Just found this about Mastercard

[pornguy]

Not sure if posted yet

Porn World: We Are Sick of Mastercard’s Hollywood Hypocrisy

https://www.yahoo.com/news/porn-worl...122209734.html

[baddog]

On October 15, the careers of thousands of adult performers will be wiped out.

Only if they are not of age.

[pornguy]

Yeah. Kind of found that statement interesting.

It will hurt a lot of sites that do not have access to the models from years ago. Otherwise its just about keeping the ID's up to date.

Unless there is a lot more to the story.

[Fenris Wolf]

Originally Posted by pornguy

Not sure if posted yet

Porn World: We Are Sick of Mastercard’s Hollywood Hypocrisy

https://www.yahoo.com/news/porn-worl...122209734.html

Yeah, I follow a number of activist sex workers and the Adult Performance Artists Guild (APAG) on Twitter and it's my understanding that it is a real concern on how platforms will enforce the set of rules Mastercard is now requiring. This doesn't just affect porn sites but mainstream sites that have NSFW content like Reddit and Twitter. Any site that accepts Mastercard must enforces these rules. So the concern is that sex workers will just get kicked off. Sex Workers are constantly deplatformed.

Another issue revolves around implementation and the more marginalized members of the sex worker community, for example trans members. Only Fans is moving to an outside third party to do their verifications and there are already issues where trans members who still have identification of their birth gender having difficulty getting their accounts cleared. There was always issues before but now it's that much harder.

Look at what happened to Pornhub and their nuke option.

[fuzebox]

Originally Posted by baddog

Only if they are not of age.

Not being of age and not wanting to comply with some interpretations of the verification requirements are two different things.

There are big privacy implications with uploading sensitive personal information to every platform you want to share content on. Many models use their social security card as a secondary form of ID. 2257 allowed someone to act as a custodian of these records to avoid this.

I have heard stories of platforms requiring additional documentation retroactively that was not required at the time of production, rendering older content now useless.

All I'm saying is, "if you're got nothing to hide" should never be said in support of more regulation.

[Fenris Wolf]

Originally Posted by fuzebox

Not being of age and not wanting to comply with some interpretations of the verification requirements are two different things.

There are big privacy implications with uploading sensitive personal information to every platform you want to share content on. Many models use their social security card as a secondary form of ID. 2257 allowed someone to act as a custodian of these records to avoid this.

I have heard stories of platforms requiring additional documentation retroactively that was not required at the time of production, rendering older content now useless.

All I'm saying is, "if you're got nothing to hide" should never be said in support of more regulation.

Only Fans is doing this right now, the third party I mentioned earlier is using and storing biometric data for verification that goes beyond the scope of neccessary and is a major privacy issue. This is the second change in documentation policy that has forced and will force a number of content creators to delete content on their pages that were once acceptable. Who here can get in touch with models from 2, 3, 5 years ago to request docs that meet the new standards. It's easier to just delete stuff from your page.

[blackmonsters]

Originally Posted by pornguy

Not sure if posted yet

Porn World: We Are Sick of Mastercard’s Hollywood Hypocrisy

https://www.yahoo.com/news/porn-worl...122209734.html

It's a losing defense of porn to make any comparison to mainstream movies.
Even starting the argument gets ears turned off and you lose.
These rules apply to porn; and like it or not , Hollywood is not defined as porn unless the movie is rated X.

Stick to 1st amendment arguments and protections that are already in place.

If these rules were enforced 20 years ago then there wouldn't have been a bunch of tube sites killing pay sites.

[ReggieDurango]

Originally Posted by pornguy

It will hurt a lot of sites that do not have access to the models from years ago. Otherwise its just about keeping the ID's up to date.

So pretty much EVERY site. No one has a “access“ to Models from years ago LOL… these girls come and go and disappear into the ether

[Markul]

This won't stick.

[baddog]

Originally Posted by Markul

This won't stick.

And why not? I think people are kidding themselves if they think this will only apply to MC.

[ZENRA]

This article kind of confused me as the actual new rules from MC don't make any mention of requiring a new format of releases and IDs. The actual rules—dare I say it—aren’t too hard to comply with if you operate your own site (even if you’re not even shooting, but just licensing from various companies). In fact, I think most paysites that operate properly have already been in compliance from the get-go.

