Patreon Acquires F95

[morphnet]

The rules seem fairly shady to me. Especially if the content is just art such as 2d or 3d drawn images or animation. I might understand if it's real people, but if the people are consenting adults and participate in a fictional piece of art it doesn't seem to make sense.

The argument about the rules is a separate one and I agree that they don't make sense (for the most part) and that there is a huge double standard for enforcing them by those that make them (Governments, Corporations, CC Companies etc.).

That is NOT the point here though. The point is that people are NOT doing their homework or even trying to get any information on the actual problem and are blindly blaming patreon, when patreon is as much a victim of the times as anyone.

Patreon is a business and is clearly willing to dip into the Adult market so long, as with any business, the returns are worth it.
In the case of the banned content, the returns are NOT worth it.

Why should they risk their business and the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of creators, including other adult game creators who DON'T have banned content just so a small group can add incest or beasty etc. to their games?

You must be registered to see the links

All = 246,064 creators with at least 1 paying member / $24,279,443 (excludes hidden earnings)

You must be registered to see the links

Adult games = 6,624 creators with at least 1 paying member / $2,105,490 (excludes hidden earnings)

From a business stand point it makes no sense to risk 24 million for 2 million and to risk potential growth of the business that 246 000 creators can pull in over a large number of different categories i.e. music, writing, photography, coding etc. etc. etc. compared to 6600 in a very small number of categories and the banned content groups are even smaller.

Not only are these people too lazy to think for themselves or at the very least look up the information but they are also focusing all their anger at the wrong target. That is three fails in a row.

All those moaning about patreon and bans can comfortably be ignored as quacks.

 

[MAKE DEEPFAKES]

Anyone trying to use "but other people's livelihood depends on these corporations continuing to exist!" to excuse anything can be safely ignored as a quack.

 

[morphnet]

Anyone trying to use "but other people's livelihood depends on these corporations continuing to exist!" to excuse anything can be safely ignored as a quack.

Ah yes, your post, overflowing with facts, information, sources and details....oh wait

but thank you for helping to prove my point for me....

 

[anne O'nymous]

I might understand if it's real people, but if the people are consenting adults and participate in a fictional piece of art it doesn't seem to make sense.

The rules include none real people because of a bad set of circumstances.
Someone reported, not to Patreon but directly to the payment processors, that there were peoples on Patreon that were engaged in prostitution. Then those persons discovered adult games and their underage, incest, non consensual sex and bestiality content, and obviously reported it too.
I'm almost sure that payment processors didn't cared that much about drawing and 3D renders, but they had to get rid of the prostitution thing. And they didn't had for moral reason, but for legal reason, they could lost their right to exist if they are involved in such activity.

All this led to a mess where Patreon was facing a wall that they can't get around. There's no way payment processors would have been pleased by a "ok, we will do what you ask for, but only for this or that". Would the issue only by incest, bestiality, none consensual sex, it would have been possible to say that they get rid of everything that involve real persons.
But for the prostitution and underage content, it was just impossible. It would have meant "we accept to be used as platform to fund prostitution/p*d*shit, but only if you just post drawing of the girls"... And, well, I don't have too much difficulties to imagine that it wouldn't have been received as well as expected.

 

[Puckhog27]

The rules include none real people because of a bad set of circumstances.
Someone reported, not to Patreon but directly to the payment processors, that there were peoples on Patreon that were engaged in prostitution. Then those persons discovered adult games and their underage, incest, non consensual sex and bestiality content, and obviously reported it too.
I'm almost sure that payment processors didn't cared that much about drawing and 3D renders, but they had to get rid of the prostitution thing. And they didn't had for moral reason, but for legal reason, they could lost their right to exist if they are involved in such activity.

All this led to a mess where Patreon was facing a wall that they can't get around. There's no way payment processors would have been pleased by a "ok, we will do what you ask for, but only for this or that". Would the issue only by incest, bestiality, none consensual sex, it would have been possible to say that they get rid of everything that involve real persons.
But for the prostitution and underage content, it was just impossible. It would have meant "we accept to be used as platform to fund prostitution/p*d*shit, but only if you just post drawing of the girls"... And, well, I don't have too much difficulties to imagine that it wouldn't have been received as well as expected.

I think the larger issue is that this shouldn't really be discussed at all. It's not really the business of a credit card company to discuss what is moral or not. Nor should they be involved in that type of discussion. They're simply the people that provide means for payment in an exchange. I don't understand how they can be accused of anything. It seems that something is wrong with the way the law works. It's allowing persons who disagree with certain ideas to pressure companies into not putting out content that makes them uncomfortable.

 

[anne O'nymous]

It's not really the business of a credit card company to discuss what is moral or not.

But it's their business to discuss what they have the right to do and what they are strictly forbidden, by the international regulation, to do.

But well, I'll not even loose my time answering more. You can't teach a fish how to climb, it's far above its cognitive abilities.

 

[Hagatagar]

You can't teach a fish how to climb, it's far above its cognitive abilities.

Uhm...



So, back to work?

 

[morphnet]

I think the larger issue is that this shouldn't really be discussed at all.

The problem is you are making the same mistake others have made and not realizing what the larger issue really is. In order to see what the larger issue is, you need to look at the big picture, right now you are looking at it from only one view point.
(explained below)

It's not really the business of a credit card company to discuss what is moral or not. Nor should they be involved in that type of discussion.

Ok let's look at the bigger picture, let's say for argument sake that the CC companies, investors etc. do NOT implement a set of rules over content.

Now a story breaks, Visa and master card fund creators of child abuse / exploitation images. The story lists realistic drawings, realistic 3d images and realistic AI images. In the same story it goes on to detail how the companies knew of these creations but did nothing and continued to offer their services to them, the story adds that among these, there were also adult games found containing incest, bestiality, rape, drugs use, murder (guro) etc.

Now putting aside for the moment the "acceptance" to the games / kinks (not the others) found in communities such as ours, how do you realistically think the world (general public) would react?

Do you have any idea of how important public image is to financial institutions? I'm sure you've heard the term investor confidence? What about people being worried their account might be frozen during an investigation? How many companies do you think would want to have their names and business associated with financial institutions that knowing handled money for people who created content NOT accepted by society?

I haven't even gotten to the legal issues that would arise etc.

They're simply the people that provide means for payment in an exchange.

The fact that you even wrote this sentence is very troubling and shows you're clearly lacking in either understanding or knowledge or both. First, four words, fraud, laundering, offshore accounts. It is anything but simple....

I don't understand how they can be accused of anything.

Either they knew money was going through their service to fund those creations, which most people would loose their shit over
or
They didn't know and they are completely incompetent, in which case who would want a financial service like that handling their money?

It seems that something is wrong with the way the law works.

This part I partially agree with on a personal level, I find it strange that people can enjoy incest in shows and movies and cartoons but games are not allowed. I personally think this means many people missed out on many gorgeous milf's and gilf's!
That being said, the law has ALWAYS been slow to catch up and as long as people keep blaming the wrong parties it will be even slower. Plus almost all those moaning about patreon would never dare write their government or governments representatives to ask that MOST (not all should be in my personal opinion) of these kinks be legalized for all fiction.

It's allowing persons who disagree with certain ideas to pressure companies into not putting out content that makes them uncomfortable.

That has nothing to do with it, I'm pretty sure many of those execs have some pretty kinky ideas and habits. It's about company image, reputation and standing.

I'm not sure why you do not understand the situation or concept here? Most of the people on this site would NEVER share the games they play or the porn they watch with family or friends, let alone a stranger. what do YOU think a stranger's reaction would be to hearing...

"I played a game last night, this mom let her son fuck her in the ass and then she took their dog for a walk and it fucked her in the park, after that she went to a spa and had 2 guys piss on her..."

Now if people don't want to be known to be associated with that in the general public, what makes you think banks and CC Companies would? and do you think the general public or other businesses would want to use banks who help creators of that kind of content by letting them use their services?

Until the laws get changed and the publics image of these kinks in games changes this is the reality of the situation.

 

[Wankyudo]

I haven't even gotten to the legal issues that would arise etc.



The fact that you even wrote this sentence is very troubling and shows you're clearly lacking in either understanding or knowledge or both. First, four words, fraud, laundering, offshore accounts. It is anything but simple....



Either they knew money was going through their service to fund those creations, which most people would loose their shit over
or
They didn't know and they are completely incompetent, in which case who would want a financial service like that handling their money?

Legal issues would be the payment processor's CEO's asshole will pucker getting a letter saying the SEC is coming to audit them for their failures to notice money moving around in things that could potentially be illegal. Then they have to try and convince the SEC that they did not know what was happening; which probably will fail and then someone is in federal prison. SEC is the truly terrifying boogeyman of the rich and the financial sector. Ain't nobody in the financial sector risking an audit for someones incest porn.

