Lably
Skip to content

Financial censorship

Type of censorship

  • 9 min read
  • 3 chapters

Related on Lably

Through Financial institution, Cash and Brand

Even stronger forms of censorship such as financial institutions freezing or closing down accounts are known as debanking. Activists, journalists, and scholars have described the impact as extralegally inhibiting free speech, particularly in online spaces where physical cash is not an option which creates a chilling effect as individuals and platforms self-censor speech in fear of having their finances negatively impacted by such actions.

In the 2020s, many incidents of removal of sexual content from online platforms and marketplaces occurred. These contents removals have been generally attributed to the policies of payment processors and credit card companies regarding what content and services are permitted to be bought and sold using their services. In particular, these policies often restrict or outright forbid the sale of sexual content and services, which has led to numerous closures of accounts of individuals who provide such services, as well as takedowns by various online platforms seeking to comply with their policies.

Financial censorship is highly controversial. Proponents of these takedowns have argued that online adult content promotes sexual objectification, particularly of women, and risks harming children, particularly by way of the minimally regulated nature of these platforms risking the enabling of child sexual exploitation. However, others, including creators of adult content and civil rights groups, have argued that the payment processor's policies have stifled legitimate business in the porn and sex work industries and created a chilling effect on sexual expression online.

Background

Payment processors, particularly payment card companies such as Visa and Mastercard and online money transfer services such as Paypal, have been noted for their policies restricting transactions relating to sexual content and services, which are often classified as "high risk" financial activities.

Visa and Mastercard, in particular, impose restrictions on what type of sexual activity may be depicted in pornography; these restrictions extend to sexual acts or roleplay scenarios deemed objectionable or harmful to their brand image, such as BDSM themes, acts involving bodily fluids such as urination play, or consensual non-consent scenarios. Due to Visa and Mastercard's market dominance in the payment processing business, they are usually described having a duopoly over the adult content industry, and therefore being a de facto regulator of online content considered obscene.

In 2018 FOSTA-SESTA became US law; it intended to hinder sex trafficking conducted via the internet by creating an exemption in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, rendering online platforms liable for any content posted by users facilitating online sex trafficking. In a legal analysis in the Brooklyn Journal of Corporate, Financial & Commercial Law, Emily Pollak suggests that the FOSTA-SESTA legislation poses immense legal risks for online platforms and financial institutions, many of whom have banned sexually explicit user-generated content from being published and been reticent to process payments related to sexual services and content in order to avoid becoming the target of legal actions. In a May 2022 article for Reason, Elizabeth Nolan Brown came to a similar conclusion, saying that FOSTA makes it "incredibly risky—reputationally, legally, and financially—for online intermediaries to allow any sort of sexualized business or content."

Sign in to keep reading

2 more chapters are free with a Lably account.

More in Social studies