"DLSite just deleted the 'petite' tag and blocked off access from overseas " - X (Twitter)

[sugubepilef]

Being laughed at sucks, but it isn't too bad when you're winning.

honestly i dont think theyre winning, the inconvenience is temporary, the hardening of the services is eternal, so much being done yet anyone can still discover and access anything with relative ease?, while the attacks linearly weaken as measures are taken to work around them, be it by alternative payment, login requirement, or ddos safeguards

 

[smnb]

It depends. Judging only by internet, it may look as occasional inconvenience, but there are so many alternatives to anything, so who cares. But there's more to it.

Like with this popular Japanese cultural export. When internet started to be widely available to everyone, the world discovered their "naughty drawings", it was new and exciting, there were various genres for anyone, and it was nice. Sometimes fucking weird, but whatever was in there wasn't real, so nothing to worry about. Since then (aside from the supply growing massively and taking new forms), somebody is quite successfully normalizing nonsensical idea that no, there's actually much to worry about, because those fictional characters definitely represent real people and whatever is done to them is almost same as if it was done to real people, and anyone who likes it surely wants to do it to real people, so the horror, we must act, protect innocents! It's bullshit, but they already pushed it into laws. That's a big thing.

Did it affect internet? Not much so far, but I don't see how it could be avoidable in long term. That's the thing, with laws behind you, you can do a lot, go after individual servers, if you can't reach them directly, then harass anyone related to them, because they need someone to handle their payments, server hosting, internet connectivity, etc.

 

[Omnom88]

Omnom88: Sorry, language problem, I meant the people who have trouble understanding difference between fiction and reality and want to get rid of everything. We may laugh at them for not getting it, but they can easily get over it, because they have the results they want.

No problem here i understood what you said. It was also less about the third ragebait post here in this infothread.
More so the notion of "they are winning" and the ramifications behinds these words.
Reading that string of a conversation spawned by the ragebaiter made me think. How many people probably lack a scope a. o. oversight of the serious issue at hand.

So i will try to make a effort sharing my findings. This isnt everything but mostly what i seen or read about.

Spoiler

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

 

[smnb]

"For the sake of brand protection PISA and partners will regulate how they will involve themselves with inappropriate content from japan"

Right, because if they didn't and their customers found out, they would switch to another CC company, there are so many to choose from. No, of course not.

It's no surprise that CC companies are involved, in a sense that with their power they are perfect for this. At the same time it's a mystery why they are involved. Did anyone ask them to? Who? And if so, why would they listen? They are holding world's payments by the balls and it doesn't seem possible to get rid of them. Or was it really their idea, because ... why? They hate money? Nah, that's not it. There's the argument that whole nsfw stuff is problematic, because of more frequent chargebacks, but that's not good enough. The market exists and isn't going away. If they don't want it, someone else will (even though it will be difficult). Which would weaken their current position, because if they can be replaced in one place, it can happen elsewhere too. I'd like to know what's really going on, but realistically, my chances to discover it are zero.

 

[sugubepilef]

I'd like to know what's really going on, but realistically, my chances to discover it are zero.

Around 5 years ago when suddenly patreon, paypal etc all these sites who mostly deal with online content creators. Changed their TOS around nsfw content almost simultaneously.

anything happen around 2018-2019 that could conveniently connect the dots?

 

[powerfulchris07]

so many people are simply terrified of cunny

 

[Omnom88]

Weird timing but

Spoiler

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

 

[RosesInBlue]

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

Proposed bills to discourage payment processors from denying service to people who abide by the law.
Very relevant to this thread and I urge US citizens reading this to share their thoughts on these bills with their house representatives and senators.

 

[crimsoncarmine]

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

Proposed bills to discourage payment processors from denying service to people who abide by the law.
Very relevant to this thread and I urge US citizens reading this to share their thoughts on these bills with their house representatives and senators.
View attachment 5053487

I wonder how the EU would step in so that these payment processors don't hold so much power.

 

[VegitoHlove]

The worst worry I have, as some here have also stated is that when it goes even further. They'll start with the most controversial of porn because it's the easiest target. But it will go further into the mainstream.

 

[ehendu]

View attachment 4587907

While some of these tag changes are hilarious and feel like they're mocking the "need" for a change in the name (beast buddies, sharing is caring, very mean, family matters), others are obnoxious because in order to change the tag they move it to something that already has its own meaning (dub-con is distinct from rape, petite distinct from loli, and discipline is distinct from sexual training from what I can tell).

