No Stupid Questions

I know when they were threatening to pull out of OnlyFans and Pornhub, the big concern the payment processors cited was child abuse. I don't know to what degree that's the entire story, so take it with a grain of salt.

Their complaint was that the primary method those sites had to prevent child porn from being uploaded was reports from other users. By definition, this means that the site has to allow the child porn to be uploaded, and only then takes it down after it's been reported. So someone must have seen it before it gets removed. They said they didn't want to be associated with sites that share child porn. That's why PornHub removed a TON of amateur content and changed their rules so that all users who upload content have to be verified on the site. That's their new control to prevent child porn.

Ex-employee of a large provider of adult content. Everyone’s hailing around similar things that are more or less accurate (fosta/cesta, csam, puritanical values, PNC Chargebacks) but follow the money back to who owns the CC providers and where they’re located and you’ll see the cultural acceptance of sex work is different and while they want porn money they ultimately don’t like sex work and that’s why they’re a pain in the ass so they have a number of options to to talk themselves out of offering transactions for whenever they feel ick’d about porn

There's a podcast called hot money that goes in to this. Got shelf check it out, I reckon you'll like it

In addition to the higher frequency of both fraud and chargebacks associated (allegedly) with sexual content, there are also a legal concerns for payment processors. They don't want to be associated with enabling child porn both from a legal responsibility angle and also from the perception of processing payments for illegal content.

Is that concern overblown? Probably, but the card companies do get pressure from both the public and the government when they process the 'wrong' teansactions whether they are illegal or not and they don't have a free pass like the internet common carriers do.

It's a Victorianism syndrome,

https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780195176322.001.0001/acref-9780195176322-e-1665

Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834—were introduced for the moral reform of paupers

Where morality has nothing to do with actual morality like in whether it is doing harm. But everything to do with government making decisions over your private life and your body.

This mindset is disgusting, immoral and childish. And it so permeate everything about most English speaking countries culture for some reason.
It's a kind of a thought police, that has no base in actual morality. But in bodily inhibitions and insecurities, supported by superstitions about an old man in the sky who disapprove.

So anything having to do with naked skin and sex is a nono. Even if it's not actually sex but only loosely related to it, like being gay or trans.

If they were really serious about this sex thing, stating to be CIS should be exactly as problematic, and pushing the thought of marriage on children would be extremely immoral, because that too indicates sex. Which has almost become the sole purpose of marriage under the moral standards of Christianity, as it's the only allowed form of sex.

So in short, the answer to your question could be boiled down to "brainworm".
There is no logic or moral explanation, that doesn't boil down to inhibitions, control and religion.

I think it’s more about the fraud rate than pure prudishness. On one hand you have real hackers testing stolen cards. On the other, found out spouses claiming they’ve no idea about charges and charging back.

All they care about is their cut, but they don’t get it here as often as with traditional sectors.

I think it has to do with some law where banks are required to cut all financial ties to any company that aids in the production, purchase or selling of CSAM and Sexual Trafficking content etc. so many businesses are wary of any website that provides adult content unless there is the strictest of moderation and verification procedures.

Which is one of the reasons many websites (tumbler, Reddit) are limiting NSFW content because they want to be able to have users buy things on their website but don't want to moderate the content to the standards of the banks.

FOSTA-SESTA is at the heart of it, as I understand. I don't want to elaborate much more because I don't know nearly enough about the situation, but adding this search term helped make it make a little bit of sense to me.

Edit: not that I'm lumping these different ideas together, but that the prudish folks could theoretically use this legal framework to throw allegations that Visa/MasterCard would rather not have to defend against.

Chargebacks after post-nut clarity?

Idk! But when my credit card number got jacked someone spent $120 on fansly and nothing happened, it wasn't until they tried to spend another $100 on Applebee's gift cards half way across the country that my card auto locked.

Probably that they don't want to be associated with CP or teenage suicide. Aka "won't somebody please think of the children".