Kickstarter is forced to ban adult content by payment processors
Kickstarter’s move to tighten its longstanding ban on pornographic and “adult” content is widely attributed to pressure from payment processors like Visa, Mastercard, and Stripe, which treat such businesses as high-risk or reputationally toxic. Commenters dispute whether this is really about fraud and chargebacks or about coordinated campaigns by religious and conservative activist groups, sometimes joined by anti‑porn feminists, to choke off financial services to sex-related content. The episode feeds broader concerns about “financial censorship,” with some calling for public payment infrastructure or wider use of cryptocurrencies to prevent a small number of private intermediaries from effectively controlling what legal speech and commerce can survive online.
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.