What's behind the push...??

[Lucid1]

Over the past year or so I've noticed a trend on MFC where many very popular models are no longer performing, have disappeared and/or have possibly been banned. I'm talking about models who performed with bigger than average toys, like to explosively squirt or a few other things I won't go into any great detail about. Many of these models were very successful with their shows and earned several thousand tokens a night, so the incentive for MFC to keep them performing would seem to be the logical choice. I personally know of 2 models who told me via skype that they were banned by MFC for things they only did in privates, never in public. Have obscenity laws become more pervasive in regards to things like this? Or are religious fanatics somehow putting pressure on MFC to be more proactive in that regard?

Am I wrong in thinking that if two adults agree and consent to certain things in a private setting, then what's the big deal?

 

[Picnic]

If the models were banned for doing something in private, then they were breaking the rules.

If the private show breaks the cam site rules, it doesn't matter if it was two consenting adults, or how much money the model brings MFC. Those adults should have considered the consequences, or sought out a different platform for their show.

 

[NoelleBright]

A little while back a site called CamModelDirectory lost their payment processor because of a show one model did that was against the rules. Because of the conditions under which they lost their old payment processor, they had a hell of a time finding a new one and they couldn't accept any payments for about a month while they tried to figure something out. This was a huge hit for both the site and the models who use them.
So, no, it's not logical to keep models who break the rules just because they're making a few thousand tokens when the site could lose their payment processor over it and cease making money all together.
People think that there's no way the processor would find out, but apparently it's not all that hard especially since CMD is a one on one skype based site and nothing is recorded (like privates are on MFC).

 

[Ms_Gingersnatch]

^^ That. Obscenity laws can go fuck themselves with their brother's over-sized horse cock. (Some local laws are so stringent and antiquated that I'm not sure I've ever had purely legal sex in certain localities... and it's not like I hate missionary!) But if Visa and Mastercard get their panties in a twist, the site and everyone else is fucked, so whatever they care about is basically the word of god. Just the idea of MFC losing processing for a single day is probably enough to be worth kicking off any model, no matter how successful she is.

The interesting thing is that a lot of regulations that apply to payday loans and gambling also apply to the adult industry. The party in power is fond of deregulating those industries, so we might accidentally catch a break here and there, but they also (pretend to) hate the adult industry, so it's sort of hard to know what's coming down the line in terms of financial regulation. I'm sure sites are trying pretty hard to fly under the radar.

 

[AudriTwo]

What happened with CMD is why I hate when models perform banned shows. If the payment processor finds out, every model is fucking screwed.

So good on MFC for protecting themselves and the other models. I personally would rather lose out on a couple hundred than potential thousands.

 

[JoleneBrody]

A little while back a site called CamModelDirectory lost their payment processor because of a show one model did that was against the rules. Because of the conditions under which they lost their old payment processor, they had a hell of a time finding a new one and they couldn't accept any payments for about a month while they tried to figure something out. This was a huge hit for both the site and the models who use them.
So, no, it's not logical to keep models who break the rules just because they're making a few thousand tokens when the site could lose their payment processor over it and cease making money all together.
People think that there's no way the processor would find out, but apparently it's not all that hard especially since CMD is a one on one skype based site and nothing is recorded (like privates are on MFC).

Not only lose, but are often fined a HUGE amount by as well.

Content policy on adult sites are almost always completely directed by the payment processors. When a performer breaks the rules she is putting EVERYONE at risk

 

[mynameisbob84]

I'm talking about models who performed with bigger than average toys, like to explosively squirt or a few other things I won't go into any great detail about.

Basically religious conservatives with powerful business ties became convinced that these bigger than average toys were slowly but surely opening small gateways to Hell inside the vaginas of these women, through which pure, concentrated evil would then gush forth disguised as mere "squirt juice", landing on towels, carpets and bedsheets the world over, tainting those items with irremovable sin for all time.

 

[Lucid1]

Content policy on adult sites are almost always completely directed by the payment processors.

Ok, so what happens when ball gags, nipple clamps or other torture(read: pain inflicting) devices suddenly fall out of favor to the invisible gods behind these payment processors? It is a slippery slope, is it not? I mean, I was in a very popular models room a while back where she was live-banned due to the clothes she was wearing(politically incorrect, but not against the rules at the time it occurred). Why is it that "squirting" is fine for some models to do, but others get banned due to the amount or frequency in which it occurs?