Loli -> Petite and the subsequent censorship of petite is extra annoying since petite shouldn't need to mean underage and this just makes it harder to find adult content with B-cups and smaller that aren't underage...

 

[RosesInBlue]

I wonder how the EU would step in so that these payment processors don't hold so much power.

The EU has regulations for payment services operating within and across its borders. These regulations currently exist mostly to prevent fraud.
Citizens can give feedback on active initiatives here:

You must be registered to see the links

There aren't currently any initiatives that attempt to prevent payment services from discriminating against entities engaged in lawful commerce based on the moral preferences of these payment services.

Proposing legislation can be done by nation leaders, the European Parliament or the citizens of EU member states.
If you know about Stop Killing Games, that's a European Citizens’ Initiative. One such initiative could be proposed to expand payment service regulations to include limitations for denial of service.
Again, if you know about Stop Killing Games, you probably know the difficulty of garnering sufficient support for an initiative. You'll need to spread the word and preferably have one or more spokespersons for the cause.

 

[Count Morado]

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

Proposed bills to discourage payment processors from denying service to people who abide by the law.
Very relevant to this thread and I urge US citizens reading this to share their thoughts on these bills with their house representatives and senators.
View attachment 5053487

This bill does not do what you think it does. It has no effect on the topic at hand. One of the reasons this bill was introduced was because certain financial institutions were not offering loans, etc to firearm and ammunition manufacturers due to "high risk" assessments simply because of their field, not looking at the client individually. This would not change how banks and cc companies regulate their own business regarding certain content within the adult industry.

In the US, the "right to bear arms" is constitutionallly protected. In order to show discrimination, you have to first show you are in a protected class (race, gender, religion, etc) and then to show how you are being discriminated based upon that class. This does not apply because incest and rape content for the purposes of sexual gratification has no protected status.

 

[RosesInBlue]

This bill does not do what you think it does. It has no effect on the topic at hand. One of the reasons this bill was introduced was because certain financial institutions were not offering loans, etc to firearm and ammunition manufacturers due to "high risk" assessments simply because of their field, not looking at the client individually. This would not change how banks and cc companies regulate their own business regarding certain content within the adult industry.

In the US, the "right to bear arms" is constitutionallly protected. In order to show discrimination, you have to first show you are in a protected class (race, gender, religion, etc) and then to show how you are being discriminated based upon that class. This does not apply because incest and rape content for the purposes of sexual gratification has no protected status.

Explain how the following do not affect the topic at hand:

"No member bank with more than $50,000,000,000 in total consolidated assets, or subsidiary of the member bank, may use a discount window lending program if the member bank or subsidiary refuses to do business with any person who is in compliance with the law, including section 8 of the Fair Access to Banking Act."

"No payment card network, including a subsidiary of a payment card network, may, directly or through any agent, processor, or licensed member of the network, by contract, requirement, condition, penalty, or otherwise, prohibit or inhibit the ability of any person who is in compliance with the law, including section 8 of this Act, to obtain access to services or products of the payment card network because of political or reputational risk considerations."

"Congress finds that—
...
while fair access to financial services does not obligate a financial institution to offer any particular financial service to the public, or to operate in any particular geographic area, or to provide a service the financial institution offers to any particular person, it is necessary that—
...
the financial services a financial institution chooses to offer in the geographic areas in which the financial institution operates be made available to all customers based on the quantitative, impartial risk-based standards of the financial institution, and not based on whether the customer is in a particular category of customers
...
financial institutions assess the risks posed by individual customers on a case-by-case basis, rather than category-based assessment; and
...
financial institutions implement controls to manage relationships commensurate with these risks associated with each customer, not a strategy of total avoidance of particular industries or categories of customers"

The bill does not specify any relation to the second amendment, but it does refer to article I of the Constitution.

 

[Count Morado]

Explain how the following do not affect the topic at hand:

"No member bank with more than $50,000,000,000 in total consolidated assets, or subsidiary of the member bank, may use a discount window lending program if the member bank or subsidiary refuses to do business with any person who is in compliance with the law, including section 8 of the Fair Access to Banking Act."