What the article is referring to I believe is something some of the platforms are doing to lots of negative fanfare to go the extra mile covering their butts. If you're a content creator, this should serve as a big warning sign to stop relying heavily on these types of sites and just bite the bullet and open your own paysite. The barrier to entry has never been lower, but the farther you get from the card processing networks, the more unexpected hurdles you may need to deal with getting money and staying compliant.

[pornlaw]

"As responsible adult creators, we have been following the guidelines set forth by the U.S. government since 1995. As you know, production companies are required to maintain 2257 documents. When these guidelines were created, the federal government ruled that content created prior to the enforcement of 2257 would be exempt. However, your upcoming regulations threaten to supersede the government ruling that verified creators have been following for 26 years thereby creating a law on their own, without any input from the very community it oppresses. The requirement of updating identification on scenes filmed in the past means that once a performer’s identification on file expires, the entire scene or film they appeared in must be removed."

I just dont know what to say to this paragraph...

There is a shit-ton of amateur content creators that have never heard of 2257 or even a model release. Trying to lump a bunch of amateur porn producers that only started when COVID hit and they jumped on the OF bandwagon doesnt do any favors for the rest of the true, law / regulation abiding professional producers and content creators.

Mastercard gets to set their own rules. Their ball, their game.

The scene doesnt expire with the ID. The ID has to be current when the scene was shot.

For those that think this wont stick, it will and the platforms are already making the changes. I represent a few of those platforms and we are gearing up for October. A lot of content is going to come down, but at least the small independent studio that does it the right way should have an advantage.

Content, with the docs and IDs, is now more important than in the last 15 years.

[TaiGhost]

Our production team has been in compliance with very similar rules in Japan since April, 2018.

Content has a 5 year shelf life and must go through a process to be uploaded, sold and renewed. And if the model wants it taken down it must be taken down. If companies do not comply they face losing distribution on the major sites.

I would not be surprised if Mastercard is joined by other card companies and sometime next year they declare adult biz needs an outside entity to review and control and remove content.

@Pornlaw
Do you think this will affect piracy in any way? I would think there would be some impact since rules are tied to processors/card makers. What do you say?

[blackmonsters]

Originally Posted by pornlaw

"As responsible adult creators, we have been following the guidelines set forth by the U.S. government since 1995. As you know, production companies are required to maintain 2257 documents. When these guidelines were created, the federal government ruled that content created prior to the enforcement of 2257 would be exempt. However, your upcoming regulations threaten to supersede the government ruling that verified creators have been following for 26 years thereby creating a law on their own, without any input from the very community it oppresses. The requirement of updating identification on scenes filmed in the past means that once a performer’s identification on file expires, the entire scene or film they appeared in must be removed."

I just dont know what to say to this paragraph...

Times change.

Remember this thread : https://gfy.com/fucking-around-and-b...feds-xbiz.html

[MakeMeGrrrrowl]

Originally Posted by ReggieDurango

So pretty much EVERY site. No one has a “access“ to Models from years ago LOL… these girls come and go and disappear into the ether

I have model releases for all of the model content I have purchased over the past 15 years.

Photo ID's and socials.

Many of the producers of said content are not longer around and so I'm not sure how those licenses hold up.

It's up to you to keep your records no matter if the girl disappears or not.

[baddog]

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

Times change.

Remember this thread : https://gfy.com/fucking-around-and-b...feds-xbiz.html

You can thank Wi-Fi and Smartphones.

[ReggieDurango]

Originally Posted by MakeMeGrrrrowl

I have model releases for all of the model content I have purchased over the past 15 years.

Photo ID's and socials.

Many of the producers of said content are not longer around and so I'm not sure how those licenses hold up.

It's up to you to keep your records no matter if the girl disappears or not.

So do I. But what they are saying is that once the girl’s ID expires, you have to contact her to get her NEW ID. Which is just ridiculous and impossible.

[Markul]

Originally Posted by ReggieDurango

So do I. But what they are saying is that once the girl’s ID expires, you have to contact her to get her NEW ID. Which is just ridiculous and impossible.

And that's why it won't stick. Just like the age verification on sites.

MasterCard is virtue signaling.

[blackmonsters]

Originally Posted by ReggieDurango

So do I. But what they are saying is that once the girl’s ID expires, you have to contact her to get her NEW ID. Which is just ridiculous and impossible.

