Camming related political rant (sorry)

[VeronicaChaos]

I'd like to point out that a lot of this so-called "hate speech" or whatever is actually just anti-authoritarian/indepedent/conservative in nature. YouTube just demonitized a shit ton of channels that are in no way hate speech or harassment or anything other than "I disagree with popular liberal ideology." Sure, they didn't ban them, but they didn't have to to effectively silence them. The same way that there isn't legal censorship of a lot of porn, but it doesn't matter because credit cards won't touch it anyway.

So yes, these are all private companies, and yes, it's all perfectly legal, but it's pretty scary that our main lines of modern communication are being led with a specific narrative.

 

[Mikey_P]

I didn't want to do a credit or debit card payment for tokens and I had to make several of those smaller amount payments at 9.99/ 95 tokens until Paypal blocked my ability to purchase. I was able to purchase 7 times, then Paypal put down the hammer.

I get that it is mostly about chargebacks but Paypal handles more disputes with Ebay purchases than they likely would from some guy tipping on MFC.

 

[Fatquack]

Because it's not globally legal. They don't want to be potentially locked out of future markets or deal with the PR of restricting later because they had to change policy to enter a new market.

Paypal does do business with the adult industry, so that is just not true. The reason you don't see Paypal on every adult site is that you can only use Paypal through Epoch and you have to do all your billing (or a very high volume) with Epoch to qualify for the Paypal option. Epoch takes the risk for chargebacks, but of course that is reflected in the cut they take. Most adult businesses want the option to use multiple payment processors or just don't have enough volume. It is still restricted for some countries though.

 

[bud9752]

"First they came ..." is a poem written by German Lutheran pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984). It is about the cowardice of German intellectuals following the Nazis' rise to power and subsequent purging of their chosen targets, group after group. Many variations and adaptations in the spirit of the original have been published in the English language. It deals with themes of persecution, guilt and responsibility.


First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

 

[fandango]

I'd like to point out that a lot of this so-called "hate speech" or whatever is actually just anti-authoritarian/indepedent/conservative in nature. YouTube just demonitized a shit ton of channels that are in no way hate speech or harassment or anything other than "I disagree with popular liberal ideology." Sure, they didn't ban them, but they didn't have to to effectively silence them. The same way that there isn't legal censorship of a lot of porn, but it doesn't matter because credit cards won't touch it anyway.

So yes, these are all private companies, and yes, it's all perfectly legal, but it's pretty scary that our main lines of modern communication are being led with a specific narrative.

This is exactly why I feel it should be illegal to discriminate who to offer your services to as long as what they are doing is legal. Companies shouldn't be allowed to pick and choose which groups can use their services as long as said group or person hasn't commited some crime. These economic sanctions are a much more effective form of censorship and forcing people to think a certain way than rounding people up and arresting them for their views.

You might not get arrested but its probably even harder to live. At least in jail you'd get food, a roof and a bed. If you get your job taken, and banks refuse to deal with you and you can't eat, pay your rent or basically function in society.

 

[Ms_Gingersnatch]

Her thread is a RANT she's not call for anything here just airing of thought. She's merely pointing out hypocrisy in the fact that society has put up more of a defense to combat legal sex work than it has in years to silence direct hate and racism.

Yes, most of what I was getting at was just the discrepancy in free speech expectations between the two groups. I'm not asking for porn and camming to be allowed into mainstream digital spaces - although the current system is inconvenient as fuck, and there are some aspects I would change, a lot of it is for the best. Nor am I asking for any particular treatment of Nazis or white supremacists, as each platform ought to decide that for itself.

However, both legal adult content and hate group stuff are facing restrictions because of the moral sensibilities of mainstream society, not because they are outright illegal, so they really shouldn't be treated any differently under the First Amendment. The idea that sex stuff obviously shouldn't be allowed on FB, but maybe we should go to bat for white supremacists' "FB rights" makes no sense to me, especially because white supremacy seems much worse on the "evil scale" than porn.

What also irked me was the idea that being kicked off mainstream internet platforms is some terrible and unique tribulation that is specifically targeting the alt-right. White supremacists definitely aren't the first group to experience the phenomenon, and the adult industry has managed to live with the exact same restrictions. The "omg, you can't do this to us, how do you expect people to live and express themselves without FB and PP, freeee speeeech!" thing comes across as entitled and whiny.

