[flagged]
First they came for etc
Mastercard deflects blame for NSFW games being taken down
361–370 of 621 posts
Re: Mastercard deflects blame for NSFW games being taken down
#362Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it hasn't been the case. The group in question, Collective Shout, has been pressuring Mastercard. Not Mastercard Australia, not Steam Australia: it's a concerted action to take down things they don't want. It's not a one time thing either: sex workers have been under attack by similar extremist catholic bigots. Furries, porn, anything they see as deviant is being attacked. And MC/Visa are happy to help. Do I mind…
This so much. The problem here is not the content that was blocked, it's the completely unaccountable process that was used to block content worldwide bypassing any legal protection.
Content which already violated the policies of MasterCard and Visa. All Collective Shout did was bring it to their attention.
Re: Mastercard deflects blame for NSFW games being taken down
#363What's stopping a large, profitable company like Valve from starting its own payment processor? Surely the technology part of it can't be an impossible hurdle.
It's basically impossible from a regulatory perspective.
Paypal exists because it broke the law, was prosecuted, and the outcome of the prosecution fined them heavily but also grandfathered their existence.
Anyone who wants to make a new payment processor likely has to take a risk of going to prison.
Re: Mastercard deflects blame for NSFW games being taken down
#364> Mastercard deflects blame for NSFW games being taken down, but Valve says payment processors 'specifically cited' a Mastercard rule about damaging the brand Who in heaven’s name associates a credit card company with the image/ethics of the transactions it’s processing as long as the businesses are legal?? What I think of when I hear Mastercard? A plastic card with numbers on it, connected to my bank account and off…
I mean, to be a bit of a devil's advocate, its not impossible. Bitcoin sort of has the reputation of being used to buy "shady stuff". Its not unreasonable for MasterCard to not want to be "That card company people buy edgy porn with".
Which is why we need them to be legally required to process all lawful transactions, so that they cannot be singled out for it.
Re: Mastercard deflects blame for NSFW games being taken down
#365Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am quite surprised how wrong opinions like yours are. There is no argument of free speech here, they are a private business and as such can decide what they allow and don’t allow on their network. It’s no different than if cloudflare had a click through that said no adult material. You can hand wave around well they are a monopoly or some related argument but the government does not see it that way. Visa and Master…
You're confusing the concept of free speech with the First Amendment. Any time a person is prevented from expressing themselves is a violation of their freedom of speech, even if they have no legal right to speak. But even in the context of the First Amendment, freedom of speech does not only apply to the government. For example, net neutrality laws prevent ISPs, which are generally private companies, from restrictin…
You’re incorrect on both legal and factual grounds. The First Amendment applies only to government actors. Private companies, including Mastercard, have no legal obligation to carry or support speech they disagree with. This is settled law (Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, 2019).
Net neutrality was about common carriers (ISPs) due to their chokepoint role in internet access. Payment processors are not classified as common carriers and are not subject to those rules.
If you want laws changed to regulate them like utilities, that’s a policy argument, not a free speech violation under current law.
Re: Mastercard deflects blame for NSFW games being taken down
#366Mastercard's rule is that they can ban whatever they want, whenever they want.
> A Merchant must not submit to its Acquirer, and a Customer must not submit to the Interchange System, any Transaction that is illegal, or in the sole discretion of the Corporation, may damage the goodwill of the Corporation or reflect negatively on the Marks.
Create amorphous rules, enforce them as you feel like, then blame others for breaking the rules...
Re: Mastercard deflects blame for NSFW games being taken down
#367The payment processor censorship issue backs up a point I made elsewhere about companies being involved in politics: they shouldn’t be, and shareholders should be screaming with rage that these companies have inserted themselves into these discussions on purpose. They’re payment processors , for crying out loud. Their entire grift is taking a slice of every transaction processed, ergo, the only restriction they shoul…
> If they don’t like processing payments for pornography or adult content (including games) Pornography and adult content is fine—the real issue is that gaming storefronts refuse to moderate their platforms for child pornography and rape material and would rather kill their entire NSFW catalog, all while painting themselves as the victims. > If they don’t like processing payments for pornography or adult content (inc…
I'm pretty sure child pornography is actually illegal in all jurisdictions valve operates in, and they would be charged with real crimes for selling it. Maybe you mean anime characters or something?
And is there any law about roleplaying rape? It's common in romance novels and online videos so I don't see how it could be illegal.
Re: Mastercard deflects blame for NSFW games being taken down
#368The payment processor censorship issue backs up a point I made elsewhere about companies being involved in politics: they shouldn’t be, and shareholders should be screaming with rage that these companies have inserted themselves into these discussions on purpose. They’re payment processors , for crying out loud. Their entire grift is taking a slice of every transaction processed, ergo, the only restriction they shoul…
> If they don’t like processing payments for pornography or adult content (including games) Pornography and adult content is fine—the real issue is that gaming storefronts refuse to moderate their platforms for child pornography and rape material and would rather kill their entire NSFW catalog, all while painting themselves as the victims. > If they don’t like processing payments for pornography or adult content (inc…
The content is legal, and therefore your entire argument is irrelevant, as is your attempt to personify corporations. The whole point of being an adult is understanding that your personal tastes aren’t a mandate on others to comply for your comfort; in other words, if you dislike legal content, your sole recourse is to simply not engage with that content.
Go proselytize elsewhere.
Re: Mastercard deflects blame for NSFW games being taken down
#369Earlier quoted context omitted.
The argument from free speech is that government should not be allowed to censor, regardless of the mechanism. Payment processors currently offer that mechanism.
What is the government's role here? As far as I can tell the censorship was coordinated and facilitated by private parties.
You have a for profit business that in some areas like adult content walks a line between regulatory oversight, public outcry and the risk to underwriting the business. In this case it was public outcry, there have been instances in the past where different local jurisdictions have come forth. My point is they walk the line between those three areas.
Re: Mastercard deflects blame for NSFW games being taken down
#370The payment processor censorship issue backs up a point I made elsewhere about companies being involved in politics: they shouldn’t be, and shareholders should be screaming with rage that these companies have inserted themselves into these discussions on purpose. They’re payment processors , for crying out loud. Their entire grift is taking a slice of every transaction processed, ergo, the only restriction they shoul…
If you're interested and have any index funds, you could call shareholder relations for one of these companies and make that argument. "why are you turning down income streams and hurting your own profits" is maybe a position they'd listen to?
Quite a few folks already are - it’s why MasterCard felt the need to issue a statement trying to obfuscate their role in things, meanwhile Visa is doubling down in the UK by trying to push laws banning content with consenting adults wearing “childish clothes”, a category so vague that it’s designed to be abused by the powers in charge.
This is why companies shouldn’t be allowed to engage in politics or lobbying: a handful of for-profit entities are abusing their capture of western finance to push personal agendas regardless of popular opinion or actual legality.