 

[KiraJames]

The problem is you are making the same mistake others have made and not realizing what the larger issue really is. In order to see what the larger issue is, you need to look at the big picture, right now you are looking at it from only one view point.
(explained below)



Ok let's look at the bigger picture, let's say for argument sake that the CC companies, investors etc. do NOT implement a set of rules over content.

Now a story breaks, Visa and master card fund creators of child abuse / exploitation images. The story lists realistic drawings, realistic 3d images and realistic AI images. In the same story it goes on to detail how the companies knew of these creations but did nothing and continued to offer their services to them, the story adds that among these, there were also adult games found containing incest, bestiality, rape, drugs use, murder (guro) etc.

Now putting aside for the moment the "acceptance" to the games / kinks (not the others) found in communities such as ours, how do you realistically think the world (general public) would react?

Do you have any idea of how important public image is to financial institutions? I'm sure you've heard the term investor confidence? What about people being worried their account might be frozen during an investigation? How many companies do you think would want to have their names and business associated with financial institutions that knowing handled money for people who created content NOT accepted by society?

I haven't even gotten to the legal issues that would arise etc.



The fact that you even wrote this sentence is very troubling and shows you're clearly lacking in either understanding or knowledge or both. First, four words, fraud, laundering, offshore accounts. It is anything but simple....



Either they knew money was going through their service to fund those creations, which most people would loose their shit over
or
They didn't know and they are completely incompetent, in which case who would want a financial service like that handling their money?



This part I partially agree with on a personal level, I find it strange that people can enjoy incest in shows and movies and cartoons but games are not allowed. I personally think this means many people missed out on many gorgeous milf's and gilf's!
That being said, the law has ALWAYS been slow to catch up and as long as people keep blaming the wrong parties it will be even slower. Plus almost all those moaning about patreon would never dare write their government or governments representatives to ask that MOST (not all should be in my personal opinion) of these kinks be legalized for all fiction.



That has nothing to do with it, I'm pretty sure many of those execs have some pretty kinky ideas and habits. It's about company image, reputation and standing.

I'm not sure why you do not understand the situation or concept here? Most of the people on this site would NEVER share the games they play or the porn they watch with family or friends, let alone a stranger. what do YOU think a stranger's reaction would be to hearing...

"I played a game last night, this mom let her son fuck her in the ass and then she took their dog for a walk and it fucked her in the park, after that she went to a spa and had 2 guys piss on her..."

Now if people don't want to be known to be associated with that in the general public, what makes you think banks and CC Companies would? and do you think the general public or other businesses would want to use banks who help creators of that kind of content by letting them use their services?

Until the laws get changed and the publics image of these kinks in games changes this is the reality of the situation.

well said

 

[Maurocarro]

All this time i tough that this was serious at that moment, thank god

 

[Puckhog27]

I feel that even with the bigger picture in view it makes little sense. This kind of material has been sold online using credit cards for ages, but the rules are newly implemented.

 

[morphnet]

I feel that even with the bigger picture in view it makes little sense. This kind of material has been sold online using credit cards for ages, but the rules are newly implemented.

Actually you would be wrong there, financial services and lawmakers have been targeting all sectors of the adult industry for decades. From small businesses to amateur NSFW creators. The targets of the rules have changed slightly as new products become popular (in this case adult gaming) but they have been around in one form or another for decades now.

2014

You must be registered to see the links

" Discover, however, allows customers to purchase legal adult porn. Visa doesn't block porn purchases either, but says individual banks can decide to deny these transactions if they deem them to be too risky. "

2015

You must be registered to see the links

" For nearly a decade, PayPal, JPMorgan Chase, Visa/MasterCard, and now Square, have systematically denied or closed accounts of small businesses, artists and independent contractors whose business happens to be about sex. These payment processing authorities have also coerced websites to cease featuring sexual content under threat of service withdrawal, all while blaming ambiguous rules or pressure from one another. "

and

" In March 2014, PayPal nailed subscription-model crowdfunding platform Patreon, which emailed its users saying, "We got a notice from Paypal this morning that they were shutting down their entire integration with Patreon because of "adult content" on our site!" Patreon told Engadget, "Paypal informed us that we were violating their terms of service by using PayPal to support creators that made NSFW content. We complied and removed Paypal as a payment option for those creators." "

As you can see this has been going on for a long time and they are still using the same tactics of threatening service withdrawal to coerce companies into following their rules. The only thing that has really changed is that "some" porn game genres have been added to their list (for now at least).