I'm fine with companies deciding whether to allow adult performers use of their services. Our occupation is not a protected group, and it shouldn't be. Being a camgirl is a choice. Occupations are not equal to races, gender identities etc (i'm looking at you BlueLivesMatter). What I do wish we'd start teaching these folks, whether they're Nazis or Liberals or Strippers is what freedom of speech actually means.

Want to kneel during the national anthem? You have freedom of speech and won't be ARRESTED.
Want to talk smack about the President? You have freedom of speech and won't be ARRESTED.
Want to peacefully protest in appropriate areas at appropriate times? You have freedom of speech and won't be ARRESTED.

In no way are you protected from being fired, disliked, banned from a private company etc. for your opinions or actions. Facebook can ban folks just like Amber can ban them here. We aren't entitled to anything outside of not being thrown into a jail cell.

I agree with this so much. The first amendment is about government censorship. People really like to throw around free speech as though it should protect you from all the consequences of whatever you say. If you say something that other people dislike, citizens and private companies are permitted to take any legal actions they like against you. (I can't punch, threaten, or overtly harass someone because of what they say, but that's not because they have free speech, it's because assault, threats, and harassment are illegal.)

As long as they aren't discriminating against protected classes, companies should be able to decide what sorts of content they're willing to host on their sites.** However, if America decides that uncensored speech on FB is a right and companies aren't allowed to regulate hate speech and similarly objectionable content on their own platforms, then society better be prepared to open Pandora's box to all the (legal) things. My fear is that that somehow Nazis will be awarded a constitutional right to FB, but the adult industry will still be relegated to the shadows.


**EDIT: I mean this in the legal sense, not the social/moral sense. I think they shouldn't be legally obligated to allow all speech on their platforms. In terms of whether or not I like the idea of social media censorship, I go back and forth. I don't want them censoring me, so I wonder if I need to object when they censor others. But I also don't want all of the internet to be the wild west, so someone somewhere needs to regulate some behaviors.

 

[Peekabooh]

There are cases where the financial service providers lost. Indeed in the case attached on the first amendment.

Personally I think what is written in this article is much more to the point.

https://www.engadget.com/amp/2015/12/02/paypal-square-and-big-bankings-war-on-the-sex-industry/

It's discrimination of females. The few males working as sex worker are so low, you could see this as discrimination on gender.

 

[Mikey_P]

"First they came ..." is a poem written by German Lutheran pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984). It is about the cowardice of German intellectuals following the Nazis' rise to power and subsequent purging of their chosen targets, group after group. Many variations and adaptations in the spirit of the original have been published in the English language. It deals with themes of persecution, guilt and responsibility.

.

Moreover, allowing free speech actually keeps us safe. It allows us to point out the crazies and it takes these divisive anti-American values movement out of the basement and it doesn't allow their hate to stew. At the height of this, it allows a dialectical discussion.

 

[Dan Epstein]

I'm not an expert in American politics, however the last year with the adult community taught something important. Adult entertainment, has always been, and I hope that always will be, an important watch dog for keeping democracy, diversity, free speech, and the ability to disagree. There's no way I could have learned this in a Vanilla community. I'm proud to be taught a lesson in here, by cool and tolerant people.

 

[Gen]

It's discrimination of females. The few males working as sex worker are so low, you could see this as discrimination on gender.

That seems like a big reach to me. The vast majority of women can use PayPal without issue. The reasons they "discriminate" against sex workers are pretty clearly because of our services, not our gender.

 

[mynameisbob84]

It's discrimination of females. The few males working as sex worker are so low, you could see this as discrimination on gender.

You could see it that way (if you chose to) but then you would also surely have to view the white supremacists being banned from various services as being discrimination against males as most of them seem to be male.

 

[penfold_43]

It's discrimination of females. The few males working as sex worker are so low, you could see this as discrimination on gender.

Correlation is not causation. #statistcs

 

[JickyJuly]

That seems like a big reach to me. The vast majority of women can use PayPal without issue. The reasons they "discriminate" against sex workers are pretty clearly because of our services, not our gender.

Yeah. I mean, I agree that the stigma attached to sex work is based in misogyny. It's hard to make a case that stigma alone is the reason that a company like Paypal would avoid sex workers though. We're $ if you take us at surface value, and most companies like $. BUT, there's the danger for misuse as sex work laws vary from even town to town. Personally, if I were a $ transfer company, I'd ban us. Too much hassle. No thank you.

