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."

Climate

This carbon capture startup wants to clean up the worst polluters

The founder and CEO of point-source carbon capture company Carbon Clean discusses what the startup has learned, the future of carbon capture technology, as well as the role of companies like his in battling the climate crisis.

Carbon Clean CEO Aniruddha Sharma told Protocol that fossil fuels are necessary, at least in the near term, to lift the living standards of those who don’t have access to cars and electricity.

Photo: Carbon Clean

Carbon capture and storage has taken on increasing importance as companies with stubborn emissions look for new ways to meet their net zero goals. For hard-to-abate industries like cement and steel production, it’s one of the few options that exist to help them get there.

Yet it’s proven incredibly challenging to scale the technology, which captures carbon pollution at the source. U.K.-based company Carbon Clean is leading the charge to bring down costs. This year, it raised a $150 million series C round, which the startup said is the largest-ever funding round for a point-source carbon capture company.

Keep Reading Show less
Michelle Ma

Michelle Ma (@himichellema) is a reporter at Protocol covering climate. 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.

Sponsored Content

Great products are built on strong patents

Experts say robust intellectual property protection is essential to ensure the long-term R&D required to innovate and maintain America's technology leadership.

Every great tech product that you rely on each day, from the smartphone in your pocket to your music streaming service and navigational system in the car, shares one important thing: part of its innovative design is protected by intellectual property (IP) laws.

From 5G to artificial intelligence, IP protection offers a powerful incentive for researchers to create ground-breaking products, and governmental leaders say its protection is an essential part of maintaining US technology leadership. To quote Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo: "intellectual property protection is vital for American innovation and entrepreneurship.”

Keep Reading Show less
James Daly
James Daly has a deep knowledge of creating brand voice identity, including understanding various audiences and targeting messaging accordingly. He enjoys commissioning, editing, writing, and business development, particularly in launching new ventures and building passionate audiences. Daly has led teams large and small to multiple awards and quantifiable success through a strategy built on teamwork, passion, fact-checking, intelligence, analytics, and audience growth while meeting budget goals and production deadlines in fast-paced environments. Daly is the Editorial Director of 2030 Media and a contributor at Wired.
Workplace

Why companies cut staff after raising millions

Are tech firms blowing millions in funding just weeks after getting it? Experts say it's more complicated than that.

Bolt, Trade Republic, HomeLight, and Stord all drew attention from funding announcements that happened just weeks or days before layoffs.

Photo: Pulp Photography/Getty Images

Fintech startup Bolt was one of the first tech companies to slash jobs, cutting 250 employees, or a third of its staff, in May. For some workers, the pain of layoffs was a shock not only because they were the first, but also because the cuts came just four months after Bolt had announced a $355 million series E funding round and achieved a peak valuation of $11 billion.

“Bolt employees were blind sided because the CEO was saying just weeks ago how everything is fine,” an anonymous user wrote on the message board Blind. “It has been an extremely rough day for 1/3 of Bolt employees,” another user posted. “Sadly, I was one of them who was let go after getting a pay-raise just a couple of weeks ago.”

Keep Reading Show less
Nat Rubio-Licht

Nat Rubio-Licht is a Los Angeles-based news writer at Protocol. They graduated from Syracuse University with a degree in newspaper and online journalism in May 2020. Prior to joining the team, they worked at the Los Angeles Business Journal as a technology and aerospace reporter.

Climate

The fight to define the carbon offset market's future

The world’s largest carbon offset issuer is fighting a voluntary effort to standardize the industry. And the fate of the climate could hang in the balance.

It has become increasingly clear that scaling the credit market will first require clear standards and transparency.

Kevin Frayer/Getty Images

There’s a major fight brewing over what kind of standards will govern the carbon offset market.

A group of independent experts looking to clean up the market’s checkered record and the biggest carbon credit issuer on the voluntary market is trying to influence efforts to define what counts as a quality credit. The outcome could make or break an industry increasingly central to tech companies meeting their net zero goals.

Keep Reading Show less
Lisa Martine Jenkins

Lisa Martine Jenkins is a senior reporter at Protocol covering climate. Lisa previously wrote for Morning Consult, Chemical Watch and the Associated Press. Lisa is currently based in Brooklyn, and is originally from the Bay Area. Find her on Twitter ( @l_m_j_) or reach out via email (ljenkins@protocol.com).

Policy

White House AI Bill of Rights lacks specific guidance for AI rules

The document unveiled today by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy is long on tech guidance, but short on restrictions for AI.

While the document provides extensive suggestions for how to incorporate AI rights in technical design, it does not include any recommendations for restrictions on the use of controversial forms of AI.

Photo: Ana Lanza/Unsplash

It was a year in the making, but people eagerly anticipating the White House Bill of Rights for AI will have to continue waiting for concrete recommendations for future AI policy or restrictions.

Instead, the document unveiled today by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy is legally non-binding and intended to be used as a handbook and a “guide for society” that could someday inform government AI legislation or regulations.

Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights features a list of five guidelines for protecting people in relation to AI use:

Keep Reading Show less
Kate Kaye

Kate Kaye is an award-winning multimedia reporter digging deep and telling print, digital and audio stories. She covers AI and data for Protocol. Her reporting on AI and tech ethics issues has been published in OneZero, Fast Company, MIT Technology Review, CityLab, Ad Age and Digiday and heard on NPR. Kate is the creator of RedTailMedia.org and is the author of "Campaign '08: A Turning Point for Digital Media," a book about how the 2008 presidential campaigns used digital media and data.

Latest Stories
Bulletins