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

131–140 of 177 posts

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

#131

Post by mastercheph »

mvdtnz wrote: post #121
reactordev wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

*or state owned media organizations.

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

#132

Post by mvdtnz »

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.

Nonsense. The title of the game you purchased on Steam does not end up on your statement.

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

#133

Post by polski-g »

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?

Yes its a very easy problem to solve, would take about 3 states to pass a law mandating "must-process" payments rather than the current framework of "may-process" (under threat of revocation of money transfer authority). Then the only method for them to not process a payment is those prohibited under existing law (ie: terrorist financing).

I could see CA and FL easily passing such a law given the right push from constituents.

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

#134

Post by mvdtnz »

mastercheph wrote: post #131
mvdtnz wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

*or state owned media organizations.

Why exclude them from real news orgs?

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

#135

Post by carefulfungi »

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?

https://www.trustworthymedia.org/list-of-independent-media/

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

#136

Post by johncessna »

lupusreal wrote: post #106
Sharlin wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Werner von Braun married his cousin. Granted, that was after he came to America, but she was still in Germany then.

Yeah, nearly 80 years ago, and he married in Germany. First cousin marriages in the US today will certainly warrant some side eye as Sharlin mentioned.

According to wikipedia 24 states have it banned and then 7 more apply restrictions such as a minimum age or infertility

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

#137

Post by chimeracoder »

some_random wrote: post #107
chimeracoder wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's an interesting effect but I really don't think that's a significant driver here. It really seems to me like they're just being threatened by activists, journalists, and activist investors. Right-wing groups like Exodus Cry and Morality in Media (the groups behind the shutdown of Xtube, and the all-but-shutdown of Pornhub[0], as well as the short-lived ban of pornography on OnlyFans) are definitely the drivin…

Visa/Mastercard are, like you said, ambivalent at best when it comes to pornography in general but there's more nuance to it. Content widely accepted to be immoral and/or illegal such as non-consensual pornography (that is explicit content posted without the consent of those filmed) and child sexual abuse material is forbidden. This is what the pornhub thing was about, allegedly, and why verified content is still all…

> Content widely accepted to be immoral and/or illegal such as non-consensual pornography (that is explicit content posted without the consent of those filmed) and child sexual abuse material is forbidden. This is what the pornhub thing was about, allegedly, and why verified content is still allowed.

"Allegedly" is a very operative word there. Pornhub was actually extremely aggressive about removing CSAM and nonconsensual content, to the point where Facebook was actually a far larger problem for those actually concerned with stopping CSAM[0], with three orders of magnitude more instances on Facebook than all Mindgeek websites (including Pornhub) combined.

However, groups like the ones I mentioned only targeted Pornhub, because they don't actually care about CSAM. Their goal is to eliminate pornography and all "immoral" content, where "immoral" is defined according to an explicitly religious, right-wing interpretation of the term. That's not a secret; that's how they advertise themselves, and that includes the group in question here, Collective Shout[1], although the latter is now trying to hide that tie via futher censorship[2].

Because going after Facebook doesn't fit into an agenda of banning pornography, you'll never hear them mention one word about CSAM or other horrendous abuse that happens on Facebook and is facilitated by the platform.

> Furthermore, material considered a brand risk is also not allowed but payment processors a step down are the ones who make the guidelines on what that means in practice.

That's not quite true. Processors can set their own restrictions, but so can Visa/Mastercard/etc, and they absolutely do police perceived brand risk, which includes not just pornography, but also completely nonsexual content as well.,

[0] https://www.thedailybeast.com/facebook-a-hotbed-of-child-sex...

[1] https://www.notebookcheck.net/After-payment-processors-promp...

[2] https://bsky.app/profile/acvalens.net/post/3lufjdqmhxs2v

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

#138

Post by johnisgood »

qingcharles wrote: post #72
miyuru wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Cryptocurrency as obviously failed I don't think cryptocurrency has failed. Yesterday I successfully payed with crypto when the payment with multiple credit cards failed.

The biggest issue, for me, is that it is really annoying and hard work to use. The easiest way to use it is through something like MetaMask, but imagine trying to get grandma to buy something that way. It's tiring, and she'll probably get her wallet drained at some point.

You can blame the Government for that.

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

#139

Post by some_random »

gs17 wrote: post #126
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.

> 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.

It goes beyond this though, at some point you need to go from "this account is high-risk" to "this account is probably running stolen credit cards".

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

#140

Post by jazzyjackson »

some_random wrote: post #37
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?

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?

I think a 'purchase' ie a bank transfer like Zelle or even a paypal non-refundable 'gift' isn't likely to be blocked, it's just Visa and Mastercard that don't want to deal with offering fraud protection for vendors that see an extremely high number of chargebacks. So if you want to pay, pay by some method that doesn't offer money back in case of fraud.

I've also been prevented from sending money by e-check because my bank was concerned the form of payment was too suspicious, so I ETF'd money from another account instead. I don't think the law can force a 3rd party to facilitate a purchase.

Post reply on HN