Editing to add: I doubt either group is banned as a moral choice (nazi money is money...doubt Paypal has banned purchasing Chanel through their services) but just to avoid unnecessary litigation involvement or extra insurance needs.

 

[RogueWarrior]

I was unaware that sane people actually used facebook. I thought it was only for cat vids, bad memes and showing only the best part of your life.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

@justjoinedtopost
Sure. Italy.
Recently the owner of a little bathouse had its bussiness shut down by the police because of his fascist propaganda. Plus, I quote, it's a crime to propagate ideas based on racial superiority or racial or ethnic hatred, or to instigate to commit or commit acts of discrimination for racial, ethnic, national or religious motives. You may get a fine up to 6.000 Eur or up to 4 years in jail. We dont have KKK bullshit here.

Why do you hate them? Have run-ins with them or something?

 

[Deleted member 37064]

I'd like to point out that a lot of this so-called "hate speech" or whatever is actually just anti-authoritarian/indepedent/conservative in nature. YouTube just demonitized a shit ton of channels that are in no way hate speech or harassment or anything other than "I disagree with popular liberal ideology." Sure, they didn't ban them, but they didn't have to to effectively silence them. The same way that there isn't legal censorship of a lot of porn, but it doesn't matter because credit cards won't touch it anyway.

So yes, these are all private companies, and yes, it's all perfectly legal, but it's pretty scary that our main lines of modern communication are being led with a specific narrative.

Agreed. See this way too often. Those who squash such comments, or try and classify it as hate speech, are doing exactly what they claim is done against them.

 

[heybarkeep]

Bit off topic of a rant here but it strangely annoys me when these goobers are referred to as Nazis. Might sound ludicrous but it seems disrespectful to The Nazi Party. The German war machine was crazy, these goofs can't even hold a rally without something happening. Even if the person wants to be called that, too bad dude, you are still just a racist idiot. Being a waste of oxygen isn't enough to warrant the Nazi label. You have to be a garbage human being AND be effective. Until then skinheads(unfortunate really given the origins)or klansman or white nationalists will have to suffice, you inefficient and non intimidating dorks.

Imagine how salty Hitler would be if he could see the people representing the master race these days. You know what, calling them Nazis as one last fuck you to Hitler, like a look at what the state of your party and idea of a master race has turned into, strangely okay with. Bunch of angsty nerds with poorly designed fake shields and inbreds that wear bed sheets while cowardly hiding behind hilariously stupid and unnecessarily pointy looking hoods. Dude would be so furious.

 

[Gen]

Imagine how salty Hitler would be if he could see the people representing the master race these days.

One of my all-time favourite comic panels, hahaha.

 

[Dan Epstein]

Some of my deceased family members came across the horrors of the Nazi regime. They told me the that the scariest fact about them was that they were human beings, and not omnipotent monsters.

 

[Dan Epstein]

One of my all-time favourite comic panels, hahaha.

Jesse Custer?

 

[Gen]

Jesse Custer?

Indeed I think of that panel so often lately.

 

[heybarkeep]

Garth Ennis is awesome. Never paid much attention to the writers while growing up but I recently noticed that he was involved with many of my favorites. Good dude, good sense of humor.

 

[Dan Epstein]

Indeed I think of that panel so often lately.

Some of the best ones, however my favorite will always be the one and only, Will Eisener, his New York trilogy is a timeless masterpiece(long before Paul Auster, by the way).

 

[SophiaSophia]

One of my all-time favourite comic panels, hahaha.

I saw the "where is your fucking chin" line go down once in person between two people...it was kind of awesome

 

[SaffronBurke]

The prominent forehead/missing chin look is a Neanderthal trait. So these people claiming to be superior specimens of humanity are actually a couple steps back, evolution wise.

 

[zippypinhead]

I'd like to point out that a lot of this so-called "hate speech" or whatever is actually just anti-authoritarian/indepedent/conservative in nature. YouTube just demonitized a shit ton of channels that are in no way hate speech or harassment or anything other than "I disagree with popular liberal ideology." Sure, they didn't ban them, but they didn't have to to effectively silence them.

