PayPal cracks down on publishers of erotic literature, including furotica
E-commerce service PayPal has started a campaign to stop independent e-book publishers from including certain kinds of erotic content in their catalogs, should they be using PayPal to conduct business.
On Saturday February 18, PayPal began threatening to deactivate the accounts of indie book publishers and distributors, if they did not remove books containing certain sexual material – including themes and implied scenarios of: incest, pseudo-incest (including "daddy" fantasies, step-family), fantasies about non-consensual sex or rape, bestiality (widened to include non-human fantasy creatures), and BDSM.
The ban on "non-human fantasy creatures" has prompted some internet commentators to wonder where this leaves publishers of furry erotica, with Bernard Doove's chakats given as an example of what is banned under the new rules.
About the author
Higgs Raccoon — read stories — contact (login required)a (No longer a Flayrah contributor)
Comments
Well, we've heard this story before, haven't we? First they came for the cub porn . . .
It's been suggested that the impetus comes from credit card providers. If so, they're shooting themselves in the foot with this kind of action. Long-term, it'll only help more direct payment systems such as Dwolla get a foot in the door.
Yeah, but what if what they came for genuine crap?
We're talking about porn, here, not Jews.
They don't care about the quality, they care about the topic. It could be the Story of O and it would still fall afoul of their criteria. Heck, a good work is more likely to garner more attention.
Porn is crap by definition. Call it erotic if it's worthwhile (like your example, an EROTIC NOVEL, not TRASHY PORNO). Porn is a bad thing to be labeled.
Porn is crap by definition? In what dictionary? In yours?
Oh that's right, the world and all concepts, ideas, morals, and beliefs revolve around a certain egocentric persona. I shall now call you god.
Edit: That may have seemed intentionally provoking. Not really. Was sort of joking in hyperbole to convey point that your point is rather off as it screams you think your personal definition is what everyone else thinks/should think.
Back to you Bob.
I repeat: porn is crap.
Porn is what you call a creative endeavor that fails to be art fo moral reasons. Porn is not at; the terms are mutually exclusive.
If you are defending a work's value, the moment you call it porn, you have lost the battle. It is no longer art, and has no value as "speech" or anything other than a tool to aid in masturbation. Which is not art. Really, this idea that porn and art are entirely seperate categories of is not even close to unique to me. Accusing, say, a horror movie of being "torture porn" or comic books of being "the new pornography" (histor8ical accusations) is a very strident attack on those particular artforms essentially calling them both worthless and immoral at the same time.
To be clear, I am not attacking sexuality in art; that's why I bring up the concept of eroticism, which is also a completely separate concept from pornographic. Hell, I can even argue that obscenity has a valuable place in art.
I will readily admit you probably are more liberal view of the erotic than me, as probably does Green Reaper and everyone else reading this comment with the possible exception of that Acton guy. (I say possible only because a( he might not be reading, and b( he has got to be some kind of extended joke or troll in reality.) But you are using the wrong words; I'm essentially being a definition Nazi, but you guys really need to learn that the words erotic and pornographic have two different meanings, one of which is damaging to your argument.
As Mark Twain says, the difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightning and the lightning bug.
Finally, I seem to getting the hang of this cell phone typing, which is GREAT for my karma, apparently.
Well, there were enough typos to make that last bit accidentally ironic, but whatever.
I'm going to go watch "Puss in Boots." Now THAT is art.
Quoting Wikipedia on Erotica: "Erotica are works of art, including literature, photography, film, sculpture and painting, that deal substantively with erotically stimulating or sexually arousing descriptions. The term is a modern word that describes the portrayal of the human anatomy and sexuality with high-art aspirations, differentiating such work from commercial pornography. Curiosa generally refers to erotica and pornography as discrete, collectible items, usually in published or printed form."
Now on Pornography: "Pornography or porn is the explicit portrayal of sexual subject matter for the purposes of sexual arousal and erotic satisfaction. Pornography may use a variety of media, including books, magazines, postcards, photos, sculpture, drawing, painting, animation, sound recording, film, video, and video games. The term applies to the depiction of the act rather than the act itself, and so does not include live exhibitions like sex shows and striptease."
If nothing else, it's arguably a case of overall quality and style. Point is, generally either can and will be used for masturbation, and just because that is likely, it doesn't mean it's crap. I mean one can fap to a statue of Michelangelo, really, because of the natural beauty is not only captivating, but also arousing.
Ultimately, the two words really aren't that different, furthermore, the differences are more or less too ambiguous to be deserving of black and white distinction. There are some words out there with distinct differences, but these two are not so extreme as calling an orange a pumpkin and vice-versa. Even if that were true, both are quite tasty, and are equally enjoyed by many in their own way, and to call either crap and not edible is more opinion than fact.
