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

141–150 of 177 posts

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

#141

Post by dlivingston »

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.

is there somewhere i can read more about this? this is very troubling information depending on the depth and scale of implementation.

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

#142

Post by some_random »

chimeracoder wrote: post #137
some_random wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 nonconse…

You've explained it better than I have, thank you. The one nitpick I want to make is the last part, my understanding is that Visa/Mastercard police their perceived brand risk primarily through broad statements that are then interpreted by payment processors in detail. Visa aren't the ones saying "Women having sex on their period is an extreme sexual activity", they're just saying "no extreme sexual activity" and the payment processor has to figure out what that means leading to the former claim.

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

#143

Post by p_j_w »

johnisgood wrote: post #138
qingcharles wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The government isn't responsibly for a Bitcoin transaction taking a long ass time to complete.

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

#144

Post by ascorbic »

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?

The Guardian is owned by an independent trust: https://www.theguardian.com/about

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

#145

Post by johnisgood »

p_j_w wrote: post #143
johnisgood wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can blame the Government for that.

The government isn't responsibly for a Bitcoin transaction taking a long ass time to complete.

It is responsible for the difficulty of buying and selling to make use of it, however, which I assumed is what he meant. As for BTC transaction time, well, there are many different, widely used cryptocoins (e.g. Ethereum) out there. Anyways, it can be pretty much instant, it depends on the fee you are willing to spend. The costs and the satoshis required are also not static. Today you may need only 1 sat / vB to have your transaction confirmed in 5-10 minutes, and 10 sat / vB a week from now. If you have issues with taking a long ass time to get it confirmed, increase the fee. You may have it confirmed instantly just for 0.5 EUR. Judging by the stats, BTC seems chill these days, so it shouldn't cost too much, and it should get confirmed relatively quickly.

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

#146

Post by jact »

some_random wrote: post #96
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 am absolutely sick and tired of people using the word violence willy nilly when discussing things they don't like. "Violence against human dignity" is not real, that is a nonsensical concept. You are not being stabbed in the human dignity. No one's human dignity is being blown to pieces. You are more than welcome to argue that pornography causes psychological damage, but calling it violence and lumping it in with h…

We certainly sanction hate speech because of the psychological and physical damage it causes to its victims. Pornography is harmful to everyone involved, from producer to consumer. In the case of video games that don’t depict real people this is attenuated somewhat, but not in the way that counts. By consuming or producing pornography, you are blowing your own human dignity to bits.

If you would prefer, I’d say it’s an “affront” to human dignity.

My opinion is that sexuality is something that shouldn’t be commodified in any way, shape, or form. When we package it and promote it as a commodity or for entertainment, that practice as such is harmful. There’s simply no such thing as “healthy” pornography because the very preconditions for pornography to come into existence are rooted in an unhealthy and disordered understanding of human sexuality. I think MacKinnon and Dworkin were absolutely right on this front.

I’m far more afraid of the world we currently live in, where we treat sex/sexuality as something that exists for entertainment value and can be commodified — than I am of this form of censorship. At least our overlords are making the ethical call here.

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

#147

Post by jact »

YurgenJurgensen wrote: post #94
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.

You think that a payment processor having arbitrary power to shut down any business they want anywhere in the world for any reason is a good thing because this time you agree with the reason? Book burners don’t have any morals, they just want to burn books, and they’ll come for yours sooner or later.

They don’t have arbitrary power - power is never exercised unilaterally. I can’t imagine they would succeed for very long at say, shutting down all the grocery stores in the world. They wouldn’t even dare try from the hell they would have to pay.

And the payment processors aren’t “book burners.” They’re acting to restrict an unsavory market that potentially hurts their business. They have no agenda or incentive to promote censorship as such.

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

#149

Post by chimeracoder »

some_random wrote: post #142
chimeracoder wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 nonconse…

You've explained it better than I have, thank you. The one nitpick I want to make is the last part, my understanding is that Visa/Mastercard police their perceived brand risk primarily through broad statements that are then interpreted by payment processors in detail. Visa aren't the ones saying "Women having sex on their period is an extreme sexual activity", they're just saying "no extreme sexual activity" and the…

> my understanding is that Visa/Mastercard police their perceived brand risk primarily through broad statements that are then interpreted by payment processors in detail. Visa aren't the ones saying "Women having sex on their period is an extreme sexual activity", they're just saying "no extreme sexual activity" and the payment processor has to figure out what that means leading to the former claim.

You're not wrong but that's only part of the story. What you're describing happens, which leads to overly-conservative interpretations of the unwritten policies. But the card brands do also have explicit rules that they expect downstream players to adhere to.

Confusingly - and this is where your impression (which is common) likely comes from - the card brands themselves provide different rules to different downstream providers, so it's not like there's one single, consistent list of rules for Visa globally (for example). It's not law and they are not bound by precedent or even an expectation of consistency.

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

#150

Post by Sharlin »

woodpanel wrote: post #128
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).

> 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 CI…

The fact that it's uncommon or "weird" doesn't yet mean it's taboo.
Post reply on HN