A petition has emerged calling for MasterCard and Visa to stop influencing the censorship of legal fictional content. The petition argues that these payment processors are pressuring platforms to restrict access to various forms of entertainment, such as books, games, and films, based on the personal values of executives or activist groups rather than legality.

The petition highlights a perceived hypocrisy in how these companies handle different types of content. For instance, they have allowed platforms like OnlyFans to operate with little oversight despite serious allegations regarding real abuse. In contrast, they swiftly act against creators of fictional content that may be deemed offensive by certain advocacy groups.

Supporters of the petition assert that adults should have the freedom to choose what they want to watch or read without being dictated by others' moral standards. They emphasize that if someone finds specific content objectionable, they can simply choose not to engage with it rather than impose restrictions on others.

The demands outlined in the petition include an end to censorship of legal fiction, rejection of undue influence from activist groups promoting moral panic, transparency about content restrictions and their reasons, and protection for creators' rights in producing adult content. The overarching message is a call for respect towards artistic expression and consumer choice in today's digital landscape.

As of now, over 99,000 individuals have signed this petition in support of free expression and artistic integrity.

Original article

The article discusses a petition that addresses the issue of payment processors' influence on the censorship of legal fictional content. Here is an analysis of its value to the reader:

Actionable Information: The article does not provide specific steps or instructions for readers to take immediate action. It merely informs about the existence of the petition and its demands. There are no tools or resources mentioned that readers can directly utilize.

Educational Depth: It offers some educational value by explaining the petition's arguments and highlighting the perceived hypocrisy in content moderation practices. The article provides a deeper understanding of the issue by discussing the contrast between the handling of OnlyFans and fictional content. However, it does not delve into extensive detail or provide comprehensive explanations of the underlying systems or causes.

Personal Relevance: The topic of the article has the potential to be personally relevant to individuals who consume various forms of entertainment and value their freedom of choice. It raises questions about censorship, moral standards, and the impact of corporate influence on creative expression. While not everyone may be directly affected by the specific issue, it can spark important conversations about personal freedoms and the role of corporations in shaping cultural norms.

Public Service Function: The article does not serve an immediate public service function by providing official warnings, safety advice, or emergency contacts. It primarily serves as an informative piece, bringing attention to the petition and its concerns. However, it does not actively guide readers on how to engage with or contribute to the cause.

Practicality of Advice: As the article primarily focuses on raising awareness and presenting arguments, it does not offer practical advice or actionable tips. The demands outlined in the petition are more of a call to action for the payment processors rather than direct guidance for readers.

Long-Term Impact: The article's impact is more focused on raising awareness and potentially influencing long-term changes in content moderation practices. By highlighting the petition's message, it contributes to ongoing discussions about artistic expression, consumer choice, and the role of corporations in shaping digital landscapes. However, it does not provide concrete strategies or plans for achieving these long-term goals.

Emotional/Psychological Impact: The article may evoke emotions such as frustration, concern, or a sense of empowerment among readers who value free expression. It presents a call for respect and highlights the potential infringement on personal freedoms. However, it does not offer specific strategies for managing or addressing these emotions or provide a clear path for readers to engage with the issue emotionally.

Clickbait or Ad-Driven Words: The article does not employ sensational or misleading language to grab attention. It presents the information in a straightforward manner, focusing on the petition's arguments and demands. There is no indication of an excessive focus on clicks or advertising.

In summary, the article provides valuable insights into the petition's concerns regarding censorship and corporate influence. It educates readers about the issue and raises awareness. However, it lacks actionable steps, practical advice, and a comprehensive guide for readers to actively engage with the cause. To enhance its value, the article could have included links to the petition itself, provided resources for readers to learn more about content moderation practices, or offered suggestions for individuals to support or advocate for free expression. Additionally, including real-world examples or case studies could have added depth and made the issue more relatable.

The petition's call for freedom of expression and artistic integrity, while seemingly focused on individual rights, carries significant implications for the fabric of local communities and the survival of kinship bonds.

The described actions of payment processors, in their selective censorship of content, undermine the natural duties of parents and extended family to guide and protect their children. By allowing certain platforms to operate with impunity while restricting others, these companies create an environment where children are exposed to potentially harmful or inappropriate content, shifting the responsibility for content moderation from parents to distant, faceless corporations. This erodes the trust and authority that parents and elders hold within their communities, weakening the social structures that support procreative families.