On a side note, I'd go crazy typing that much on a phone. Don't know how you do it.
Edit: Should I send you some flowers for all the 1 stars on pretty much any post with my name on it? And some people question anonymous posting. Either way, cheers and thanks.
Funny, that's not what I would question . . .
Don't do that. You get one vote per comment. You do not vote on your own material. Those are the rules here.
Well, my day is made.
I actually never one star comments; you know, because they cause the comments to fold, and that's censorship and censorship is bad and and Green Reaper can tell you I am not being ironic when I say I hate the comment folding thing, and have broken the one vote per article rule at least by logging off and five starring one star articles twice because comments are one thing, but I will not stand for that happening to articles, though Green Reaper either took that offline or our articles really are that popular, because it doesn't seem to happen often, and my this is run-on sentence, isn't it?
Article folding is still in effect, but I've not seen it triggered for several months. It is quite hard to get below a 2 rating, and you need around 1.6.
Well, Newsbytes (which I am interrupting the compiling of to make this comment) seems to have eliminated most of them; opinion pieces don't seem to get one stars (or lots of one stars and lots of five stars, so they average out), which was my concern. What kept getting folded was small "link to animal story" pieces (and I only remember that happening twice) which got a lot of bitchy "not news, blah blah blah" one stars despite the fact that Flayrah ran for a decade on "link to animal story" pieces.
People have no historical perspective.
(Uggie adopts vixen is actually a pretty good example of the type, but cute foxes always seemed to have gotten a pass, because cute foxes are given free passes in the furry fandom, which is how it should be.)
Cute foxes are given free what in the furry fandom?
Oh... passes. I gotcha now.
Merely experimenting with exploitables and meanwhile giving myself a pat on the back in the process. Was curious, also, to see if caught, all of them would get reversed. I didn't care really for being truly anonymous (I'd wait awhile between posting, use a more un-Rav-like name, float through more proxies, etc), in fact, was curious if you'd catch it. Good job, though it was rather easy that you did. Was it the name, or do you actually pay attention to your internal logs (which you clearly have a striking plethora of) that often?
I dislike like/dislike systems, and how easily they're usually exploited. Wasn't that a hypocritical/ironic statement? Oh silly me... It's amazing how far some people go to say "fuck this guy", and make it their lifes mission to waste as much time possible by quietly being a dick. Was wondering if that was possible here out of boredom and seeing someone else recently get shit on for just stating facts/news for a particular gaming forum. Eventually the site disabled closing posts based on dislikes. Anyway, it's not impossible to exploit, but more unlikely here than most. Good to know. I give your system 4 of 5 stars!
But only mostly cause it's small enough to be easily policed.
Hey dude, I don't know if you have a legit excuse for acting like an aspie, but here's some constructive criticism that you won't get from a cabal of prolific posters you already know.
When caught shitting your pants in public like this, a good response is to back up and be humble and apologetic. A bad response is to pretend to laugh like it was a joke, then keep droning on like you like to hear yourself talk without contributing much more than arrogant attitude.
Reading about creative stuff is cool, especially when there's an enthusiastic community of posters with interesting opinions about it.
My concern, again, is that drawing the line between "porn" and "erotica" -- let alone either one of those and "art" -- is not as clear-cut as you're tacitly asserting that it is. If we were always talking about The French Lieutenant's Woman on one side of the equation and Debbie Does Dallas on the other, that would be one thing, but more often than not it's not that simple. History is replete with examples of works being stridently attacked as worthless and immoral, even actively pernicious, for reasons that now seem a little dubious.
With respect to furry works in particular, I'd actually assert that the fandom kind of has a bug up its ass about this topic: we take pains to stamp ADULTS ONLY over Kyell Gold novels, making sure that they're going to be perceived as either "gay erotica" or "gay porn" depending on how one feels about the topic. But the most shocking thing about the Gold novels I've read to date is, perhaps, that they have crazy things like character arcs and well-developed themes... and rarely any more explicit sex than you could find in books shelved in general fiction sections of bookstores. (Assuming you can still find a bookstore.) Yet there are certainly furries I run into who are very dismissive of Gold because, hey, they "know" he's a gay pornographer and that's the end of it. At times I suspect there'd be less genuine prurience in furrydom if we didn't insist on such a sharp segregation between "general" and "adult"; our attitude tends to encourage both to go to extremes that perhaps wouldn't be so exaggerated if we just said, in effect, "furry = funny animals for adults," where we mean "for adults" in the same way "Mad Men" is for adults.
Acton's certainly right that in the final analysis, Paypal gets to set their own rules about who they're going to do business with. My concern--at risk of belaboring the point--is that I don't share your apparent confidence that works that aren't "porn" won't be put at risk because of this.
