This article doesn't seem to mention it, but this is only a half truth.
There was a legal liability change around payment providers and accidental support of sex trafficking that changed the calculus around risk for supporting these services.
As a result many of the payment providers backed out.
They're not really the "de facto" regulators - they're responding directly to incentives placed on them by government regulators.
The issue is not MC or Visa protecting sex trafficking victims or kids. It's purely a moral code.
> Out of curiosity, about five years ago Stoya contacted CCBill, one of the biggest payment companies specialising in porn. Rather than the “acceptable use” policy on its website, she asked if she could see their full guidance. The detailed list. The one that precisely laid out the limits of what CCBill believed Visa and Mastercard would tolerate.
> The four pages of rules shared with her are written in a lawyerly tone and are, in parts, totally bizarre. A section on furries, an online subculture interested in anthropomorphic animal characters with human personalities, reads “content that depicts furries and humans engaged in sexual acts are not permitted across the board. Content that depicts furry engaged in sexual acts with another furry is acceptable across the board.” Lest that leave any room for misinterpretation: “Please note, per Visa regulations a furry that contains human-like characteristics is not permitted.” So, no half-man, half-furry.
There was a legal liability change around payment providers and accidental support of sex trafficking that changed the calculus around risk for supporting these services.
As a result many of the payment providers backed out.
They're not really the "de facto" regulators - they're responding directly to incentives placed on them by government regulators.
Write up on this law here: https://www.wired.com/story/how-a-controversial-new-sex-traf...