"No payment card network, including a subsidiary of a payment card network, may, directly or through any agent, processor, or licensed member of the network, by contract, requirement, condition, penalty, or otherwise, prohibit or inhibit the ability of any person who is in compliance with the law, including section 8 of this Act, to obtain access to services or products of the payment card network because of political or reputational risk considerations."

"Congress finds that—
...
while fair access to financial services does not obligate a financial institution to offer any particular financial service to the public, or to operate in any particular geographic area, or to provide a service the financial institution offers to any particular person, it is necessary that—
...
the financial services a financial institution chooses to offer in the geographic areas in which the financial institution operates be made available to all customers based on the quantitative, impartial risk-based standards of the financial institution, and not based on whether the customer is in a particular category of customers
...
financial institutions assess the risks posed by individual customers on a case-by-case basis, rather than category-based assessment; and
...
financial institutions implement controls to manage relationships commensurate with these risks associated with each customer, not a strategy of total avoidance of particular industries or categories of customers"

The bill does not specify any relation to the second amendment, but it does refer to article I of the Constitution.

I already explained it.

And so did you:

financial institutions implement controls to manage relationships commensurate with these risks associated with each customer, not a strategy of total avoidance of particular industries or categories of customers"​

incest and rape content for sexual gratification is not a particular industry nor category of customer.

Also, part of legislation research is looking at the intent of a bill's introduction and support... Not just the wording of it. See:

You must be registered to see the links

 

[RosesInBlue]

I already explained it.

And so did you:

financial institutions implement controls to manage relationships commensurate with these risks associated with each customer, not a strategy of total avoidance of particular industries or categories of customers"​

incest and rape content for sexual gratification is not a particular industry nor category of customer.

Also, part of legislation research is looking at the intent of a bill's introduction and support... Not just the wording of it. See:

You must be registered to see the links

Do you not think requiring objective risk assessment of each customer would affect how payment services deny relations based on special interests?

The NSSF article you linked highlights that the Act "also protects banks from outside pressure by special interest groups seeking to use the banks as a political weapon to advance their agenda", which is exactly what is happening with payment processors that are making content requirements from platforms like DLsite and Steam (you may look into how Collective Shout does this).

The legislation would have a letter-of-the-law implementation as part of its function, it would not solely act upon the unspoken motivations of its supporters and sponsors.
MasterCard would need to justify denial of service beyond "political or reputational risk considerations". Specifically, "the financial institutions must rely on empirical data that are evaluated consistent with the established, impartial risk-management standards of the financial institution".

You may argue that they can make an assessment that fictional depiction of incest and non-con may constitute such "quantified and documented failure of the person to meet quantitative, impartial risk-based standards", but they will have to actually and properly perform that assessment for each customer. This would be far more sound than the current standard of acting as un-elected arbiters of what content can feasibly exist on the market, acting at the behest of individuals or special interest groups to eliminate certain content.

 

[sugubepilef]

Again, if you know about Stop Killing Games, you probably know the difficulty of garnering sufficient support for an initiative.

If something as simple as preserving existing media from complete deletion at no* cost almost failed, its safe to say this is never gonna happen from the bottom-up, but still, all engagement is helpful in the long term

 

[Count Morado]

Do you not think requiring objective risk assessment of each customer would affect how payment services deny relations based on special interests?

The NSSF article you linked highlights that the Act "also protects banks from outside pressure by special interest groups seeking to use the banks as a political weapon to advance their agenda", which is exactly what is happening with payment processors that are making content requirements from platforms like DLsite and Steam (you may look into how Collective Shout does this).

The legislation would have a letter-of-the-law implementation as part of its function, it would not solely act upon the unspoken motivations of its supporters and sponsors.
MasterCard would need to justify denial of service beyond "political or reputational risk considerations". Specifically, "the financial institutions must rely on empirical data that are evaluated consistent with the established, impartial risk-management standards of the financial institution".

You may argue that they can make an assessment that fictional depiction of incest and non-con may constitute such "quantified and documented failure of the person to meet quantitative, impartial risk-based standards", but they will have to actually and properly perform that assessment for each customer. This would be far more sound than the current standard of acting as un-elected arbiters of what content can feasibly exist on the market, acting at the behest of individuals or special interest groups to eliminate certain content.