I don't think that's really the case, at least as far as I can tell from the people on my subscription feed who have put out "YouTube just demonetized me" videos in the last few weeks. I understand that monetized hate content has served as a catalyst for this, but in many ways, this current "Adpocolypse" is actually a lot more sinister than simply targeting single groups or ideologies to "effectively silence". YouTube and its advertising partners are moving to take out the voices of a far larger and more varied population with this move.

I watch YouTube more than anything else, and I actively curate my subscription and recommendations streams, specifically to keep out politics and social drama. So, my feed is very apolitical. It's pretty much nothing but videos about drawing, cartoons and comics, wrestling and video games. Yet, over the last several weeks, many of the channels I subscribe to, that produce distinctly apolitical content, have put out videos talking about how YouTube has demonetized dozens or even hundreds of their videos, all at once. As several of these folks have pointed out, YouTube has taken the opportunity of the controversy of monetized hate material to overreach, and impose deliberately conservative standards to their monetized content that falls in line with the standards that have been traditional to mass media for generations, and which advertisers in general are far more comfortable working with. They've changed their standards from the usual internet agreement lingo of "nothing defamatory, abusive, hateful, threatening, spammy, infringing, illegal, etc." (lingo which can be found in the Terms and Legal link at the bottom right of this very page) to cast a much wider net with incredibly amorphous and arbitrary terms, like, "tragedy and conflict, sensitive social issues, sexually suggestive content, sensational and shocking, profanity and rough language, etc." Check it out on Google's support page.

Google may very well be happy to be rid of certain specific voices that have been amplified through the YouTube platform, but I think it's a lot more to be considered a fringe (or rather "do away with the fringe") benefit wrapped up into a policy that has a wider purpose of flattening its content base to fall in line with the traditional, conservative standards that advertisers hold fast to. As I've stated, I think that's a lot more sinister, especially given the arbitrary nature of the rules as they've so far been implemented. It absolutely is not being portioned out in equal measures. Well known and popular DIY Youtubers are getting their work silenced, while big-money firms that deal in the same material, like late-night network talk shows and news programs, make YouTube's top trends daily, and run their content freely, front-loaded with ads. It means to me that not just dissenting voices or voices that come from the wrong side of certain social or political lines are being silenced. Rather, it's the voices that have made YouTube what it is that are being silenced -- new voices that originate independent of established media institutions, that are not beholden to archaic standards or advertiser wishes, and that are able and willing to discuss issues more openly than those established media institutions.

It's the same old publisher middleman bullshit, really. A story as old as recorded history. Except this time, it's Google once again stomping all over it's old mantra, "Don't be evil."

 

[Logan469]

I'm fine with companies deciding whether to allow adult performers use of their services. Our occupation is not a protected group, and it shouldn't be. Being a camgirl is a choice. Occupations are not equal to races, gender identities etc (i'm looking at you BlueLivesMatter). What I do wish we'd start teaching these folks, whether they're Nazis or Liberals or Strippers is what freedom of speech actually means.

Want to kneel during the national anthem? You have freedom of speech and won't be ARRESTED.
Want to talk smack about the President? You have freedom of speech and won't be ARRESTED.
Want to peacefully protest in appropriate areas at appropriate times? You have freedom of speech and won't be ARRESTED.

In no way are you protected from being fired, disliked, banned from a private company etc. for your opinions or actions. Facebook can ban folks just like Amber can ban them here. We aren't entitled to anything outside of not being thrown into a jail cell.

Well said... i would only add that (in my view) going along with your quote, As long as im not infringing on your freedom/rights its noones business what i do. I know thats a very broad statement but it covers damn near everything. Im not the best at getting my point across so ill leave it to you more eloquent ladies/gentlemen.

 

[SaffronBurke]

I don't think that's really the case, at least as far as I can tell from the people on my subscription feed who have put out "YouTube just demonetized me" videos in the last few weeks. I understand that monetized hate content has served as a catalyst for this, but in many ways, this current "Adpocolypse" is actually a lot more sinister than simply targeting single groups or ideologies to "effectively silence". YouTube and its advertising partners are moving to take out the voices of a far larger and more varied population with this move.