Furthermore, the petition's emphasis on adult freedom to choose content without consideration for the impact on children reveals a neglect of duty. While adults have the right to choose their entertainment, they also have a responsibility to ensure that their choices do not harm or confuse the vulnerable, especially children. The petition's supporters, by advocating for unrestricted access to potentially offensive or abusive content, risk exposing children to material that could distort their understanding of the world, confuse their sense of right and wrong, and potentially lead to harm.

The petition's demand for transparency and rejection of activist influence is a step towards accountability and local responsibility. However, the broader issue of content moderation and the protection of children should not be left solely to payment processors or activist groups. It is the duty of parents, elders, and local communities to actively engage in the stewardship of their digital environments, just as they would in the physical world. This includes educating children about media literacy, setting boundaries, and providing safe spaces for discussion and guidance.

If the ideas and behaviors outlined in the petition were to spread unchecked, the consequences for local communities would be dire. The erosion of parental authority and the confusion of moral boundaries would lead to a generation of children less able to discern right from wrong, potentially increasing rates of abuse, exploitation, and conflict within families and communities. The breakdown of trust and the shifting of family responsibilities onto distant authorities would fracture the very foundations of kinship bonds, weakening the social fabric that has historically protected and nurtured the vulnerable.

In conclusion, while the petition raises valid concerns about censorship and artistic expression, its focus on individual freedom without consideration for the impact on children and communities is a dangerous path. The survival of the people, and the stewardship of the land, depend on the strength of kinship bonds, the protection of the vulnerable, and the clear delineation of personal duties. Ideas and behaviors that undermine these foundations must be recognized and addressed, not only for the sake of the present but for the continuity of the people and the land they call home.

"The petition argues that these payment processors are pressuring platforms to restrict access to various forms of entertainment, such as books, games, and films, based on the personal values of executives or activist groups rather than legality."

This sentence uses strong words like "pressuring" and "restrict" to create a negative image of the payment processors. It implies that these companies are forcing their personal beliefs on others, which is a form of virtue signaling. The bias here is against the payment processors and in favor of personal freedom and choice.

The text evokes a range of emotions, primarily centered around frustration, anger, and a sense of injustice. These emotions are expressed through the language used to describe the actions of MasterCard, Visa, and activist groups. The petitioners feel a strong sense of frustration towards the perceived hypocrisy and double standards exhibited by the payment processors. They are angry that these companies are allegedly allowing real abuse to persist on certain platforms while simultaneously censoring legal fictional content based on subjective moral standards. This anger is further fueled by the belief that adults' freedom of choice is being infringed upon, as they should have the autonomy to decide what they consume without external moral policing.

The emotion of frustration is evident in the petition's argument that individuals should be able to choose what they engage with, rather than having restrictions imposed on them. This emotion serves to create a sense of solidarity among readers, as it implies that their own freedoms are at stake. It also helps to build trust by presenting the petitioners as defenders of personal liberties, which is an idea that many people can relate to and support.

To persuade readers, the writer employs a strategic use of language. They describe the actions of MasterCard and Visa as "influencing censorship" and "pressuring platforms," which carries a negative connotation and implies a level of control and manipulation. The phrase "undue influence" is also used to describe the role of activist groups, suggesting that their moral panic is unwarranted and excessive. By using these emotional terms, the writer aims to create a sense of outrage and indignation among readers, encouraging them to align with the petitioners' cause.

Additionally, the writer employs a technique of contrast to highlight the perceived injustice. They compare the alleged leniency towards OnlyFans, a platform with serious abuse allegations, with the swift action against creators of fictional content. This contrast is designed to evoke a strong emotional response, as it suggests a lack of consistency and fairness in the companies' decisions. By presenting this contrast, the writer aims to inspire action and motivate readers to sign the petition, as they may feel compelled to stand against what they perceive as an unfair and hypocritical system.

Overall, the text skillfully utilizes emotional language and persuasive techniques to guide the reader's reaction. By evoking strong emotions of frustration, anger, and a sense of injustice, the writer aims to create a powerful call to action, encouraging readers to support the petition and stand up for free expression and artistic integrity.