Good luck, but you are barking up the wrong tree with thinking this bill would do anything that would have anything to do with this topic. Your attempt to connect your advocacy to this bill does not align with the bill's intent. Again, it's about categories and classes of people and businesses - not about said content. The banks and CC companies are working with the funding and game platforms. They are not denying business to those category of businesses - those which are the clients and those which something like this bill would affect.

Especially from members of the political party who sponsored (and many co-sponsored) this bill... the party which seeks to restrict access to pornographic materials either through requiring sites use better age-verification methods or other restrictive means regarding adult content.

Have a lovely day.

 

[RosesInBlue]

Good luck, but you are barking up the wrong tree with thinking this bill would do anything that would have anything to do with this topic. Your attempt to connect your advocacy to this bill does not align with the bill's intent. Again, it's about categories and classes of people and businesses - not about said content. The banks and CC companies are working with the funding and game platforms. They are not denying business to those category of businesses - those which are the clients and those which something like this bill would affect.

Especially from members of the political party who sponsored (and many co-sponsored) this bill... the party which seeks to restrict access to pornographic materials either through requiring sites use better age-verification methods or other restrictive means regarding adult content.

Have a lovely day.

I understand your point, but I really think you've committed yourself to a narrow understanding of the Act.

Payment processors cannot under the enactment of the bill "by contract, requirement, condition, penalty, or otherwise" prohibit platforms to use their services.

Telling Steam they cannot offer adult games that have elements such as hypnosis or they would not be allowed to make use of the payment processors' services is quite clearly a dynamic that would be affected by this legislation.

Disallowing categories of industries and persons to be discriminated against is not the entirety of the Act just because it's part of it.

The GOP clearly revels in censorship and obscenity laws, but these bills are not written to be wielded only by the ideology of its originators. Parts of the text of a law cannot be handwaved when considering its effects.

 

[Count Morado]

I understand your point, but I really think you've committed yourself to a narrow understanding of the Act.

Payment processors cannot under the enactment of the bill "by contract, requirement, condition, penalty, or otherwise" prohibit platforms to use their services.

Telling Steam they cannot offer adult games that have elements such as hypnosis or they would not be allowed to make use of the payment processors' services is quite clearly a dynamic that would be affected by this legislation.

Disallowing categories of industries and persons to be discriminated against is not the entirety of the Act just because it's part of it.

The GOP clearly revels in censorship and obscenity laws, but these bills are not written to be wielded only by the ideology of its originators. Parts of the text of a law cannot be handwaved when considering its effects.

Telling Steam they cannot offer adult games that have elements such as hypnosis or they would not be allowed to make use of the payment processors' services is quite clearly a dynamic that would be affected by this legislation. --- No, it would not. There is no part of this legislation that would affect what you think it would. It is not cutting out categories or classes of people / businesses without taking into consideration individual characteristics. By saying "we will process payments for adult content except certain content such as incest and rape" shows they are taking into account individual characteristics.

It's not about reading the bill narrowly. Also, it is not an act. It is only a bill. Just a bill. And it is about reading the text of the bill, the intent of the bill, and the historical context of the bill. That is a major way courts uphold or dismiss cases based upon legislation written after a bill is enacted into law.

The bill does not do nor even makes steps toward what you think it does. And yes, parts of the text of a bill once enacted can be "handwaved" as being too broad or not applicable... Courts can uphold whole legislation but state one part is too broad or too burdensome or offer other legal reasoning to do so and therefore is not enforceable. The courts do this regularly - 'upheld in one part, dismissed in one part".

And yes, if the GOP ever thought that this would allow content that they considered obscene or morally reprehensible to get through the cracks - they would either drop it like a hot potato or simply amend it before attempting passage with something about "obscenity" or "religious" exemptions. And, as we have seen with SCOTUS in the recent past - "religious" exemptions are being allowed more and more often. Even for businesses.

No, this bill doesn't do what you want it to do. Even should someone find some loophole that incest and rape content could be considered - there would be action to make it not happen. But the problem is freedom of expression is limited and part of the way it is limited is through the Miller Test - if it is considered obscene through the Miller Test - it falls outside of freedom of expression. Creating content for sexual gratification that is incest-centric or rape-centric would be tough to pass the Miller Test were it to be placed before the court.

You know what, contact Congressman Andy Barr's office - Phone: (202) 225-4706 - and ask them directly if the bill he introduced would do what you think it would do.