— Chipotle
Oh, I agree there is no clearcut line between porn and art, and the terrain can shift (Playboy centerfolds, for example, have probably shifted over the line from porn to art for most people*, or, more accurately, the culture has shifted the line over Playboy centefolds). I didn't actually imply the line is always at the same point all the time for everybody; but I didn't actually imply that it wasn't, either.
Yes, art is at risk here; but my point is, art is at risk here due to porn. Art is defensible, while porn is, at best, admissable. The problem is a lot of furries (and morons in general, not just furries) are going to be wasting time trying to defend indefensible porn when they should be using that time to save what they can.
Censorship is going to happen; it's not a "necessary" evil, it's more like any other evil in the world. Murder, theft and rape have been generally frowned upon since, you know, just about the dawn of humanity, and outlawed since the dawn of laws, but that hasn't stopped them. Likewise, just because someone wrote a document saying "freedom of speech" doesn't mean people aren't going to be silenced.
In other words, yes, you got screwed, but too many people are lumping you in with the people that helped you get screwed.
*including me, though I didn't want to put a parenthetical phrase in a parenthetical phrase, so it gets an asterisk.
My story "Travelling Music" involves a romance between a human and a cat-woman. It's PG-13 at best, and is arguably reminiscent of the movie "Splash," the 80s-era romantic comedy in which Tom Hanks' character falls in love with a mermaid. In my story, the two main characters do make love toward the story's end--but it's entirely "off-camera," left up to the reader's imagination to fill in any details. It's not erotica by any stretch. The story's focus is entirely romance.
But under Paypal's new terms, it's bestiality. Reli is always a cat-woman. She doesn't transform to a human to make the censors happy. She's no more an "animal" than an elf or a Vulcan, but she's a "non-human fantasy creature," so ding! Porn.
See, I'm not seeing any attempt here to draw a distinction between "genuine crap" and stuff that isn't genuine crap that nonetheless technically falls under these guidelines. Lolita is the canonical example that everyone brings up, but there are a lot of stories out there that have sex between humans and non-humans or depict non-consensual sex. The best-selling Chronicles of Thomas Covenant? Rape! Out the window! The award-winning Perdido Street Station? Non-human sex! Away with you!
And for furries? How many stories in the Best of Show collection would be bounced under this? On a quick flip through I can see Brian Antoine's "To the Magic Born," Mick Collins's "A Snapshot from Fayetteville," my own "How George Miles Almost Saved the World," and Hugo winner Lawrence Watt-Evans's "Foxy Lady." Porn porn porn! Except, y'know, for the part where they aren't.
So: no. We're not talking about porn. We're talking about stuff that people might call pornographic, which is not always the same thing. Paypal-encumbered publishers/sellers are going to err on the most conservative side, and that will have consequences which affect more than "genuine crap."
— Chipotle
Here is the only unfavorable customer review of "Best in Show" on Amazon.com. The other reviews are strongly positive, and show that the reviewers have read the stories. This review suggests that the reviewer has not bothered to.
1.0 out of 5 stars Freakish sexual deviation, April 18, 2007
By Anonymous (Atsugi, Japan) - See all my reviews
This review is from: Furry!: The Best Anthropomorphic Fiction! (Paperback)
This book is the literary manifestation of sexual repression and malformation. Coherent stories, decent prose, actual plot and character development, but all in support of repressed bestiality. Though non-furries will find it readable and perhaps even enjoyable as fiction, the true reason behind each and every one of these stories is furthering the spread of the mental abhoration that is furrydom.
Do not support this book or any of its benefactors.
Significantly(?), this is the only review by "Anonymous". All of the other reviewers signed with names.
Fred Patten
Green Reaper said "cub porn".
If you're not porn, it shouldn't be a problem. Then the question becomes do you believe in it enough to defnd yourself?
Of course the problem here is the idiots who can't make the difference between art and porn out have already crapflooded the PayPal offices with "free speech for the dumb!" Messages, which of course begs the question: why would you want to stand with those idiots?
If you really believe in your art you'd find a better publisher, one who doesn't publish porn next to art with no distinction and little evidence to show there is even a distinction made?
If not one, but two movies about a man transforming into an alien can be nominated for Best Picture Oscars in one year, you can find a publisher who isn't going to look embarassing on your resume if your work is really as good as I hope you believe it is.
And if you don't believe that, why are you even doing it?
The initial post says that Bernard Doove's Chakat stories have been singled out in particular. Doove has never called his writing pornography, and his stories have been published by CreateSpace and sold through Amazon.com, which are not pornographic publishers or booksellers. So does Doove have nothing to worry about?
Fred Patten
Doove is writing about alien sexuality; Doove has always had something to worry about!