Originally Posted by Markul

And that's why it won't stick. Just like the age verification on sites.

MasterCard is virtue signaling.

Why you don't believe what Pornlaw said?

Originally Posted by pornlaw

The scene doesnt expire with the ID. The ID has to be current when the scene was shot.

[ReggieDurango]

"The scene doesnt expire with the ID. The ID has to be current when the scene was shot." - that was ALWAYS true - if that's the case here, then what has changed?

[Fenris Wolf]

Originally Posted by ReggieDurango

"The scene doesnt expire with the ID. The ID has to be current when the scene was shot." - that was ALWAYS true - if that's the case here, then what has changed?

It's not about what existing federal and state laws have changed but what extreme changes platforms are going to make to protect themselves against liability and that includes hits to there reputation. A lot of media attention on platforms like Pornhub and Only Fans are causing sites to take a nuclear option to stay compliant. So yes I have all my docs in order when it comes to 2257 but, for example, Only Fans has setup additional rules that many with older content will not be able to meet. It's not 2257 that is the issue, it's platforms adding their own set of rules to stay compliant with said platform.

[baddog]

It's really about user uploaded content.

[ruff]

Hello crypto! Don't need CC. Welcome to the future.

[OneHungLo]

My question is, how do they get to "MasterCard requiring producers to hunt down models and update expired IDs" from their newly updated requirements listed below?

• Documented age and identity verification for all people depicted and those uploading the content
  
• Content review process prior to publication
  
• Complaint resolution process that addresses illegal or nonconsensual content within seven business days
  
• Appeals process allowing for any person depicted to request their content be removed

https://www.mastercard.com/news/pers...n-our-network/


Was there another press release that I'm missing?

[baddog]

Originally Posted by OneHungLo

My question is, how do they get to "MasterCard requiring producers to hunt down models and update expired IDs" from their newly updated requirements listed below?

• Documented age and identity verification for all people depicted and those uploading the content
  
• Content review process prior to publication
  
• Complaint resolution process that addresses illegal or nonconsensual content within seven business days
  
• Appeals process allowing for any person depicted to request their content be removed

https://www.mastercard.com/news/pers...n-our-network/


Was there another press release that I'm missing?

You are correct.

[nikki99]

Originally Posted by ruff

Hello crypto! Don't need CC. Welcome to the future.

animal porn

[pornlaw]

Originally Posted by ReggieDurango

"The scene doesnt expire with the ID. The ID has to be current when the scene was shot." - that was ALWAYS true - if that's the case here, then what has changed?

OnlyFans doesnt want porn... it wants to be a mainstream site at best and photos of some titties at worst. You dont get to an IPO if your site is porn.

So this is just a way to dump porn without having to say they are dumping porn. And people blame Mastercard and not OnyFans.

If you're a solo model account and only post solo content, well then you have an updated ID for all of your content.

[TaiGhost]

Originally Posted by pornlaw

OnlyFans doesnt want porn... it wants to be a mainstream site at best and photos of some titties at worst. You dont get to an IPO if your site is porn.

So this is just a way to dump porn without having to say they are dumping porn. And people blame Mastercard and not OnyFans.

If you're a solo model account and only post solo content, well then you have an updated ID for all of your content.

So the celebs on TMZ have another place to monetize? In a Kardashian world it makes total sense.

[blackmonsters]

Originally Posted by pornlaw

OnlyFans doesnt want porn... it wants to be a mainstream site at best and photos of some titties at worst. You dont get to an IPO if your site is porn.

So this is just a way to dump porn without having to say they are dumping porn. And people blame Mastercard and not OnyFans.

If you're a solo model account and only post solo content, well then you have an updated ID for all of your content.

Yep, porn is the difference between multi-million and multi-billion in real life.

[dcortez]

This is not new in principle.

The laughable disparity between Conservative AND Liberal lust for mainstream blood-sport entertainment (generally characters who get murdered in a Hollywood movie are not consenting adults in their characters), but most of the properly legally buttoned up professional adult industry does a lot more to ensure that their work product contains 100% adult consensual conduct - explicitly and implicitly.

For adult producers, "dubious consent" themes are dark water, but for Hollywood, even during "family hour", people getting abducted, tortured, sexually abused, and slaughtered with full dramatic slow motion effects and musical background, is the norm.