I watch YouTube more than anything else, and I actively curate my subscription and recommendations streams, specifically to keep out politics and social drama. So, my feed is very apolitical. It's pretty much nothing but videos about drawing, cartoons and comics, wrestling and video games. Yet, over the last several weeks, many of the channels I subscribe to, that produce distinctly apolitical content, have put out videos talking about how YouTube has demonetized dozens or even hundreds of their videos, all at once. As several of these folks have pointed out, YouTube has taken the opportunity of the controversy of monetized hate material to overreach, and impose deliberately conservative standards to their monetized content that falls in line with the standards that have been traditional to mass media for generations, and which advertisers in general are far more comfortable working with. They've changed their standards from the usual internet agreement lingo of "nothing defamatory, abusive, hateful, threatening, spammy, infringing, illegal, etc." (lingo which can be found in the Terms and Legal link at the bottom right of this very page) to cast a much wider net with incredibly amorphous and arbitrary terms, like, "tragedy and conflict, sensitive social issues, sexually suggestive content, sensational and shocking, profanity and rough language, etc." Check it out on Google's support page.

Google may very well be happy to be rid of certain specific voices that have been amplified through the YouTube platform, but I think it's a lot more to be considered a fringe (or rather "do away with the fringe") benefit wrapped up into a policy that has a wider purpose of flattening its content base to fall in line with the traditional, conservative standards that advertisers hold fast to. As I've stated, I think that's a lot more sinister, especially given the arbitrary nature of the rules as they've so far been implemented. It absolutely is not being portioned out in equal measures. Well known and popular DIY Youtubers are getting their work silenced, while big-money firms that deal in the same material, like late-night network talk shows and news programs, make YouTube's top trends daily, and run their content freely, front-loaded with ads. It means to me that not just dissenting voices or voices that come from the wrong side of certain social or political lines are being silenced. Rather, it's the voices that have made YouTube what it is that are being silenced -- new voices that originate independent of established media institutions, that are not beholden to archaic standards or advertiser wishes, and that are able and willing to discuss issues more openly than those established media institutions.

It's the same old publisher middleman bullshit, really. A story as old as recorded history. Except this time, it's Google once again stomping all over it's old mantra, "Don't be evil."

I subscribe to a lot of true crime/horror/creepypasta channels, all of which are facing heavy demonization due to "not being family friendly", despite similar content (especially true crime) being all over TV during hours when children/families watch, with commercials aplenty. My family, and family friends, watched tons of true crime shows with me when I was a kid.

 

[HotRod556]

Sorry in advance. I have been limiting my time spent on this site because I love it. I have wrote so much stuff that I havent posted. Because now I have a habit of rereading my rambles outloud. Yeah this causes a lot of Fuck!! (mass delete) Also trying remember other kick ass help/advice I very much appreciate. So so sorry OP but this is a stick up. I needs thread now. I have a ton of topics, tweets, subjects, links, rants and............................ Oh shit! I can't remember how hijacking threads are supposed to be done!? *sneaks backs into the darkness* High Five OP

 

[hottieheidiii]

Oof!! THIS is the stuff that gets me unimaginably riled up. People (including liberals and even many leftists) are so damn whorephobic. Mainstream white feminism is too. It's horrifying honestly. And it almost always boils down to the "I just can't support the exploitation of bodies, especially women's bodies!" And I'm like?????? FIRST OF ALL, literally what kind of labor does not exploit your body in some way? Work under capitalism is exploitative by nature. I used to work as a cook at a corporation and let me tell you my body was WRECKED from that, I couldn't choose my hours or coworkers, I couldn't demand respect for myself, and my hourly was significantly lower than even my very first chaturbate show. JUST ADMIT IT FOLX! You're not against exploitation, you're against sex workers. I can be formally missed w/ the swerf garbage.

edit: sorry if this is a huge tangent, but I definitely think it's related. I recently heard of a phenomenon occurring in the MRA (Mens' Rights Activist) community where folx are describing themselves as "incels" aka "involuntary celibates" and really hate women. As in, women are so bad and awful that they won't give them sex, their god given human right as men on this planet. Which is decidedly a horrible scary ideology already--women don't owe you anything! There's a huge trend amongst leftists to say "Yeah, MRAs hate women, the incel ideology is in direct conflict with bodily autonomy and these people are very harmful and abusive" which is a statement I can get behind. HOWEVER, it's is often immediately followed by "just send them to a sex worker!!" Which to me is downright insulting. Sex workers already have to deal with so much horrible crap from people, sure send explicit abusers who don't see me as a person my way?? Why are sex workers ALWAYS left out of these conversations??