I'm afraid you missed my point entirely. :-)
I said that first they came for the cub porn. This is a reference to a famous poem which boils down to "people who don't speak out when others are discriminated against because they see themselves as different should not be surprised when they come next", as various erotica writers have now found out.
I am aware of the poem.
I do think I missed an added layer of irony, though.
A publisher that refused to carry any explicit material at all could still print Best in Show and Why Coyotes Howl. My worry isn't that someone is going to say, "Oh, you're published by that company that also publishes Kyell Gold, so you must be a pornographer." My worry is that someone is going to say, "Your stories feature a human and a cat-woman falling in love, so you must be a pornographer."
(Actually, no: my worry is that someone is going to say the latter, and that Paypal is going to side with them, with no recourse for me, and keep my money.)
And, again, I'd point out how subjective this is: is what Kyell Gold writes pornography, or erotica? Is the answer the same for Volle as it is for Shadow of the Father or Isolation Play? I'm not a huge fan of gay porn-or-erotica, but Kyell tells terrific stories... that happen to have explicit sex in them. Usually less than people who haven't read his stuff imagine. Certainly far less than something like, say, the old furry comic "Omaha the Cat-Dancer," which makes anything that Sofawolf puts out look like Archie Comics. It was nominated for Eisner Awards--the comics industry's biggest honor--in 1989 and 1991 and won in 1991. Porn, or erotica?
— Chipotle
Just because the Bill of Rights (or your country's equivalent for the viewers at home) says "freedom of the press" and "freedom of speech" doesn't mean that magically happens. You can't write something like "Omaha the Cat-Dancer" and expect everything to go smoothly.
But the problem is, furry is on the edge. It is in the Playboy centerfold area, except ten-thousand times that. I think a lot of people are ready for it, but a lot aren't. Even your definition, the adult anthropomorphic animal, people are going to fight that. Anthropomorphic animals are for kids for a lot of people.
I really believe in furry as an artform, but I know it can hurt people. I mean, obviously, not physically, but if you do this the wrong way, it can hurt people. Emotionally. The common euphemism is "upset" them. This is not a condemnation of furry; in fact, rather the opposite. Sometimes, people need to be upset.
Furry can cause strong emotions, and some of those emotions are upsetting. That is a good thing. That is why I love it. But because of those strong emotions, furry is extremely susceptible to attack. Is this fair? No. Is it going to happen? Yes. We are going to have to fight off these attacks. Flailing around saying "Why are you attacking me?" is a luxury we cannot afford because, duh.
In a final note, I'm putting "Read a Kyell Gold novel" in my bucket list. Since he writes male gay por...romance (I said romance) and I'm a straight male, well, I'm not exactly the target audience here, am I. But I need to try this guy.
It definitely didn't go smoothly for "Omaha" all the time. And, we're mostly in agreement here, really, I think.
As for Kyell Gold books, I'd suggest Shadow of the Father or the soon-forthcoming Green Fairy, although Out of Position attracted (positive) attention outside the fandom. (I haven't read it, although oddly enough I've read the sequel book, Isolation Play, and liked it.)
— Chipotle
Out of Position or Isolation Play are out, because I will read gay romance, but I will not read a novel about football.
I have standards.
unfortunately that is not supported outside the US.
there are no real solutions apart from gmail's or paypal services.
Under the strictest sense of the word "bestiality", this would mean humans having sex with animals. Expanding it to non-human fantasy creatures falls under the heading of humans having sex with werewolves, et al.
Two humanoid animals getting busy, however, is out of their jurisdiction.
Don't like it? Go elsewhere.
Remember, this is a site that you agree to their TOS. The ball is in their court, and if you don't like the rules, no one is forcing you to stay.
Anyway, I had always thought that there was a long-standing rule against using it for porn. This looks like they just expanded that a bit.
God, people who say "if you don't like it, go elsewhere" are so idiotic. Obviously no one's FORCING you to stay but you still need/want the fucking service they're offering. Unless you want to go to an inferior company your only choice is to stay there and deal with their BS. Just because they have a TOS doesn't make it okay for them to enact retarded restrictions. Yeah, it's their site and they can do whatever they want with it, but it's still fucking stupid.
Well, I take your comment with a grain of salt. Had you properly introduced yourself, rather than hiding behind a anonymous title, it might have more impact.
I stand by my words. If you don't like it, you can change to a different service. Either you put up with it, or you look elsewhere. If you think that another company is inferior, speak up. Tell them were to improve their site.
I don't find this a 'retarded restriction' as you describe it. Paypal has stated in the past that they did not want their services used for pornographic material. This does fall into that category.
Not getting your erotic fix does not spell the end of the world, you know.
And if you think their restriction is so 'stupid', by all means, go create your own, and don't restrict a thing at all.