At any rate, if the pressure is coming from payment processors, then that indicates external pressure is being put on them as well as on credit card vendors. Is it political pressure, religious pressure or just plain ole hysteria driven, knee-jerk reactionism?

 

[AudriTwo]

Ok, so what happens when ball gags, nipple clamps or other torture(read: pain inflicting) devices suddenly fall out of favor to the invisible gods behind these payment processors? It is a slippery slope, is it not? I mean, I was in a very popular models room a while back where she was live-banned due to the clothes she was wearing(politically incorrect, but not against the rules at the time it occurred). Why is it that "squirting" is fine for some models to do, but others get banned due to the amount or frequency in which it occurs?

At any rate, if the pressure is coming from payment processors, then that indicates external pressure is being put on them as well as on credit card vendors. Is it political pressure, religious pressure or just plain ole hysteria driven, knee-jerk reactionism?

if models want to perform types of shows that sites don't allow, they can either find a site that does approve, or follow the rules like us. adult sites are already considered high risk because of people who do charge backs and use stolen cards. honestly they are a private company, if they are not obligated to do business with people who shove giant things in their holes or show period blood. i get not wanting to be tied to anything that could cause public outcry or could maybe make other companies not want to do business with you.

obscenity laws are more state issued than federal. they also have to follow other countries' obscenity laws too. if they fail to do so, they are likely to be blocked. check out uks porn laws. they are fucking insane because the english are uptight.

honestly i give no fucks. the site clearly says whats allowed and isn't. it is hard for the site to police everyone. so models do get away with stuff. a lot of it is grey. but it is what it is.

 

[NoelleBright]

Ok, so what happens when ball gags, nipple clamps or other torture(read: pain inflicting) devices suddenly fall out of favor to the invisible gods behind these payment processors? It is a slippery slope, is it not? I mean, I was in a very popular models room a while back where she was live-banned due to the clothes she was wearing(politically incorrect, but not against the rules at the time it occurred). Why is it that "squirting" is fine for some models to do, but others get banned due to the amount or frequency in which it occurs?

At any rate, if the pressure is coming from payment processors, then that indicates external pressure is being put on them as well as on credit card vendors. Is it political pressure, religious pressure or just plain ole hysteria driven, knee-jerk reactionism?

If you're talking about when Olivia was dressed as Hitler, I'm fairly certain Leo pulled that particular plug due to community outcry and maybe not wanting his company associated with that image, which is totally understandable.
Also squirting is fine as long as it's passable as only squirt, if it becomes clear that a model isn't even trying to hide that fact she's really just a piss geyser, then yes that's a completely ban worthy offense.

The "pressure" from payment processors has always been there, this isn't anything new. Not all payment processors have the same rules either. Pee isn't allowed on MFC, end of story. Pee IS allowed in a couple of places, but from what I understand they lose quite a dear percent to payment processors when "extreme" things like this get put on the table.

 

[SaffronBurke]

Why is it that "squirting" is fine for some models to do, but others get banned due to the amount or frequency in which it occurs?

I highly doubt that anyone was banned for JUST squirting.

 

[Lelo1]

People think that there's no way the processor would find out, but apparently it's not all that hard especially since CMD is a one on one skype based site and nothing is recorded (like privates are on MFC).

People can record skype, take screen shots, extra.

Porn is against Skype's TOS. So some one might find themselfs banned from skype. Along with every thing else MS provides. Law enforcement agencies also have the ability to listen & watch Skype.

Security Wise:
2010, a bug allowed remote hacking through skype
2011, another bug allowed remote hacking through skype. Here an example.
2012, it was possible to gain access to a skype account by just knowing their email address.
2016 to may 2017, a bug allowed remote hacking through skype
2010 to August 2017, a bug allowed remote hacking through skype.

 

[Mintx]

Honestly, I'm for cam and clip sites actually following through with their terms of service, even if the model is earning them a lot of money. There's top models on sites like Manyvids that have clips featuring them in legitimate public spaces (not "public" aka private property where everyone who is on the property is an adult that has their forums in order) including populated malls, on the street, one model even had/has a clip up where she is in front a children's playground and you can see minors in the background- and yet the site does nothing to actually enforce their own rules with the models who earn them the most money. Sure, a site's terms of service can get a little restrictive (period blood being a no-no to even mention is kinda hilarious/not hilarious to me) but I'm sure if I wanted to make period blood content, I could find a site out there that'd be like "fuck yeah".

