Kickstarter is forced to ban adult content by payment processors

Kickstarter policy change

• Kickstarter already banned “pornographic content”; it has now expanded rules with detailed prohibitions (e.g., implied sex acts, nipples, anuses, “MILF/DILF,” buttocks).
• Some argue the headline overstates things: this looks more like clarifying and tightening an existing ban than a sudden platform shift.

Role of payment processors and card networks

• Many see Visa/Mastercard as de‑facto critical infrastructure or “para‑government”: if they refuse a sector, it is nearly equivalent to outlawing it.
• Processors classify “adult” as high‑risk alongside gambling, travel, crypto, etc., with higher fees and/or special licenses.
• There’s disagreement whether processors truly lose money on chargebacks or simply pass risk and fees to merchants.

Why adult content is targeted (competing explanations)

• One camp: high chargeback and fraud rates, especially “friendly fraud” (spouses or teens denying charges, people downloading then disputing).
• Another camp: chargeback rates are actually low for many adult businesses; “fraud” is used as a pretext for ideological or “brand risk” decisions.
• Reputational and regulatory risk is emphasized: firms fear bad press, lawsuits, or being dragged before legislators more than raw fraud costs.

Law, lobbying, and politics

• Several comments tie the trend to FOSTA‑SESTA and similar laws increasing liability for platforms, though there is dispute over how directly these apply to banks.
• Multiple posts detail organized campaigns by religious-right and conservative groups (and some anti‑porn feminists) to pressure banks, card networks, and legislators, often under an anti‑trafficking or CSAM banner.
• Others note involvement of high‑profile financiers and media campaigns against major adult sites.

Alternatives and structural proposals

• Suggestions include: national/public payment rails, a “digital euro”-style system, or regulated “must‑serve” rules for large processors.
• Crypto (especially privacy coins) is repeatedly cited as a workaround for financial censorship, but others note lack of chargebacks, consumer resistance, and association with scams.

Moral and social views

• Some commenters welcome porn restrictions as socially beneficial; others see this as puritanical overreach and financial censorship.
• Broader concerns raised about concentration of power in a few financial intermediaries and the ease of using them to shape online speech and commerce.