Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mastercard deflects blame for NSFW games being taken down

pcgamer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 621 posts

Re: Mastercard deflects blame for NSFW games being taken down

#481

Post by lesuorac »

somenameforme wrote: post #472
lesuorac wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heh, while I like the idea of using immediate electronic dispursement over the mail. I do find the ending of the EO pretty amusing. You're telling the agencies exactly what to do, how is that not impairing their authority? > Sec. 7. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: > (i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereo…

That's boilerplate that's been attached on most of all EO's for decades now. The point of EOs is that they aren't laws and cannot change laws, but they can provide [mandatory] guidance to entities, under the Executive, on how to implement laws. So imagine there's a law that says some agency can ban whatever widgets they want. An EO requiring that they not ban widgets made in Timbuktu would not contravene that law, bu…

But how does mandatory guidance not impair the authority of an agency?

The agency is no longer allowed to do something against the guidance! Or the Order must not be ordering some action?

Re: Mastercard deflects blame for NSFW games being taken down

#482

Post by chimeracoder »

pembrook wrote: post #480
rambojohnson wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what far left are you talking about exactly?

[flagged]

> They may not be in the zeitgeist anymore but they would still love to ruin your life & career for not doing a land acknowledgement before you step into every public space.

Complaining about land acknowledgements as an example of the "far left" tells me that you don't actually have a handle on what the left actually looks like, as opposed to how it's portrayed through right-wing outlets.

First, there is literally nobody who would "ruin your life" for not doing a land acknowledgement, but also, the people doing land acknowledgements in 2025 are not the "far left". They're not even the left. Most leftist organizations don't do land acknowledgements at all!

EDIT: Since you updated your comment to include another favorite whipping boy:

> they would still love to ruin your life & career for not doing a land acknowledgement and pronoun announcement before stepping into public spaces

Again, "the left" is not ruining your life for not doing a "pronoun announcement", because they don't want pronoun announcements to be required in the first place, and in fact voice serious complaints whenever they are.

Both of the things you mention as examples of the "far left" - mandatory land acknowledgements and pronoun announcements - are things which you will find in very few actual leftist spaces. Where you will find them, however, is in mainstream spaces run by centrist or small-c "conservative" people, like corporate HR meetings. You will also, incidentally, see them on far-right media, which happens to be extremely obsessed with the concept of these things representing the left, despite the fact that actual leftists rejected them years ago.

Re: Mastercard deflects blame for NSFW games being taken down

#484

Post by weberer »

crooked-v wrote: post #411
efitz wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We need Congress to make a law here in the US that businesses involved in facilitating financial transactions in the United States are considered “common carriers” and must not discriminate against, cancel or disadvantage any customer or legal transaction, without a court order. We can write language to allow booting people for fraud, hacking, etc if “legal” + “court order” are insufficient.

There's a bill for almost exactly that currently pending in committee: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/401 If you like the idea, read the text on there and call your senators to support it.

The relevant part is section 5b.

>(b) Prohibition.—No payment card network, including a subsidiary of a payment card network, may, directly or through any agent, processor, or licensed member of the network, by contract, requirement, condition, penalty, or otherwise, prohibit or inhibit the ability of any person who is in compliance with the law, including section 8 of this Act, to obtain access to services or products of the payment card network because of political or reputational risk considerations.

Re: Mastercard deflects blame for NSFW games being taken down

#485

Post by pembrook »

chimeracoder wrote: post #482
pembrook wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> They may not be in the zeitgeist anymore but they would still love to ruin your life & career for not doing a land acknowledgement before you step into every public space. Complaining about land acknowledgements as an example of the "far left" tells me that you don't actually have a handle on what the left actually looks like, as opposed to how it's portrayed through right-wing outlets. First, there is literally no…

No true scotsman fallacy.

Just because you consider yourself left and never cared about those things doesn't mean there aren't leftists who do.

There's about 50 different far left interest groups who care about different pet issues to varying degrees of insanity, just as there are on the far right.

Re: Mastercard deflects blame for NSFW games being taken down

#486

Post by monkeyelite »

guywithahat wrote: post #323
coredog64 wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's better now, but during the era of the on-screen keyboard it was atrocious.

I thought they still had the on-screen keyboard? They had it as of 6 months ago at least. But still, atrocious site. I can't use the back button or it logs you out; logging in is like a 5 step chore, it's unintuitive and looks like it's from 2005. I can only assume it's unsafe and doing simple things like checking your balance take 20 minutes. There will never be an app and I'm sure they will continue to do no innova…

> looks like it's from 2005

Fantastic. Really fast pages, simple forms, no Js. trendy is not what I want from my government service site.

> There will never be an app

Good. I want more websites and less apps on my phone. That also helps me trust the security more.

Re: Mastercard deflects blame for NSFW games being taken down

#487

Post by Manuel_D »

p_ing wrote: post #67
perihelions wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "The US has some clear laws against government controlling speech and, in the abstract, that makes it pretty much impossible to censor games." For background, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Entertainment_Merchan... ( "Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association" (2011) ( "ruling that video games were protected speech under the First Amendment as other forms of media" ))

First Amendment applies to the _government_, not private entities.

For certain industries it also applies. Common carriers (e.g. telecoms) and utility companies are also not able to censor or refuse lawful business.

Re: Mastercard deflects blame for NSFW games being taken down

#488

Post by pembrook »

micromacrofoot wrote: post #483
pembrook wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

I worked in Silicon Valley in the 2010s, I'm not "buying" anything. I'm speaking from lived experience from sitting in actual meetings with these people.

Also, it appears I made a massive mistake trying to support a centrist "both far left and far right are bad" comment from OP, as this is now a flame war.

We're kinda proving my point.

Re: Mastercard deflects blame for NSFW games being taken down

#489

Post by btown »

weberer wrote: post #484
crooked-v wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a bill for almost exactly that currently pending in committee: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/401 If you like the idea, read the text on there and call your senators to support it.

The relevant part is section 5b. >(b) Prohibition.—No payment card network, including a subsidiary of a payment card network, may, directly or through any agent, processor, or licensed member of the network, by contract, requirement, condition, penalty, or otherwise, prohibit or inhibit the ability of any person who is in compliance with the law, including section 8 of this Act, to obtain access to services or produc…

Then the goalposts shift to: “This isn’t for reputational risk, it’s because we consider fraud more likely for this type of industry, and we are within our rights to take a proactive approach to fraud.” And there is no requirement that they disclose the reasons for that decision.

Don’t get me wrong: it’s progress. But it’s far from a panacea.

Re: Mastercard deflects blame for NSFW games being taken down

#490

Post by somenameforme »

lesuorac wrote: post #481
somenameforme wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's boilerplate that's been attached on most of all EO's for decades now. The point of EOs is that they aren't laws and cannot change laws, but they can provide [mandatory] guidance to entities, under the Executive, on how to implement laws. So imagine there's a law that says some agency can ban whatever widgets they want. An EO requiring that they not ban widgets made in Timbuktu would not contravene that law, bu…

But how does mandatory guidance not impair the authority of an agency? The agency is no longer allowed to do something against the guidance! Or the Order must not be ordering some action?

It's the law that must not be ordering some action. Laws generally provide e.g. regulatory agencies with some degree of discretion on how to apply a given law, like ban a widget. But that discretion can be defined by executive order. By contrast, if a law says an agency must do something, then an EO cannot override that law and direct them not to do that thing.
Post reply on HN