Okay, so I'll post with my name and defend the above guys thoughts to some extent. Whoo-hoo. I'm so special cause you can easily stalk me and I have a picture too! He/she's a right to be anonymous, as does anyone. Looking down on anyone's right to decline sharing their name or online handle is a fairly narcissistic area of thinking.
And doesn't sounding condescending prove to be... Provoking and lead you to less constructive thoughts? Somewhat, yes? Well it does for most people. No need for that, so I'll stop now too. Just sharing examples for empathy's sake. :3 Sure, they weren't handling themselves in completely respectable way, but don't be the lesser man and be disheveled by their structure and stature and let it seep into your arguments. It makes one sound arrogant. Hell this sounds arrogant in it's own right.
Anyway, that aside, the problem is, one person is a grain of salt in most any company's eyes. One complaint is a number, and one is the loneliest. Getting a group together to make that number soar is difficult and tedious, unless it's for something that's widely accepted as poor business practice that have gotten -many- people in uproar about.
This issue is a drop in the bucket for a company that is large as Paypal. They could give a shit less, and they'll let you know that as if nothing else, their argument will be a personal one of morals and values. Will they lose some business? Sure, but they'll laugh about it and look good to conservative and family oriented people (assuming the issue was even brought to such a degree of light).
It's hard to argue against your last line, yet ironically, it's also very simple: not everyone has the resource, the means, the way; some people have to wait for someone else to make the first step, and then become the advocate, the consumer of the product or service. Not everything is black and white as saying you either take initiative and get shit done yourself, or not at all. Not everything is so simple.
I mean sure, I could tell you the same thing when you complain about how gas prices are stupid, but I doubt most people, including yourself have the resource or time to create a machine that can run on some variation of fuel that is dirt cheap and is furthermore inexpensive to manufacture. IF you got the idea, the way, the resources though, please do something. :P
Changing to a different service is fine advice... IF there is something to change to. In this case I'm using an e-book publisher that has their whole system based around Paypal. It's actually an excellent set-up. However, I can't just drop them for another company because I will have similar problems elsewhere. If I lived in the States, I might have some flexibility, but if I don't wanted to be raped on currency exchanges, Paypal remains my best option, much to my regret.
Perhaps I'm anonymous because I just felt like quickly pointing out the flaws in your "argument" and not like coming back every day to spar with you over furry porn while anything wrong I say reflects badly upon my online persona? Plus I can let out a little rage without having it attached to an account online. Point is, you're not any better than anyone else for showing your username in the comments, and thinking you are is just silly.
"Put up with it or look elsewhere" is stupid advice most of the time. Hey, let's put up with a corrupt government OR move to another country, instead of trying to change things! Your whole argument is basically "never complain about anything". Not everyone is as accepting of mediocrity as you.
Oh, right, because the inability to buy animal porn is exactly the same thing as living under a corrupt government...
5 stars! Plus a "5 stars" comment, though mostly just to annoy GR.
Totally missing the point.
not really. Make a better analogy and your comment might have more impact.
No, I don't think I am any better than other people by using my name.
But I also don't go about insulting people, while hiding my face. A rather cowardly thing to do, if you ask me.
There is a big difference between a corrupt government, and porn. Guess what, you can live without your porn.
I never said that you could not complain, but when you agree to the TOS of the site, and violate it, don't be surprised if it comes back to bite you.
"But I also don't go about insulting people, while HIDING my FACE."
>.> really you just said that REALLY!!!!! your hiding behind a fucking furry avatar you fucking retard
You really shot your stupid self down maybe you should find a different internet to act just as dumb as your stupid ass is.
Not understanding the difference between "your" and "you're," no punctuation, run-on sentences, and oh yes, not understanding the difference between anonymous and pseudonymous. Jesus, Flayrah needs a better class of troll.
— Chipotle
Thank you.
It's amusing, really, when and if all else fails, if they have grammatically incorrect structure, their points and arguments are invalid, or they can't be taken seriously.
Such elitism. =\
Points, not the way they are conveyed should matter. Unfortunately, I realize humanity is a creature of habit, and the habit here is they don't approve of something outside the normal structure as easily, therefore I actually take the time to be somewhat constructive in my writing style and grammatical correctness in effort to be more easily understood and my thoughts be heard.
Also, that was a minor flaw. I mean really. Not like they were 1337 speaking, ghetto speaking, phone text speaking, or worse, not speaking at all. Get over yourselves. If he/she was a troll, they'd eat that up. God knows I would.
I'm pretty much done with this particular "argument", as it's clearly botched and foolhardy and no longer pertinent to the main subject. What that means is expect no reply to any reply after this.
