Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Australian anti-porn group claims responsibility for Steams new censorship rules

pcgamer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 177 posts

Re: Australian anti-porn group claims responsibility for Steams new censorship rules

#111

Post by thaumasiotes »

chaosbolt wrote: post #71
whatshisface wrote: post #35

One of the reasons that credit card companies have an incentive to keep this stuff off people's statements is that they sell your credit card histories on the data market, and would not want you to have a strong reason to want to stop them.

And this is really bad, like I forgot the number of times I give in to get that pack of candy near the register at a shop then after a couple days exactly as the pack is empty I get shown a commercial of the same brand of the same pack/size etc.

Where are you? In the United States, there are displays of candy at every cash register, but they're individual servings that you're expected to eat in full immediately after leaving the store. A big bag with several days' worth of candy would have to come from the candy aisle.

And... are you really being served internet ads for candy?

Re: Australian anti-porn group claims responsibility for Steams new censorship rules

#112

Post by lrvick »

bitwize wrote: post #97
lrvick wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A key is just a 256 bit number. You can literally create one with paper and dice rolls. They will no sooner figure out who is holding most of these than they will figure out who is holding cash, or the identities of the 25m+ people downloading pirated media right now. At best they can ask the public to please turn over their private keys, which will go about as well as efforts to stop piracy.

They can prosecute transactions with unregistered keys as money laundering. They may not have the resources to get everybody but they can collect a few scalps pour encourager les autres .

They tried making examples of a few people for piracy too and adoption only went up.

Stopping cryptocurrency is as hard as stopping end to end encrypted messaging or banning porn.

You either allow access to the open internet or you do not.

Re: Australian anti-porn group claims responsibility for Steams new censorship rules

#113

Post by Y_Y »

lrvick wrote: post #93
freedomben wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. There are tons of different proposals, but generally speaking the common thread is that the banks (possibly The Central Bank) will keep the keys for you. They will still be middlemen in all transactions so they can harvest data and make sure you aren't buying anything the government doesn't like. They can also do tax enforcement a lot better that way

A key is just a 256 bit number. You can literally create one with paper and dice rolls. They will no sooner figure out who is holding most of these than they will figure out who is holding cash, or the identities of the 25m+ people downloading pirated media right now. At best they can ask the public to please turn over their private keys, which will go about as well as efforts to stop piracy.

> key is just a 256 bit number. You can literally create one with paper and dice rolls

Well sure, but if you want to actually use it you need the whole keypair. Unless you're really good with you elliptic curve abacus you're going to need a computer for that l.

Re: Australian anti-porn group claims responsibility for Steams new censorship rules

#114

Post by some_random »

terminalshort wrote: post #76
some_random wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tend to be extremely critical of government regulation, but I think it really could be a tool here. It's important to preserve the ability of payment processors to block fraudulent purchases and they are legally required to block illegal purchases, but surely there is some way to write "you can't block purchases based on perceived reputational risks" into law, right?

It would be very easy to write a law that banned payment processors from refusing service without showing financial justification (e.g. high chargeback rate). But why would the government do that? They like to have power to lean on companies to hurt people where they can't do it directly due to the constitution.

In principle they absolutely could, but are they though? I don't know of any examples of this actually happening.

Re: Australian anti-porn group claims responsibility for Steams new censorship rules

#115

Post by thaumasiotes »

cryptonector wrote: post #75
Peroni wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You can insist on retail vendors accepting legal tender by law That's a common misconception. In most jurisdictions retailers can set their own payment policies.

The point is to demand that they be legally required to accept legal tender. It's a tremendous pain for retailers to accept cash, which is why they're willing to accept high transaction fees from online points of sale.

There is an interesting parallel to the code of Hammurabi, which specifies that certain vendors must accept payment in grain as well as silver.

Re: Australian anti-porn group claims responsibility for Steams new censorship rules

#117

Post by Y_Y »

oguz-ismail wrote: post #102
xandrius wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people definitely do :D

>Some people *a negligible minority

Neglect that minority at your peril! I don't have any money in cryptocoins, I think the market is almost entirely scams and crime, but it's a big market and I see its influence everywhere nowadays.

Re: Australian anti-porn group claims responsibility for Steams new censorship rules

#118

Post by Y_Y »

serf wrote: post #110
oguz-ismail wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Some people *a negligible minority

>*a negligible minority which is about the same amount of people that would be interested in buying rape/people-farming games. seems like a match made in (some twisted version) of heaven.

You mean like The Sims?

Re: Australian anti-porn group claims responsibility for Steams new censorship rules

#119

Post by i_am_proteus »

reactordev wrote: post #108
perihelions wrote: post #2

> "This was first reported by Waypoint, which has since pulled its two articles on the subject without explanation. The articles' author, Ana Valens, has alleged that Vice's parent company, Savage Ventures, removed the articles due to concerns over their controversial content rather than any error in the reporting." "Vice" shut down last year[0]; its brand was recently purchased and is now run by a hedge fund based i…

One would argue, are there any "news" organizations left? Or are they all operating from a content farm operated by financebros position? Can you name me one news organization that isn't owned by a parent company that has vested interests in specific stories and outcomes?

Christian Science Monitor (nonprofit run, the religion really is siloed to the "Christian Science Perspective" section and the reporting is good and as independent as it comes)

Re: Australian anti-porn group claims responsibility for Steams new censorship rules

#120

Post by gs17 »

lrvick wrote: post #82
dlivingston wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

@grok is this true? just kidding. this is the first i've heard of that, though. i don't think it totally makes sense. your card transaction will still say "STEAMGAMES.COM 7264823" or similar, regardless of the content purchased. on top of that, all sorts of shady porn & dating websites that you would NOT want leaked use the credit card companies.

Data enrichment brokers cross index purchase times with other data from legal factory installed spyware found in cash registers, analytics tools in proprietary software you already have on your computer, etc etc. Every time you buy an over the counter medication at the pharmacy with a credit card, the data brokers know by combining information sources, and sell it to insurance companies.

But it still doesn't apply here. At most they could cross-reference it with a public Steam profile that has the game listed as owned after the purchase (actually, I doubt they would have the account ID to prove it for sure, but with enough purchases they could likely figure it out), but by then you've already sort of revealed to the world you bought whatever embarrassing title yourself.
Post reply on HN