Big money is about money, and nothing else. It responds to large-scale calculus of how its policies will affect their bottom line.

But let's not forget that the bottom line of big money include massive corporate welfare and government donations (of public funds) to keep the biggest pictures on track.

I was curious to see if Trump getting elected would send a wave of legal tolerance towards the sex industry, as the former US president seemed to be (maybe still is) a major personal supporter of the sex industry, and according the numerous women who have filed complaints and suits against him for sexual misconduct, but no joy.

The right wing-nut conservatives (Dem and Rep) seem to trump the President, when it comes to laws pertaining to sexuality.

On the other, at face value, when any financial institution decides to upgrade its vetting of vendors/customers, that's not necessarily a bad thing when the measures are legitimate and can weed out bad industry players.

But as we have seen with 2257 with president Bush (the lesser), if the rules become so overbearing that "clerical errors" become more serious offenses (and cash cows for enforcement) than actual improper conduct between producers and talent, this is too far.

This is not the beginning of the story, nor the end.

-Dino Cortez

[Cameltoepro]

How does this apply if you are selling your content from overseas? my site is hosted in Europe, and collects in euros.

[baddog]

Originally Posted by Cameltoepro

How does this apply if you are selling your content from overseas? my site is hosted in Europe, and collects in euros.

Do you accept MasterCard?

[Cameltoepro]

Damnit Jim!!!

[dcortez]

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

Yep, porn is the difference between multi-million and multi-billion in real life.

We live in a world of "freedom of speech and expression" that gets wiped out at the gate by legal corporate censorship.

"Social media" decides what is suitable to be freely expressed, and platforms that cater to some arbitrarily filtered adult content do the same.

Legislation will not resolve corporate censorship, because the censors are fully backed by neo-lib and conservative governments.

The only way to move this nut is through consumer pressure.

Softcore models and customers of OnlyFans can boycott, expressing clear intent that they will not participate in pseudo-adult platforms.

The nineties are over. Even big new players like Patreon at least flinched when their corporate "community" policies put independent sex trade workers out on the street, and a broad social community called them out for it.

Even with webhosting, I see queries now and then about which web hosts support "adult". But the reality is that some webhosts have seriously relaxed their arbitrary censoring of "unacceptable adult content". If it's legal, put on servers that can handle the (crap) traffic load they are likely to get, and flag their content appropriately, they are fine with it.

The work that organizations like EFF have been doing to reduce the (conservative-punitive) onerous clerical requirements of 18-2257 compliance is very important and should continue. I hope that their victories are not limited to protecting just the clients who they represented in the precedent setting case, otherwise, one (not in the list of protected clients) might start thinking that even "free speech institutions" serve mostly big interests.

Anyone who "platforms" either technologically, or through financial processing, should observe the law and stop their (conservative focus group) corporate censorship.

[blackmonsters]

Originally Posted by dcortez

The laughable disparity between Conservative AND Liberal lust for mainstream blood-sport entertainment (generally characters who get murdered in a Hollywood movie are not consenting adults in their characters), but most of the properly legally buttoned up professional adult industry does a lot more to ensure that their work product contains 100% adult consensual conduct - explicitly and implicitly.

For adult producers, "dubious consent" themes are dark water, but for Hollywood, even during "family hour", people getting abducted, tortured, sexually abused, and slaughtered with full dramatic slow motion effects and musical background, is the norm.


-Dino Cortez

This is the most useless argument you can make.
And if you don't know why, then you don't understand the society you live in.

The Hollywood argument is the dumbest of all defenses of porn; and in a court room,
you'd get convicted just for making the comparison because clearly you don't get the message and they will decide to "send you a message" that you comprehend.

Use free speech arguments only. Don't drag in a different powerful industry that will defend itself by shutting you down.
You are fighting with Hollywood instead of fighting for your rights.


Hollywood is fake; nobody really got shot or murdered or fucked or beat or spit on.
Porn is real, people really do get fucked, beat, spit on and pissed on.

[dcortez]

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

This is the most useless argument you can make.

Hollywood is fake; nobody really got shot or murdered or fucked or beat or spit on.
Porn is real, people really do get fucked, beat, spit on and pissed on.