Sure, of course it's feeding the trolls, but I completely disagree that it's "elitism" to expect someone to defend their position with more than "ha ha ha your retarded fucking furry." And that's all they said. That's not a "minor flaw," it's an ad hominem attack--and it's not one that's actually even being marshaled to back up a point, beyond "you're using a handle so you're anonymous too so shut up." And that's even a valid point. If you use the handle "Ravvy" consistently then even though I don't know your real name, you're associating your words with your identity. That's not anonymous, it's pseudonymous, and that's a meaningful distinction.
The way you convey a point really doesmatter. If you convey it rudely, people are going to stop listening. (As with the people who stopped listening to me, of course, because I was rude to the troll; in retrospect I forgot one of my own cardinal rules: you can't try to use return trolling as a form of moderation.) And if you convey it badly, people may not know what the hell your point is in the first place. A sound argument made poorly is very hard to distinguish from a poor argument.
Sure, this isn't pertinent to the main subject, and no, I probably shouldn't have played "grammar cop." But the words you choose and the way you put them together really do count.
— Chipotle
I -really- hate going against my own words, but for the fact you worded it so eloquently and all that jazz, I'll have to throw out just this one more.
I never said anything about it not mattering in how you convey a point. I personally feel it merely shouldn't.
The reason I feel this way is because we often censor ourselves, and our emotions, our raw feelings for means being what is widely accepted as acceptable. For some, it's not really a matter of censoring, some people just don't get so emotional. Thing is, I just distaste when people are looked down upon for being emotional, even if it's completely illogical. It's still human.
As for the elitism bit, most people are to an extent narcissistic if they're grammar nazis. One of Hotchkiss' seven deadly sins of narcissism is arrogance: A narcissist who is feeling deflated may reinflate by diminishing, debasing, or degrading somebody else. In this case, degrading someone due to their grammar ability. Perhaps you weren't being completely elitist in your comment, but to an extent you were. Though I distaste it when people are looked down upon for being emotional, I can't help but return that arrogance back at those who send it upon others to give a taste of their own dish. Simply, people who think they're god's gift to mankind frankly piss me off. You provoked that of me in how you conveyed yourself. I apologize if I was incorrect in feeling that way.
SO... Yeah, this whole little thing, it's pretty silly since we're both going way out of our way to explain things that aren't pertinent to the subject at hand. Let's get back to that. :D NOW I'm done with this bit.
You implied that people shouldn't complain, don't deny it.
This was never about porn. I, unlike some people, don't spend money on porn because I have better things to buy... like food.
It's about the fact that people are getting screwed over a stupid decision by paypal, having their accounts locked and funds withheld. You don't have to care about it but don't act like everyone else shouldn't.
I am in the same situation I run a side business (estate or liquidation to Ebay) my policy is I will not have do anything with porn and any stripe or cults. Your way out of your league on this one. If you do not like it, you can take your business somewhere else.I am not even sorry. you have no right to tell me or Paypal run our business.
I like see you try to make me . I have the law on my side.
""Put up with it or look elsewhere" is stupid advice most of the time. Hey, let's put up with a corrupt government OR move to another country, instead of trying to change things! Your whole argument is basically "never complain about anything". Not everyone is as accepting of mediocrity as you."
This argument is call a Non sequitur because you conclusion does not foillow the argument of Paypal TOS and has noting to do with the government.
You know what, I'm going to apologize to you right quick, because, you know, you're a crazy bastard, and I don't get you at all, but ... shine on, you crazy diamond.
And also this was a good comment.
Paypal won't "shoot themselves in the foot" with this action. In fact, Paypal won't lose much at all, long term or short term.
When you look at the millions who continue to use Paypal, "losing" income from a handful of erotic literature companies is inconsequential to say the least.
If anything, this doesn't really quite shoot Paypal in their own foot. To reiterate anonymous above me here more clearly, it will make Paypal look more clean and correct on the surface, more desirable. Basically, it's one less dirty thing that can be held against them, and when you're big, anything possible can and will be held against you if you have competition.
If one has not noticed of late, many battles recently are over values that are old and the attempt to keep them intact, or even revive nearly dead or completely dead ones (we sometimes refer to this as conservative). Then there's the other side, the ones that feel old values are mostly outdated, and have been pretty much from the start and that adhering to these values and morals, of which are based in a major aspect on religion and location, have no logical point, and therefore no point at all.
So the bottom line here is we have Paypal, one of the oldest online payment system services, and the largest one to date, with a reputation it is trying to keep clean and uptight. Or we have something else which is new and innovative, and daring, not afraid of hosting payment services for even the most odd and deviant things out there. Who will win? Both likely. Paypal will be for the mainstream and family oriented while ____ company will be for those when they're trying to explore more of themselves, beyond the realm of norm, so to say. The real question is when will either values or innovation and diversity win? That would then truly decide which company wins and if Paypal really did shoot their own foot.