Plus you can see patreon has been under pressure for some time now too and yet they still allow limited NSFW content but people ignore this fact and make patreon out to be the bad guy.
As I said in other posts, patreon is as much a victim here as some dev's are, blaming patreon is blaming the wrong target.

You will also notice that no matter how "angry" some of the posters here, hating on patreon are, you won't find them posting to bank support services or writing law makers. I wonder why that is, if they are so passionate about their incest, beasty, rapey etc games?

 

[Puckhog27]

Actually you would be wrong there, financial services and lawmakers have been targeting all sectors of the adult industry for decades. From small businesses to amateur NSFW creators. The targets of the rules have changed slightly as new products become popular (in this case adult gaming) but they have been around in one form or another for decades now.

2014

You must be registered to see the links

" Discover, however, allows customers to purchase legal adult porn. Visa doesn't block porn purchases either, but says individual banks can decide to deny these transactions if they deem them to be too risky. "

2015

You must be registered to see the links

" For nearly a decade, PayPal, JPMorgan Chase, Visa/MasterCard, and now Square, have systematically denied or closed accounts of small businesses, artists and independent contractors whose business happens to be about sex. These payment processing authorities have also coerced websites to cease featuring sexual content under threat of service withdrawal, all while blaming ambiguous rules or pressure from one another. "

and

" In March 2014, PayPal nailed subscription-model crowdfunding platform Patreon, which emailed its users saying, "We got a notice from Paypal this morning that they were shutting down their entire integration with Patreon because of "adult content" on our site!" Patreon told Engadget, "Paypal informed us that we were violating their terms of service by using PayPal to support creators that made NSFW content. We complied and removed Paypal as a payment option for those creators." "

As you can see this has been going on for a long time and they are still using the same tactics of threatening service withdrawal to coerce companies into following their rules. The only thing that has really changed is that "some" porn game genres have been added to their list (for now at least).

Plus you can see patreon has been under pressure for some time now too and yet they still allow limited NSFW content but people ignore this fact and make patreon out to be the bad guy.
As I said in other posts, patreon is as much a victim here as some dev's are, blaming patreon is blaming the wrong target.

You will also notice that no matter how "angry" some of the posters here, hating on patreon are, you won't find them posting to bank support services or writing law makers. I wonder why that is, if they are so passionate about their incest, beasty, rapey etc games?

I don't think that writing to lawmakers would do any good for someone as measly as me, but a content company can at least take stances on freedom of content and speech. I'm sure there are clauses in the constitution in America that would prevent people from blocking certain types of fantasy art/content.

 

[Count Morado]

I'm sure there are clauses in the constitution in America that would prevent people from blocking certain types of fantasy art/content.

There are not.

Feel free to review:

You must be registered to see the links

 

[Puckhog27]

According to this there is a law that protects against obscenities and child pornography, but the first is vague and rarely enforced. I've never condoned child pornography, but if any content that contained rape were to be banned that would remove many movies (both mainstream and porn) from the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, and early 2000s. It seems like this law was added later and doesn't really make much sense other than to protect minors or prevent depictions of child pornography.

You must be registered to see the links

 

[morphnet]

I don't think that writing to lawmakers would do any good for someone as measly as me, but a content company can at least take stances on freedom of content and speech.

That is a bad way of looking at it, expecting companies who have no vested interest in certain content to stand up and risk their companies for it make no sense, adult gaming is only a small part of the hosted adult community and the content in question is an even smaller part of that.

You must be registered to see the links

Now while this is not directed at you, people need to firstly educate themselves on what the actual problem is AND who is actually to blame, they then need to follow the correct steps if they ever expect anything to actually change. Leaving it up to the "other guy" is never a good solution and will almost always end in failure.

I'm sure there are clauses in the constitution in America that would prevent people from blocking certain types of fantasy art/content.

There are laws and rulings that do protect this, which is why people can larp D&D or lord of the rings but start getting naked and larping "my orc master" and it will be a very different story....

Now I could be wrong here but I'm 99.9999% certain NO country's constitution was ever formed with the members taking incest, rape etc VN's, SLG's, RPG's etc. into consideration when forming it.

