Lemme break this down. Here’s how it goes. Talk of repealing section 230 = platforms being held responsible for content they host. Think hard. What followed FOSTA/SESTA? An act targeting BANKING INSTITUTIONS.

If sec 230 is repealed and platforms are held accountable, payment processors and banks will be next in line. MC and Visa I’d wager don’t give a rat’s a$$ about CP/trafficking. but they DO care about being held liable for facilitating payment and ad revenue generated from it.

Now what have we learned about legal language targeting “trafficking victims” and “exploitation?” S*X WORKERS ARE INCLUDED. Ergo, it is much easier, less risky, more cost effective to say screw s*x workers entirely vs potentially face legal action over aforementioned content.

MC/Visa are acting preemptively to cover their a$$es bc in the event that 230 is repealed (which is a bipartisan effort) they’ll be able to go to the govt and say “see? We self-regulate! No need for more pesky laws!” But self regulation means shutting down pay and content sites.

To put this in perspective, Visa/MC together hold about 80% of card users in a vice grip. That means roughly 80% of our customers no longer able to pay us unless they are willing to figure out alternatives like crypto. And this will NOT stop with PH bc it targets ALL platforms.

All this to say, don’t you dare be in my mentions talking about this as a win for revenge p*rn and CP when you have NONE of the same energy for FB, Google, or the platform you are literally using RIGHT THIS SECOND all of which host more CP and cases of trafficking than PH. https://twitter.com/cagoldberglaw/status/1337026875441491973

Want to add to this that CSAM (ch!ld s*xual ass*ult material) and IBA (image based ab*se)/SAM (s*xual ab*se material) are the preferred terms. Had seen people use CSAM just was not aware of the distinction myself until now, sharing for others who are not up to date as well.