Theory is fun. But I'll state one somewhat OPINIONATED fact: Paypal's customer service is utter trash. I've had first hand experience several times over. I let them walk all over me unknowingly, as I used to be a customer service representative myself, and was trying to be empathetic in lieu of that. Long story short, that department fails, and it goes to show how much they really care, when they're putting more emphasis on their front image, rather than their integrity. With that in mind, I personally look forward to Dwolla or something with a similar business model coming to light soon.
odd' because ebay owns PayPal and eBay has a seperate adults-only category (search for dildo and it will ask you for age-verification), and it appears that many sellers selling erotica on eBay take PayPal as payment. Whats that about?
It's weird this post should pop up today right after I read another article talking about someone else's electronic publishing woes, in which Apple refused to carry an ebook because it contained links to Amazon. The number of online services that authors can rely on is particularly narrow at the moment, so it's difficult when those services start applying stricter limitations. :(
I find this sad. It's another case of people failing to distinguish fantasy from reality and of people imposing their own morality on others in situations where no one is harmed. Yes they are fully allowed to do it but that doesn't mean that they should do it, that it is a good decision or that people should just accept it. It is society moving in a dangerous direction that we should do everything that we can to stop.
This makes me want to read the book about censorship in the modern world even more now. Apparently it's far more prevalent and invasive than we might think, and I know examples for every sort of censorship they mention in the dust cover.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
Exactly. People seem to think that because they "can", then they automatically "should".
No it not "their own morality on others in situations where no one is harmed" in fact it a personal choice will within our rights.
It like saying, if I own an on line book store on Amazon, and I am imposing on Kyell Gold by not selling his book on my site because I only sell Orthodox Christian, politically conservative and Family friendly items. Now if I try to say lest get government to ban Kyell Gold for writing them you have a point, but I do not. So how can you say I am imposing my morality on him by refusing to sell his book?
I said it's within their rights but that doesn't mean that they should do it. It's within my rights to bath in skunk juice and then go wander around a shopping centre but I'm sure you'll agree that such behaviour is not acceptable. As it is there is a big difference between your example and this situation.
If you have a book store that caters to a specific need then that is fine. No one expects a Christian book store to sell anything else and that is totally acceptable, nobody can sell everything. It wouldn't be the same if you open a general book store and sell books about every religion except Christianity. You might be allowed to but that's not a decent move.
However none of that is relevant here because Paypal isn't selling the books, it is transferring money. Unless the transaction is illegal it's really none of their business what the money is for. Their actions here are saying they won't allow you to send money if it's for something they don't like and that is imposing their morality and reinforcing the idea that sex is dirty and shameful.
It's not a question of what they're allowed to do but whether they should be doing it and whether it's even relevant to them. Don't make the mistake of thinking because someone has a right to do something that it's okay for them to do it.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
We can agree on one thing we disagree or how I live my life and inspired by Denis Prager we can have clarity on each other positions but no agreement.
Th issue is Paypal has every right to set its tos. In fact I feel better doing buisness with them becase of the policy.
I think Rakuen's point just made a very distinctive sound as is zoomed past your head, mate. =\
You basically backed up your argument that Paypal has every right to set it's tos with the same argument, that they just have that right. Period. It's rather interesting you seemed to miss that Rakuen made a lovely analogy about skunk juice and how one could have the right to bathe in it and wander around a shopping center. Sure, there's no law (that I'm familiar of, at least where I'm located) of preventing such a thing from occurring, but I'd dare to suggest that if many people started bathing in skunk juice and going shopping at Wal-Mart, that there would either be a policy or law enacted against the act, as it's disruptive, and distasteful to the majority, and serves very little logical point to take part in such a thing.
It's the same thing in regards to this particular issue with Paypal in a sense. Tell me how in the world that denying people the right to use their service for specific erotica is logical and justified without any basis on morality or personal opinion, or other than the fact it's a business and it's their ultimate choice?
I don't understand the first sentence at all. Yes, we already said Paypal is fully able to set it's TOS. The question is whether they are doing so in an acceptable and responsible way. Would you think it's fine if Paypal said it's service couldn't be used if one of the people had a "p" in their name? Or if Paypal said their service wasn't allowed to be used for cookbooks? The idea that sex and sexuality is a bad one. This policy is effectively saying that sex is a bad thing and that particular fantasies should be pushed away. If you care about your own ability to say your mind or about protection of your ideal then you should oppose such incursions on others as it may be your interests that are suddenly marginalised.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
I agree wholly. It's sad how with something natural and as beautiful, not to mention fun, as sex, that it's often shunned away like it's some dirty evil little thing that we don't ever want to talk about, hear about, read about, watch, or perceive or produce by any other means of conveyance.