As for clauses in the american constitution (original and later amendments) preventing anyone (local, state or federal) from blocking incest, rape, beasty etc. in games, there aren't any.

According to this there is a law that protects against obscenities and child pornography, but the first is vague and rarely enforced. I've never condoned child pornography, but if any content that contained rape were to be banned that would remove many movies (both mainstream and porn) from the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, and early 2000s. It seems like this law was added later and doesn't really make much sense other than to protect minors or prevent depictions of child pornography.

You must be registered to see the links

" Obscenity refers to a narrow category of pornography that violates contemporary community standards and has no serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. "

The very beginning of that article explains clearly why some of the games are NOT protected.

Does a game that allows a player to romance his mother and then have sex with her violate contemporary community standards? Yes
Does a game that allows a player to drug their mother and have sex with her while passed out violate contemporary community standards? even more so yes
Does a game that allows the player to play a FMC and have her have sex with a dog violate contemporary community standards? again yes
I don't think we even need to ask about rape....

plus the article goes on to say....

"and Supreme Court justices have struggled mightily through the years to define it."

but then adds...

" Justice Potter Stewart could provide no definition for obscenity in Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964), but he did exclaim: “I know it when I see it.” "

Also if you read further it states that there have been calls for a standard to be set up but steps have not yet been set in motion. Further in the article by the violence in games section it also clearly states that the constitution allows for obscenity to be regulated.

" The Supreme Court invalidated the law in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (2011), writing that “violence is not part of the obscenity that the Constitution permits to be regulated.” "

So in the end the general point of that article is that contemporary community standards are applied right now when looking into whether a product can be classified as obscene and regulated and while there have been (still are) calls for a standard to be set, as there is not one at the moment, games with banned content are no protected and the constitution allows for them to be regulated and where needed cases to be prosecuted.

 

[-CookieMonster666-]

Also, one shouldn't confuse the Constitution with other laws in general. The Constitution is specifically meant in reference to the federal government of America and the universal rights of all American citizens. Unless there is some conflict that brings a state or municipal law into direct conflict with federal law, the Constitution (and so all of the amendments as well) applies only on a federal level. For example, freedom of speech is something the federal government is prohibited from curtailing in any way (despite what floats around the U.S. Congress these days in proposals); that does not prohibit a state government from regulating whatever they consider "hate speech", nor does it stop a private platform from having terms of use that prohibit certain kinds of speech because that is a private forum and not the federal government.

 

[Wankyudo]

Also, one shouldn't confuse the Constitution with other laws in general. The Constitution is specifically meant in reference to the federal government of America and the universal rights of all American citizens. Unless there is some conflict that brings a state or municipal law into direct conflict with federal law, the Constitution (and so all of the amendments as well) applies only on a federal level. For example, freedom of speech is something the federal government is prohibited from curtailing in any way (despite what floats around the U.S. Congress these days in proposals); that does not prohibit a state government from regulating whatever they consider "hate speech", nor does it stop a private platform from having terms of use that prohibit certain kinds of speech because that is a private forum and not the federal government.

I love you for saying this just because it's mind-boggling how many times the argument people use for why a private company shouldn't restrict speech on their platforms is "Hurrr...Fweedom of Spweech!"

 

[-CookieMonster666-]

I love you for saying this just because it's mind-boggling how many times the argument people use for why a private company shouldn't restrict speech on their platforms is "Hurrr...Fweedom of Spweech!"

I definitely don't disagree with you, although I can understand why a lot of folks might say that. In addition to the legal right to free speech in America, up until the last couple of decades there was also a cultural understanding of free speech. What that amounts to is effectively a social agreement: people generally treated each other with the same attitude that is mandated of the federal government. "You and I can disagree heavily — and even loathe each other — but we should still be allowed to say how we feel without trying to kill each other or destroy one another's livelihoods." Basically, "if you are gross in what you say, stay the hell away from me." It's only relatively recently that people have actually tried going after one another because of things they say.

Whether you agree with this idea or not, that's generally how it had been in America until the early 2010s. That definitely meant you might've encountered some people who made your skin crawl or about whom you'd imagine doing unspeakable things to with a tire iron out behind the toolshed. But unless you were a psycho it never used to mean you'd actually do anything in response. So, if a person then takes that traditional attitude about speech into a social space, they run into what you've described.