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

121–130 of 177 posts

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

#121

Post by mvdtnz »

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?

There are lots of news organisations not owned by parent companies with vested interests. RNZ in New Zealand, ABC in Australia, CBC in Canada and BBC in UK to name just a handful.

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

#122

Post by northhnbesthn »

jact wrote: post #84

Am I the only one who thinks this is a good thing? Pornography and obscenity should not be protected speech. It’s violence against human dignity akin to hate speech.

I wouldn’t go so far as to say it’s violent and some pornography is good for most people. It’s not going to kill or murder or whatever people.

But what’s been happening lately with onlyfans and other things is a recipe for a disaster in my mind. We’ve made it hard for younger generations, made paths to success much less atrainable and instead have enabled black markets while the economy suffers because of it. I imagine we’re stuck with a deranged and broken society of people moonlighting to make ends meet by doing soft porno in far greater numbers than before. And yes of course that’s what strip clubs are for but that was way less of an issue than this.

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

#123

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft »

Acrobatic_Road wrote: post #26

If only we had some kind of purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash that would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution.

>If only we had some kind of purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash that would allow online payments

Unfortunately, all such systems are quickly co-opted for the purpose of speculative price schemery. Bitcoin will soon reach a point of no-return, when the smallest fractional has an exchange rate so high that it will be impossible to purchase small goods at all (except in bulk), though in reality that point was reached many years ago. The entire concept of cryptocurrencies might actually be irrevocably poisoned, because even a new system would have to deal with the public perception baggage of the last decade's many Ponzi-type scams and various joke/meme coins. If only Satoshi had been a social genius instead of a technical genius.

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

#124

Post by gs17 »

tmaly wrote: post #10

It seems like we need two things. First, some type of universal standard to id the country of legal residence of a user. Second, some type of way to know what laws a company needs to comply with to operate in a jurisdiction. There are too many laws across different jurisdictions that makes it really challenging for companies to offer goods and services.

How would that apply to this? It's not about a law. They aren't even demanding better age verification, they want to be able to force arbitrary things to be removed entirely (starting with more objectionable topics, but I'm sure it will expand).

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

#125

Post by gs17 »

WhyNotHugo wrote: post #21
NewsaHackO wrote: post #11

Is there anything that can be done with the weaponization of the payment system? Cryptocurrency as obviously failed, but is there really no possible recourse when every traditional payment method seemingly colludes to not take the business for whatever reason?

Removing the middlemen is the most obvious solution, but they’re also amongst the most powerful players in the world, so it’s going to be challenging (to put it mildly). See: https://www.taler.net/en/index.html

Part of the problem is that you have to make a clean break from these middlemen. Steam can't say "for these games, we only take this form of payment", it's either only sell games Visa and MasterCard say you can, or no one can pay with their credit cards.

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

#126

Post by gs17 »

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.

> e.g. high chargeback rate

Even this is sort of bullshit. Chargeback fees are paid by merchants and there are already high-risk merchant accounts with higher fees and cash reserve requirements as a solution.

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

#127

Post by hackingonempty »

some_random wrote: post #114
terminalshort wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Utilities and common carriers are examples. Porn and Cannabis businesses have no trouble getting electric, water, and telephone services.

In the USA at least, you can even steal electricity and be convicted of the crime and they still have to provide you with service, they just put your meter up on the pole.

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

#128

Post by woodpanel »

Sharlin wrote: post #73
simion314 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Which begs the question: Is it true, that there are such games? And how would one defend its availability to the public? Is w#nking off to such content considered free speech? We are discussing blocking of legal content by the payment companies. If they do not like this games or GTA or metal music they should make laws. But they are concerned by virtual incest while in USA cousin marriage is still legal in many stat…

The US is actually an outlier in how taboo it considers first-cousin sexual relations. They’re certainly eyebrow-raising these days, but not considered incestuous in most of Europe or other parts of the world (with China and parts of India being two admittedly big exceptions).

> The US is actually an outlier in how taboo it considers first-cousin sexual relations

Not true at all. Just because it is legal doesn’t mean it is considered socially acceptable [1].

> but not considered incestuous in most of Europe

Not according to the catholic church [2].

[1] https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Global_prevalence_...

[2] https://www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iuris-canonici/eng/docume... (see CIC 1091)

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

#129

Post by SoftTalker »

cryptonector wrote: post #59
NewsaHackO wrote: post #11

Is there anything that can be done with the weaponization of the payment system? Cryptocurrency as obviously failed, but is there really no possible recourse when every traditional payment method seemingly colludes to not take the business for whatever reason?

Not really. You can insist on retail vendors accepting legal tender by law, but these things are online, and online it means every payment can and _will_ be tracked. As with everything you do in public, online payments can and _will_ be used against you (in the labor marketplace, in court, in... everything, to control you and your habits). More people will accept or insist on policing of your and their habits than pe…

"Legal tender" only applies to debt payments, not to retail transactions. A retailer can refuse cash.

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

#130

Post by larodi »

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?

Wondering the same for a while. And does paying for news provide any guarantees…?
Post reply on HN