Life insurance has been slow to change.

Image: courtneyk/Getty Images

Peter Colis cited a striking statistic that he said led him to launch a life insurance startup: One in twenty children will lose a parent before they turn 15.

"No one ever thinks that will happen to them, but that's the statistics," the co-CEO and co-founder of Ethos told Protocol. "If it's a breadwinning parent, the majority of those families will go bankrupt immediately, within three months. Life insurance elegantly solves this problem."

Keep Reading Show less
Benjamin Pimentel

Benjamin Pimentel ( @benpimentel) covers fintech from San Francisco. He has reported on many of the biggest tech stories over the past 20 years for the San Francisco Chronicle, Dow Jones MarketWatch and Business Insider, from the dot-com crash, the rise of cloud computing, social networking and AI to the impact of the Great Recession and the COVID crisis on Silicon Valley and beyond. He can be reached at bpimentel@protocol.com or via Signal at (510)731-8429.

Protocol | Workplace

Remote work is here to stay. Here are the cybersecurity risks.

Phishing and ransomware are on the rise. Is your remote workforce prepared?

Before your company institutes work-from-home-forever plans, you need to ensure that your workforce is prepared to face the cybersecurity implications of long-term remote work.

Photo: Stefan Wermuth/Bloomberg via Getty Images

The delta variant continues to dash or delay return-to-work plans, but before your company institutes work-from-home-forever plans, you need to ensure that your workforce is prepared to face the cybersecurity implications of long-term remote work.

So far in 2021, CrowdStrike has already observed over 1,400 "big game hunting" ransomware incidents and $180 million in ransom demands averaging over $5 million each. That's due in part to the "expanded attack surface that work-from-home creates," according to CTO Michael Sentonas.

Keep Reading Show less
Michelle Ma
Michelle Ma (@himichellema) is a reporter at Protocol, where she writes about management, leadership and workplace issues in tech. Previously, she was a news editor of live journalism and special coverage for The Wall Street Journal. Prior to that, she worked as a staff writer at Wirecutter. She can be reached at mma@protocol.com.
Protocol | Enterprise

How GitHub COO Erica Brescia runs the coding gold mines

GitHub sits at the center of the world's software-development activity, which makes the Microsoft-owned code repository a major target for hackers and a trend-setter in open source software.

GitHub COO Erica Brescia

Photo: GitHub

An astonishing amount of the code that runs the world's software spends at least part of its life in GitHub. COO Erica Brescia is responsible for making sure that's not a disaster in the making.

Brescia joined GitHub after selling Bitnami, the open-source software deployment tool she co-founded, to VMware in 2019. She's responsible for all operational aspects of GitHub, which was acquired by Microsoft in 2018 for $7.5 billion in one of its largest deals to date.

Keep Reading Show less
Tom Krazit

Tom Krazit ( @tomkrazit) is Protocol's enterprise editor, covering cloud computing and enterprise technology out of the Pacific Northwest. He has written and edited stories about the technology industry for almost two decades for publications such as IDG, CNET, paidContent, and GeekWire, and served as executive editor of Gigaom and Structure.

Latest Stories