OF has been increasingly making use of step-up authentication to avoid disputes, which is the way the non-US payments industry is heading. My guess would be that if disputes are in fact the reason, it’ll be because the step-up authentication isn’t available or working for some significant slice of the market.
That said, I don’t think that’s the reason. Switching off porn altogether means the vast majority(citation needed) of OF’s content will be gone, which means this has to be a life-or-death move. MC has been placing legality/consent/age restrictions on adult content, including real-time monitoring of content / chat [0]. My guess is that this is onerous enough that it breaks OF’s business model.
[0] https://www.webshield.com/post/mastercard-introduces-revised...
I think at the company I worked at most of what is in there around record keeping wouldn't have been a problem because there were laws that required the company to do that already.
The "pre-screening requirement" could be problematic though.
> All uploaded content must be reviewed prior to publication to ensure that it is not illegal and does not otherwise violate Mastercard’s standards
That one seems crazy. I have no idea how much content they get uploaded daily, but I would guess it's a massive amount. If they needed a human to view 100% of the uploaded content before it's allowed to be published... I just don't see how they could do that profitably.
I think the hard part is the hand-wavy stuff you’re supposed to be looking for. How are you supposed to know whether some unusual sexual act violates their standards? Or whether gay porn is legal in all applicable jurisdictions for instance?
Also stripe identity really works for US users the most , with a global audience like OnlyFans that could be limiting as well
Yea I'm not sure how you validate everyone in the video has a verified identity and age... Perhaps machine learning could automate some of this. Stripe has selfie validation... so if you could do something like that on the video where faces in the video are compared to the identities provided... If there isn't a match then the video is flagged for review.
1. Addict puts $1000 into gambling site via their credit card
2. Addict loses $1000 in the next few minutes at gambling site
3. Addict realizing they can't afford it files a charge-back
4. Addict repeats cycle anyway
From NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/10/business/visa-mastercard-...
> Mastercard and Visa said they had prohibited the use of their cards on the adult website Pornhub, after the New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof reported that the platform included videos of child abuse and rape
BTW it’s silly of you to try to pretend to be some sort of industry expert and then immediately admit that you have never worked with porn payment processing. Everyone knows that the fraud rates for porn are very high, that’s not new.
What I am basing my statement off of is second hand knowledge from multiple people at one of the companies mentioned saying that the reason payment processors don't work with porn companies is because of fraud rates.
That's not definitive, but considering the person I was responding to gave us 0 reason to believe his statement is anything other than his opinion and his comment history shows a pattern asserting his opinion as fact. I'm going to assume he's talking out his ass and that I'm slightly more informed on this issue.
This is all well documented in mainstream media, I certainly shouldn’t need to provide any evidence to a purported industry insider.
This is a widely given explanation so I would entirely expect you to have heard it repeatedly in that context.
It is far less clear to what degree this explanation is accurate. Yes fraud rates are higher but they could easily be covered by charging higher processing fees (something that is often done for other risks.) There is pretty good evidence that other factors than fraud risk are at least partially responsible.
If you have an issue with people aaserting opinions as fact, maybe you should be more careful as you what you state as fact from a position of claimed authority.
This is exactly what happens, there are several payment processors (probiller, ccbill, epoch …) focusing on high risk transactions like porn.
I think a lot of people think the processors are doing this out of some moral high ground to try and kill off the pornography business, but that's not what's happening. It's all about risk and opportunity cost. I forget the exact numbers, but pornography and gambling are near the top of the list when you look at industries with the highest number of fraudulent transactions. When someone reports a transaction as fraudulent, the money to refund the customer comes out someone behind the scenes pocket and often that money gets tied up in limbo while everyone points fingers at everyone else. Dealing with fraudulent transactions is a massive headache that wastes a ton of time.
Most major processors just don't want to deal with the hassle and the ones who do charge extremely high fees to offset the extra risk. OF has probably been using a processor that doesn't allow for pornography this whole time, but the processor has been letting it slide. My guess would be the risk has finally grown too large and the processor is cracking down. Like I said, there are other processors out there who are happy to work with the porn industry for a much higher fee, but it seems like OF has decided for one reason or another that that isn't as lucrative as just banning explicit content all together.