By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A whistleblower complaint filed with FinCEN alleges that Mastercard and Visa knowingly facilitated money laundering related to child sexual abuse material and sex trafficking on OnlyFans. The complaint, submitted by a senior financial compliance expert, claims the payment processors ignored evidence of illicit activity despite prior warnings. While both Mastercard and Visa deny the allegations and assert zero-tolerance policies, the complaint also notes prior attempts to alert the companies in 2021 and 2022. OnlyFans, which previously attempted to curb explicit content before reversing that decision, has yet to comment.
Read the original article here
Mastercard and Visa are facing serious accusations: a report claims they are enabling payments for child sexual abuse material (CSAM). This allegation is deeply troubling and raises significant questions about the responsibilities of payment processors in the digital age.
The core of the issue revolves around the argument that these payment giants, by facilitating transactions, are inadvertently—or perhaps even knowingly—supporting platforms that host illegal content. The argument is that if a platform like OnlyFans, for instance, allows CSAM to circulate, the payment processors should be held accountable for their role in enabling these transactions. It’s a complex situation with no easy answers.
However, the counterargument is equally compelling. Holding Mastercard and Visa responsible for policing the content of every transaction would be an impossible task. It would place an impossible burden on these companies, requiring them to scrutinize the content of millions of transactions daily. It’s akin to blaming the post office for every illegal item mailed or an airline for every passenger who commits a crime mid-flight. The sheer scale of the undertaking makes it impractical, if not impossible.
This debate highlights the limitations of current methods of content moderation online. While platforms like OnlyFans claim to have robust verification systems in place to prevent the spread of CSAM, the reality is that illicit content can, and does, slip through the cracks. This points to a larger systemic issue and the difficulties faced by both online platforms and payment processors in tackling this persistent problem. Simply cutting off payment processing might not solve the problem; instead, it might push illicit activities further underground, making them harder to track and monitor.
Some argue that this is a coordinated effort to use the concern about CSAM to shut down entire industries, including the adult entertainment sector, under the guise of morality. They suggest that the accusations might be overblown, serving as a tool for censorship rather than genuine child protection. The underlying concern is that this creates a slippery slope, where any content deemed objectionable could be targeted, effectively silencing legitimate businesses and creators.
The comparison to previous campaigns against platforms like PornHub is relevant. Similar accusations of hosting CSAM were leveled, leading to significant changes in content moderation policies. But critics argue that these efforts have ultimately been ineffective in stopping the spread of illegal material, pushing it instead into harder-to-monitor areas of the internet. The underlying assumption here is that simply removing a payment gateway is a short-sighted solution and that a comprehensive approach targeting the source of the problem would be far more effective.
The reality is far more nuanced. It’s unlikely that Mastercard and Visa are actively complicit in facilitating payments for CSAM. However, the argument that they bear *no* responsibility is also problematic. The question is: what is a fair and proportionate response? Is it to demand that these companies become morality police, or is there a more effective way to address the underlying issues of online content moderation and the proliferation of CSAM?
The discussion also raises ethical concerns about the extent to which private entities should be involved in policing online content. Mastercard and Visa are for-profit organizations. Their primary concern is their own financial viability, not necessarily social justice. This inherent conflict of interest raises serious concerns about the unintended consequences of entrusting such entities with the power to censor content.
Ultimately, the issue is not just about Mastercard and Visa; it’s about a larger systemic problem of online content moderation, the responsibility of tech companies, and the limitations of relying on private entities to address complex social issues. A solution requires collaboration between law enforcement, tech companies, and lawmakers to develop effective strategies that protect children while respecting free speech and avoiding the unintended consequences of overly aggressive censorship.
The debate itself highlights the need for further investigation and careful consideration of the complex ethical and legal implications. A rash solution might lead to more problems than it solves.