Clearly this displays how uncomfortable some people are with themselves. Call it modesty, call it whatever you like, it's still censorship. The day all 'dirty' things such as this are swept under the rug, is the day humanity as a whole loses something truly valuable: open knowledge. Though this Paypal fiasco isn't a severe case of this, it just goes to show that we're still somewhat at risk of losing what progress we've attained over the course of centuries of development.
Long story short: the world is slowly growing up and becoming more self aware, and more comfortable and logical with itself. Things like this stunt that growth. Thus, people like us have an issue with and a bone to pick with anything that gets in the way of that growth.
Bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin that's what bitcoin's for. Some day.
Why do bestiality sex perverts like anime?
Let's be clear about one thing: Paypal only cares about money. They probably are responding to legal concerns--it's most likely that they're afraid of violating some law.
Could be. I think almost all of that content is actually illegal here. Or at least illegal to sell and distribute. As far as I know possession is fine.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
Interesting angle. I thought of that myself. Ultimately, it's all about the profit, the money, yes.
But I'm sure there's also the public angle, the front image, too. I mean when you make your company look like god's gift to mankind, without overdoing it, you're probably going to have people feel more safe and comfortable with you.
It's really hard to say, overall. :c I'd like to know, but we'd waste time finding answers through their service department, I can practically promise that.
LOL. I popped in to submit a story about sci fi publishing. It was the first time I came here. With 14 stories on the front page, the most commented ones are about selling porn (37 comments) and a review of porn (6 comments). Porn is fine. It just makes me ask how many top commented stories on this blog are about other stuff?
Your response is almost morbidly funny in the fact that you kind of assumed/hoped that this might be a holy area, devoid of little or anything in reference to the "dark side of the furry". Rose colored glasses aren't approved here really, but it's not a retched hive of scum and villainy, either.
Flayrah is for most anything in relation to news based around or in the furry fandom/community, it's not a bookclub or anything of the like, and dares to publish pretty much anything newsworthy, even if it's going to give rise to a shit storm of controversy. And if you want to really know what's what, and which pages get the most views, check out this: http://www.flayrah.com/admin/reports/google-analytics You'll find that an article over a movie got the most views this month.
Also to note, it's much more easier and more food for thought, not to mention more lucrative to have a conversation or debate over something with controversy, like in this particular news story. Thus, you will see more responses to articles like this. Reviews of books and such do get views, though, don't worry. Relax, we're not all die-hard furs with chapped and callused phallus's who can't get away from thoughts of porn, even in news.
No assumptions/hopes (since I didn't comment about editorial policy), just a question about what's what :)
As Ravvy notes, comments do not necessarily indicate proportionately wide readership. Sex, crime and drama are popular topics for comments because many people have strong opinions about them. Such topics also attract attention outside our normal readership - this post was linked from FA, while a recent story about bestiality had visitors from lulz.net.
The Puss in Boots story is from October, and shows the importance of search for news sites - many of which shoot themselves in the feet by breaking or archiving old content. Your own story was entirely appropriate for Flayrah.
Yeah, I have to look at that story's pageviews every once in a while and go, oh, wow.
Sadly the comma in the title appears to have broken the footer Analytics display. It got 1,220 pageviews this month. (Which is, of course, about to be eclipsed by this one.)
Could be worse, the most viewed article happened because some guy offed himself and ended up getting his animals slaughtered, at least THAT didn't happen this time.
off topic but how the hell do i turn off notifications about new comments? Totally unwelcome in my inbox (due to volume.) I must have accidentally left that clicked on when I first posted and I can't find an account options link on here now.
Edit. Found by clicking name (not intuitive...) so problem fixed :)
Stories with large numbers of comments around here don't necessarily follow popular interest. More often than not, it seems large numbers of comments on stories are from a few stubborn users making disagreeable points and counterpoints (sometimes the same points, almost like clockwork).
Nice!
An interesting position to take for a CEO that has donated the most to Ron Paul then any other apparently. Does he even understand that with Paul's competing currency idea that the monopoly over the fiat currency that Paypal's main business partners (you know credit card companys) would suddenly have competetion from backed currency and make it even more difficult for them to have a large centralized organization to control transactions and corner the monetary interaction market... you know like Paypal tries to do?
You know, just sayin'... having your business be "moral police" is an ironic way to run a business when Paul is running against the government being "moral police". Everyone's a hypocrite.
Since when is it the job of a money pusher to make judgements about there client's behaviour? Aren't banks supposed to have a "No Felony, No Problem!" attitude?
No, banks are supposed to have a "make money for our shareholders" attitude. The reason that a lot of payment processors don't deal with porn sites and gambling sites is not moral, it's financial: those business lines have a statistically much higher risk of fraud, chargebacks and defaults. This is also why the payment processors that do deal with "high risk" businesses tend to have substantially higher processing fees.
— Chipotle
Post new comment