Then there's sites like Chaturbate which will ban verified models for even looking underage, which I am not for at all. If you have your IDs in order, why should you get punished?

So there should be a medium. But a site should always be enforcing their terms of service with everyone, including extremely popular models who earn thousands of tokens a night because even though they're popular, they're still breaking the rules. If a payment processor backs out because the site is breaking their terms of conduct, then all the models are fucked, and that isn't super fair- is it?

 

[Pure_emotion]

Are our fellow top models some type of super humans ? Shouldn't they respect the rules like all of us there? Or just because she makes a lot of cash she should get a special permit to bend the rules or something ? I don't understand your logic.

 

[Guy]

A little while back a site called CamModelDirectory lost their payment processor because of a show one model did that was against the rules. Because of the conditions under which they lost their old payment processor, they had a hell of a time finding a new one and they couldn't accept any payments for about a month while they tried to figure something out. This was a huge hit for both the site and the models who use them.
So, no, it's not logical to keep models who break the rules just because they're making a few thousand tokens when the site could lose their payment processor over it and cease making money all together.
People think that there's no way the processor would find out, but apparently it's not all that hard especially since CMD is a one on one skype based site and nothing is recorded (like privates are on MFC).

What did the model on CMD do?

 

[NoelleBright]

What did the model on CMD do?

They didn't release that information. Issuing a statement detailing exactly what she did wrong wouldn't do any good. All we need to know is that there's a list of things we can't do, and she did something on that list.

 

[penfold_43]

obscenity laws are more state issued than federal. they also have to follow other countries' obscenity laws too. if they fail to do so, they are likely to be blocked. check out uks porn laws. they are fucking insane because the english are uptight.

We have the "Obscene publications act" which bans distribution of material "likely to deprave and corrupt", and we have the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act which bans posession of "extreme pornography" (this is a dreadful law). The decision about what constitutes either obscene or extreme material is in the hands of a jury, not of a judge, the CPS (that's the public prosecutor in England and Wales), or politicians.

It has been established in R v Peacock that anal fisting (man on man, in this case) is not "obscene", though the CPS prosecution guidelines have not been updated to reflect this. I'm pretty sure the CPS had a go on it being "extreme" as well and failed. The problem with squirting is that to distribute a video you have to have a BBFC certificate (just like the certificates on films) and you can't get one if urination is included, and the opinion of those issuing certificates is that "squirt" is pee. Only one has ever been issued for female ejacutlation and the producer (Anna Arrowsmith, aka Anna Span) turned up with a load of evidence which convinced the BBFC to grant a certificate, but it did not cause them to review their general stand against it.

Video on demand services are going to have to comply with the same restrictions as on video supplied on physical media, so the same banned list. As noted, a jury in the criminal courts here have found that fisting can be portrayed on video, so MFC / CB rules are in fact stricter than English law in this instance. That doesn't mean the law here is sensible, it isn't, it's iniquitous, it seeks to outlaw portrayl of many legal acts .

We English aren't uptight, but some politicians are and some are so afraid of the Daily Mail, which is incredibly uptight about sex (despite the lurid sidebar of shame) and seems to strike fear into politicans. More than anything, this is an area where sections of the media dominate the politican agenda here

 

[Fatquack]

The things MFC forbids is basically the same list VISA and Mastercard use.

 

[Lucid1]

I'm fairly certain that the FTC and recent(2015) Federal Court rulings have said that payment processors cannot irreparably harm adult websites by the withdrawal of payment processing, citing 1st amendment protections regarding freedom of speech and expression. Even the FDIC was forced to redraft their guidelines concerning "reputational risk" due to multiple lawsuits, and reputational risk is now omitted as a result, meaning that they cannot single out or target online, adult content.

When I posted this topic I had no idea that payment processors were responsible for the "rules" as set forth on sites like MFC, and I'm really surprized that models aren't outraged over this; being seen as "risks" instead of as human beings.

Yes, I recognize that MFC has its rules and violators should be banned for breaking them because it's a business with enforceable TOA's and TOS's, but if those rules are being put into place out of fear of payment processor backlash, it makes me wonder why there hasn't been an unprecedented legal challenge against it?