I don't expect my "what-about-hollywood" argument to win any case, but it is necessary to compare apples to apples on the "intent" level from a cultural standpoint.

I agree with a lot of what you say, but at the root of my concerns is the REAL affect that FAKE creative production (mainstream and porn) has on society from a community mental health standpoint.

Of course, the "real-world harm" has to be considered first for the people "doing the job" (the talent), but equally, for a conversation that that has any chance of getting anywhere meaningfully, the societal harm has to be considered as well.

That's why Hollywood has to be dragged into the discussion.

So, mass-produced publicly unrestrained (kids can easily access it) fictional work that glorifies non-consensual psychotic behaviour (hollywood specializes in this), that we generally have decided to lock people up for if they did it "for real", disqualifies itself from any "free speech protection", just as "crying fire in a crowded theatre" is not protected by free speech.

"Speech" that knowingly causes harm, does not enjoy any legal protections.

The "free speech" legal approach may be the practical path to balancing things out today, but moving forward, I don't see any conversations in the adult industry (other than overt perfunctory concerns about ch*ld sexual abuse/human tr*fficking) regarding taking greater responsibility for the cultural messaging of its members' creations.

In some countries, using adult models to create the impression of underage sexuality is just as illegal as actually using underage models - as it should be.

That speaks directly to my point, and the topic of "abuse" is much broader than just the low hanging fruit that everyone picks, ch*ld abuse.

A producer who creates "legal" porn that obviously panders to ped*s, IS creating k*ddy porn, and the "free speech argument", while in court might win in some countries, from the level I'm talking about, it has no value nor place in society.

The law is always last. Cultural norms, the institutions that act as agencies of this (and sadly, big money), are what drives the laws.

The adult industry has a responsibility to raise this discussion to a more prominent level - or be happy with knowingly condemning most responsible adult producers and talent to being forever stigmatized by mainstream as "creepy dangerous people".

We are not.

[CaptainHowdy]

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

Hollywood is fake; nobody really got shot or murdered or fucked or beat or spit on.
Porn is real, people really do get fucked, beat, spit on and pissed on.

Hollywood people are being fucked, beaten, spatted, pissed on behind the curtains. That is real.

[dcortez]

Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy

Hollywood people are being fucked, beaten, spatted, pissed on behind the curtains. That is real.

Exactly!

Any institution that promotes, or even remains silent about, egregious behaviour, is very likely plagued with that behaviour in its own ranks.

Look at domestic violence in law enforcement, and military families.

And more broadly, violence against its own people, by the state that uses aggression and violence abroad.

It always comes back home.

[blackmonsters]

Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy

Hollywood people are being fucked, beaten, spatted, pissed on behind the curtains. That is real.

You're an idiot if you think that's the Business in Hollywood.
That's probably the only way you could get a part.

And "Pill Cosby" and "WhineStain" are in prison and might die there.
So consider that.


Such a dumb argument to compare fake scenes on film to real hardcore sex.

[blackmonsters]

Originally Posted by dcortez

I don't expect my "what-about-hollywood" argument to win any case, but it is necessary to compare apples to apples on the "intent" level from a cultural standpoint.

You are comparing FAKE apples to REAL apples!


Eat the wrong one and you fucking die!

You just refuse to get it; but all you will do is lose.
You should be able to see that by reading this thread.
I've ignored whatever sense you made because you made such non-sense with the Hollywood comparison.

Don't kill the messenger; just get the message.

[blackmonsters]

Originally Posted by dcortez

Exactly!

Any institution that promotes, or even remains silent about, egregious behaviour, is very likely plagued with that behaviour in its own ranks.

Look at domestic violence in law enforcement, and military families.

And more broadly, violence against its own people, by the state that uses aggression and violence abroad.

It always comes back home.

Whew, you're winning now buy attacking law enforcement, and military families in defense of some chick doing anal while shouting the n-word.

[The Porn Nerd]

Originally Posted by dcortez

We live in a world of "freedom of speech and expression" that gets wiped out at the gate by legal corporate censorship.

"Social media" decides what is suitable to be freely expressed, and platforms that cater to some arbitrarily filtered adult content do the same.

Legislation will not resolve corporate censorship, because the censors are fully backed by neo-lib and conservative governments.

The only way to move this nut is through consumer pressure.

