|
The double standard is puzzling - I can use my VISA card to purchase tickets to a mainstream film containing a woman being drugged/kidnapped but not to a website that contains an identical scene.
Is it the argument that the website is designed to appeal sexually which is not the intent of the film? i.e. primary intent is the issue not the actual scene. This is pretty specious as film makers include all sorts of imagery a lot of which is designed to appeal sexually - in fact the website is more 'honest' in that the intent is more open.
Also who died and made VISA or any other credit card company God? If content is illegal and I am constrained from viewing by the laws of the country I reside in then that is reasonable, albeit with some caveats I will not go into here.
But if the content is legal then what is VISA's problem? If VISA (or whoever) does not 'like' bondage and denies access then I am being censored by a private company which did not give me a list when I signed up for the card dictating what (legally) I could and could not use it for. Would you be happy to be handed such a list along with the card? Woud it not be more honest then this back door censorship?
And say the next thing could be 'we don't like black dudes banging white chicks' or 'we dont like black dudes period' or 'Indian resturants are a blight on our community so no more curries will henceforth be purchased via our cards' It has to start somewhere and banning legal content is always worrying.
A lot of people here are getting 'sniffy' about scat sites (pun intended) and 'good on CCBill etc' but wait untils its your turn and see how you feel. I do not care for scat sites but have no desire to ban people from viewing them.
I do not blame CCBill for protecting its business, its there to make money and pissing off VISA is not a good business plan. Staying ahead of the game is also sound business. My point is more about the principle of what is happening and the dangers or where this policy could lead.
|