MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417196290 · doi:10.1080/23268743.2025.2580673

Pornhub, payment processors and child sexual abuse material: moral and algorithmic authorities in platform governance

2025· article· en· W4417196290 on OpenAlexafffund
Margaret Y. MacDonald

Bibliographic record

VenuePorn Studies · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Feminism, and Media
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaForschungsvereinigung Stahlanwendung
KeywordsCorporate governancePaymentChild sexual abuseChild abuseSexual abuseChild pornographySexual violence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article analyses cultural, commercial and technical forces shaping content moderation on pornography platforms. Antipornography frameworks have unjustly cast adult sites as leading perpetrators circulating harmful and sexually abusive content. This framing encourages credit card companies and payment processors to treat porn platforms as high-risk merchants subject to stricter standards and oversight. To mitigate risk, these business partners frequently require use of algorithmic tools for content management. Governance by these private financial firms thus shapes porn platform moderation through both moral panic and automation. To make this dynamic legible, I examine Visa and Mastercard's demonetization of Pornhub in 2020 following a child sexual abuse material (CSAM) scandal. This case captures the range of anti-porn values, influential business partners and automated technologies shaping Pornhub moderation. I first introduce the controversy, detail ‘high-risk' terms for adult merchants and show how rules are interpreted and enforced by payment processors. Next, I review content moderation protocols on Pornhub, considering effects of these tools on porn and the stakes of this governing arrangement. I conclude arguing that interventions on porn platforms framed in service of public safety primarily serve private commercial interests – mitigating ‘reputational risk’ while entrenching other harms in content management.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.031
Scholarly communication0.0070.010
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.289 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePorn StudiesSame topicGender, Feminism, and MediaFrench-language works237,207