Reading the article, I was bemused to find out that banks will shut down an individuals account based on moral reasons. That's a very biased point of view, especially in a country which is supposed to free, fair and just. As long as it's not illegal to strip, which is the case in Las Vegas, then why deny them an account? Now I am beginning to re-think this whole KYC/AML thing, so banks or financial institutions could put in regulations not to accept payments from certain sources even though they are legit and are not involved in any illegal activities.
"
Most likely because is an activity that is prone to money laundering and because most investors would rather not be involved in it. The sex "business" is many times linked to illegal activities.
paxmao, that is a mixture of uninformed speculation and hasty generalization on your part. Cliché, too: “Money laundering” is a well-known catch-all excuse for actions desired on other grounds; and Bitcoiners of all people should be wary of such arguments, on same grounds that “money laundering” was one of the official
“Four Horsemen” of the Infocalypse commonly seen in 90s-era crypto law discussions. Why do
you want non-KYC, non-bank-controlled money? Are you a criminal?
Although it’s certainly true that the “mainstream” of these types of businesses often have unsavoury links (especially in the U.S.), commercial suppression of sex-related businesses is driven by moral and social factors (
specifically in the U.S.). Banks often close the accounts of independent operators (think: swinger couple with a website). Even sex bloggers can run into trouble here. Add soft or hard rejection by Paypal (strictly against T.O.S.), Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, Patreon, GoFundMe, and many other such companies—really, it seems that the only ones who
don’t have any problems staying in business are carnal charnel houses with deep pockets and shady connections.
I’ve noticed that certain social media places for independent virtual sex trade carry warnings about Paypal and/or Google Wallet, which should be heeded by those who wish to keep their accounts. Paypal is notorious in this aspect; and I somewhat doubt that “money laundering” be their motivation. Curiously enough,
/r/GirlsGoneBitcoin has no such problem.
I have more information about this. Earlier, I drafted a
long reply to TrumpD (before Jet Cash’s reply). However, it’s not yet quite ready. I may finish it up later, pending some other things.
Edit: My memory flaked out; it has been (
cough) awhile since I actually read the Cypherpunk FAQ, a/k/a the Cyphernomicon. I have corrected the text of that paragraph, and added a link for reference. “Money laundering”
was one of T.C. May’s original “Four Horsemen” at § 8.3.4: “‘How will privacy and anonymity be attacked?’ [...] like so many other ‘computer hacker’ items, as a tool for the ‘Four Horsemen’: drug-dealers, money-launderers, terrorists, and pedophiles.” Now, compare the typical mass-media FUD agitprop scare stories which smear Bitcoin as a thing for underground criminals.