Softcore models and customers of OnlyFans can boycott, expressing clear intent that they will not participate in pseudo-adult platforms.

The nineties are over. Even big new players like Patreon at least flinched when their corporate "community" policies put independent sex trade workers out on the street, and a broad social community called them out for it.

Even with webhosting, I see queries now and then about which web hosts support "adult". But the reality is that some webhosts have seriously relaxed their arbitrary censoring of "unacceptable adult content". If it's legal, put on servers that can handle the (crap) traffic load they are likely to get, and flag their content appropriately, they are fine with it.

The work that organizations like EFF have been doing to reduce the (conservative-punitive) onerous clerical requirements of 18-2257 compliance is very important and should continue. I hope that their victories are not limited to protecting just the clients who they represented in the precedent setting case, otherwise, one (not in the list of protected clients) might start thinking that even "free speech institutions" serve mostly big interests.

Anyone who "platforms" either technologically, or through financial processing, should observe the law and stop their (conservative focus group) corporate censorship.

Originally Posted by dcortez

I don't expect my "what-about-hollywood" argument to win any case, but it is necessary to compare apples to apples on the "intent" level from a cultural standpoint.

I agree with a lot of what you say, but at the root of my concerns is the REAL affect that FAKE creative production (mainstream and porn) has on society from a community mental health standpoint.

Of course, the "real-world harm" has to be considered first for the people "doing the job" (the talent), but equally, for a conversation that that has any chance of getting anywhere meaningfully, the societal harm has to be considered as well.

That's why Hollywood has to be dragged into the discussion.

So, mass-produced publicly unrestrained (kids can easily access it) fictional work that glorifies non-consensual psychotic behaviour (hollywood specializes in this), that we generally have decided to lock people up for if they did it "for real", disqualifies itself from any "free speech protection", just as "crying fire in a crowded theatre" is not protected by free speech.

"Speech" that knowingly causes harm, does not enjoy any legal protections.

The "free speech" legal approach may be the practical path to balancing things out today, but moving forward, I don't see any conversations in the adult industry (other than overt perfunctory concerns about ch*ld sexual abuse/human tr*fficking) regarding taking greater responsibility for the cultural messaging of its members' creations.

In some countries, using adult models to create the impression of underage sexuality is just as illegal as actually using underage models - as it should be.

That speaks directly to my point, and the topic of "abuse" is much broader than just the low hanging fruit that everyone picks, ch*ld abuse.

A producer who creates "legal" porn that obviously panders to ped*s, IS creating k*ddy porn, and the "free speech argument", while in court might win in some countries, from the level I'm talking about, it has no value nor place in society.

The law is always last. Cultural norms, the institutions that act as agencies of this (and sadly, big money), are what drives the laws.

The adult industry has a responsibility to raise this discussion to a more prominent level - or be happy with knowingly condemning most responsible adult producers and talent to being forever stigmatized by mainstream as "creepy dangerous people".

We are not.

Originally Posted by dcortez

Exactly!

Any institution that promotes, or even remains silent about, egregious behaviour, is very likely plagued with that behaviour in its own ranks.

Look at domestic violence in law enforcement, and military families.

And more broadly, violence against its own people, by the state that uses aggression and violence abroad.

It always comes back home.

Blah blah blah what the fuck ever. This thread is about Mastercard and how changes to their rules will impact the adult Industry. The only issue anyone should give two fucks about is how this will AFFECT MY REVENUE. Take the fake allegories and philosophizing to the Politics section. This is business.

I, for one, am interested in how MC intends to enforce compliance, for example. Will websites now be giant repositories of millions of international IDs? How will anyone verify these credentials? What are the penalties, and to whom, if non-compliant and if any fraud is detected? What about identity theft, hacking and security? Aren't these some of the same issues that have derailed Age Verification?

Etc.

[Major (Tom)]

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

Why you don't believe what Pornlaw said?

^^^^ this^^^^
It’s like we’re on a plane and someone gets chest pains and there is a dr in the room and we’re googling symptoms at 30k ft

[dcortez]

Originally Posted by The Porn Nerd

Blah blah blah... The only issue anyone should give two fucks about is how this will AFFECT MY REVENUE.

And that's my point about the business of this. Thanks for making it.

[Djoped]

master card what about it

[Djoped]

how the fuck will it help me