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

151–160 of 177 posts

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

#151

Post by Tadpole9181 »

lrvick wrote: post #99
theshackleford wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some extreme minority may . The vast, vast majority do not.

I use it to donate or pay for legal things online I wish to keep anonymous like I would use cash for in person. Most people in the US do not value privacy, but for those few of us that want to purchase online with privacy, or those in heavily censored countries, cryptocurrency is the only option. Just because few people make use of their rights is not a valid argument for their removal.

Using a currency with a permanent, irrevocable public ledger of every transaction for anonymous payments?

(I assume you mean BTC here, since very few places actually take privacy coins like Monero.)

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

#152

Post by bitwize »

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?

Al Jazeera?

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

#153

Post by ijk »

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?

In the USA, some things that come to mind:

* Legal changes. Web platforms have section 230 protection to host user content. For payment processing this might be something like the proposed Credit Card Competition Act (CCCA) that requires banks to offer additional (non-Visa/Mastercard) payment providers. Or a more explicit payment neutrality law the requires credit card companies to be more even-handed in non-financial issues. Or anti-debanking laws that ensure everyone has some minimal access to sending and receiving payments.

* Lawsuit results. Part of the issue with Visa was that they got dragged into lawsuits against sites that were using them to process payments; the lawsuits and appeals around that are still unresolved but if Visa's lack of legal liability goes away then it will be harder for random outside groups to harass them, for good or ill.

* Introducing an independent payment processor. While JCB in Japan has had some similar pressure applied to them, when there were national sovereignty concerns over Visa being able to dictate that American laws and norms should apply to their country Japan had many other payment processors to fall back on. Similarly, PIX in Brazil makes it much harder for non-government private actors to dictate what people can and cannot buy.

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

#154

Post by gs17 »

jact wrote: post #147
YurgenJurgensen wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pr…

> And the payment processors aren’t “book burners.” They’re acting to restrict an unsavory market that potentially hurts their business.

They're not book burners... they're just trying to eliminate certain media they find objectionable? They would consider it unacceptable for Steam to, for example, make these items only purchasable through crypto/bank transfer.

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

#155

Post by YurgenJurgensen »

jact wrote: post #147
YurgenJurgensen wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pr…

The fact that you had to jump to such an extreme misinterpretation of my point to attempt to refute it shows just how right I am. I said ‘any business’, not ‘any number of businesses simultaneously’. Your counterpoint is as ridiculous as saying a man with a loaded gun in a crowded bar isn’t dangerous because he has fewer bullets in his magazine than there are people in the bar. Economic warfare always operates on defeat in detail.

Okay, since you stated it as a fact: Citation needed. Show me Visa’s statement to the effect that they have no agenda, because all of their actions suggest otherwise.

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

#156

Post by const_cast »

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.

> It’s violence against human dignity

You can't just call things violence. We need to stop doing this. If nobody is getting physically harmed, it's not violence.

And no, your stupid bullshit about harming one's soul doesn't count. I mean leg chopped off type of thing. Then, you can call it violent.

Otherwise, you're just dishonest and manipulative.

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

#157

Post by rstuart4133 »

lupusreal wrote: post #4

People like to give America shit for anti-porn activism and laws but it really seems like America is just trailing behind the rest of the anglosphere. This case for instance, of Australians imposing their prudish values on American companies that were content to tolerate these naughty games. And those porn ID laws that Texas/etc get flack for are just on the path already trail blazed by the UK.

I can say as an Australia our governments have always been very enthusiastic about controlling what we can read, see, and hear. It was true 60 years ago with our movie rating scheme ("not given a rating" was the newspeak for "banned"), 30 years ago with games, and lots of books.

The internet has more or less rendered these efforts moot in recent times. This was highlighted when they tried to impose a rating system on games a couple of decades ago. I asked a school kid about the effect on him. He said it didn't effect him, as he downloaded his games from the internet. It all fell apart about then. Consequently we had the opportunity to see seen the flood of porn would do to society, and noticed nothing of consequence. The flood of conspiracy theories for life hacks on the other hand was completely unanticipated and it's impact badly underestimated.

Collective Shout is an excellent illustration of the effect. It's effectively a one girl band, yet her shouting on the internet about her desire to force her Baptist pro-life maternal morals down everyones throats has now been heard across the world.

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

#158

Post by cindyllm »

const_cast wrote: post #156
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.

> It’s violence against human dignity You can't just call things violence. We need to stop doing this. If nobody is getting physically harmed, it's not violence. And no, your stupid bullshit about harming one's soul doesn't count. I mean leg chopped off type of thing. Then, you can call it violent. Otherwise, you're just dishonest and manipulative.

[dead]

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

#159

Post by drngdds »

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?

404 Media is owned by its reporters

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

#160

Post by [deleted] »

woodpanel wrote: post #31

> All these porn sick brain rotted pedo gamer fetishists so desperate to get their hands on rape-my-little-sister incest games they’re now exchanging clues on how to find them so that they don’t all die overnight," Collective Shout co-founder Melinda Tankard Reist tweeted on July 18th. 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 o…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN