- Oct 7, 2021
- 30
- 55
Have no illusions. The morality of corporations is tied exclusively to money.Isn't Patreon or PayPal only subject to the jurisdiction they are based in? If they are based in Silicon Valley, the only rules they have to follow are Californian and US Federal laws, correct?
It makes sense to me that if a random country like Romania has a problem with Romanians accessing incest AVNs, then that is Romania's problem to deal with. Crying to Patreon to take the content down is absurd.
Mega corporations receive money for enforcing morals, that is how ESG scoring works. Big hedge funds give them investment money for having good morals, for example, being environmentally sustainable, supporting pride and woke avenues, supporting unions, etc. They will easily lose money in sales and public perception for shit like this because they make money back through investment firms.
That said, as someone else has explained, (a) a corporation is subject to the laws of every jurisdiction in which it operates (there are some international rules for determining which jurisdictions apply to each act, but it's complicated, to say the least); (b) incest, understood as sexual intercourse between close relatives (precise definition of elements varies) is a felony is all US states (yes, even California) and several countries around the globe. Specifically in the US, failing to moderate content apologetic to illegal activity might lead to indirect liability. The protections bestowed on platforms by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 are not limitless; they do not shield from liability under criminal law or from intellectual property claims. It's no wonder at all that platforms feel pressured to shut down controversial content for fear of indirect liability. Cultivating a space for them makes little money, and could cost quite a bit. As MurkyTurtle said, "given the choice between a) keeping an armada of lawyers of staff to make sure that AVNs on their platform are kosher with the countries they serve and b) issuing a blanket ban on stuff that could potentially get them sued or criminally investigated, it's not surprising they'd go with the safer choice."