 

[ElaySmith]

When I posted this topic I had no idea that payment processors were responsible for the "rules" as set forth on sites like MFC, and I'm really surprized that models aren't outraged over this; being seen as "risks" instead of as human beings.

I dont think a lot of people realize how much payment processors have a say in rules or the amount of money models pay out of pocket each year to be able to accept visa/mc payments through there personal sites bc they are considered high risk. I personally believe that no matter how 'outraged' a model is over these policies nothing is going to change until members quit trying to refund legit purchases. Chargebacks can be an overwhelming thing in this industry and until that is under control payment processors are going to consider porn high risk which in turn effects everyone involved.

 

[AudriTwo]

I'm really surprized that models aren't outraged over this; being seen as "risks" instead of as human beings.

because life is too short to be pissed off because i can't fist my asshole for money.

 

[Lucid1]

I dont think a lot of people realize how much payment processors have a say in rules or the amount of money models pay out of pocket each year to be able to accept visa/mc payments through there personal sites bc they are considered high risk. I personally believe that no matter how 'outraged' a model is over these policies nothing is going to change until members quit trying to refund legit purchases. Chargebacks can be an overwhelming thing in this industry and until that is under control payment processors are going to consider porn high risk which in turn effects everyone involved.

I'm glad I'm a member of this site. There are always different angles or viewpoints about this industry that I wouldn't think to consider.

But regarding chargebacks: one would think that with the advances in technology and IP tracking, that chargebacks would be a thing of the past. Is there a reason the adult industry seems more vulnerable to this, moreso than other online merchants?

 

[JickyJuly]

If you use a site's platform, you follow the rules or you risk everyone's money. Dick move and a half. What the rules are or how the rules change don't matter. Camgirls are adults. None of us is so special she deserves the right to put everyone's $$$ at risk. There's nothing to debate here. If payment processors put ball gags on the no list, then they should be avoided. Camgirls aren't here to fight sexual oppression against the sites that host us. Not our job. Not in our best interest. MFC has always banned for offenses that go against payment processor rules. They also payout without issue. Reliably. Not a coincidence. Also, a reason that tons of girls who take their business seriously stick with MFC loyally. They could ban their whole top 20 for offending processor rules and it would still be a financially sound decision. New girls starting everyday. As long as girls know they're getting paid and members feel safe handing off card info to buy tokens, MFC is money. The payment processor is more important than keeping particular models around.

And if your girl got banned for squirting while other girls who squirt didn't, they probably saw her pee on herself.

 

[ElaySmith]

But regarding chargebacks: one would think that with the advances in technology and IP tracking, that chargebacks would be a thing of the past. Is there a reason the adult industry seems more vulnerable to this, moreso than other online merchants?

My best guess... guys are generally thinking with the wrong head when making a large purchase which can lead to buyer remorse.... not to mention its prob a lot easier to get a refund when your dealing with something thats not a tangible good such as a custom video.

Edit to add: I very rarely accept payments through my website anymore bc I would shoot and deliver a video only to have it charged back months later. I now either accept payment thorough gift card, indie bill or my sextpanther account. Years ago it was much harder to find a decent payment processor that covered chargebacks and paid a fair amount to the model..... we definitely have a lot better options today.

 

[Fatquack]

I'm glad I'm a member of this site. There are always different angles or viewpoints about this industry that I wouldn't think to consider.

But regarding chargebacks: one would think that with the advances in technology and IP tracking, that chargebacks would be a thing of the past. Is there a reason the adult industry seems more vulnerable to this, moreso than other online merchants?

It's very simple, the credit card companies don't pay for the chargebacks, the merchants do (with a hefty "administrative fee"), so the credit card companies (especially the US ones) do not have much interest in reducing chargebacks unless they are forced to do so. There is only so much you can do as a merchant to reduce the chargeback risk. And since the online adult industry is riddled with bad players (hidden cross sales, card banging, etc.) the good have to suffer with the bad.

 

[SaffronBurke]

When I posted this topic I had no idea that payment processors were responsible for the "rules" as set forth on sites like MFC, and I'm really surprized that models aren't outraged over this; being seen as "risks" instead of as human beings.

While it's frustrating, it's pointless to waste energy being angry about it. While it's not likely, it's a possibility that someone could hurt themselves doing something that's banned, so trying to overturn the regulations would be rather futile.