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

501–510 of 621 posts

Re: Mastercard deflects blame for NSFW games being taken down

#501

Post by chimeracoder »

pembrook wrote: post #494
chimeracoder wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

> We're kinda proving my point.

> Clearly this has been a grave mistake

Are we? Has it? I don't see anyone's life and career being ruined. If you're saying that the "grave mistake" is that you've made a statement and now other people are disagreeing with you, then I'll say that's factually correct, but I don't really have any sympathy for the position that you've been wronged in any way.

> I've edited what comments I could to reduce a further flame war.

> As we can see from this thread, you guys are actually super easy going and don't get emotionally triggered at all.

This is the third time you've made this exact accusation in this thread (although you've edited out the previous instances).

It doesn't sound like you're trying to stop a flamewar. It sounds like you're trying to start one. But not very successfully, it seems! Because thankfully people aren't falling for what's looking more and more like very obvious bait.

Re: Mastercard deflects blame for NSFW games being taken down

#503

Post by laughing_man »

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?

Government agencies in the executive branch don't have independent authority. They work for the president, and an EO isn't much different than the email you get from your boss directing you to do work a certain way.

Re: Mastercard deflects blame for NSFW games being taken down

#504

Post by jibe »

charlieyu1 wrote: post #465
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.

I won't trust the Congress. Far left and far right are both pushing for more censorship

This is a case where left and right can work together for totally different reasons. The left is fighting for rape porn in video games, and the right doesn’t want gun stores definanced. Both win with credit platform neutrality.

Re: Mastercard deflects blame for NSFW games being taken down

#505

Post by mullingitover »

nso wrote: post #474
charlieyu1 wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I won't trust the Congress. Far left and far right are both pushing for more censorship

The US barely has any genuinely left-wing politicians (Bernie Sanders, AOC, DSA). There are no one who realistically could be called far left in any significant position of governing power.

Even these are not far left, they're just basic liberal left.

Which groups or media that are commonly labeled 'far left' that are calling for nationalizing all land. Or eliminating all inheritances. Or nationalizing all communications and transportation industries. Or nationalizing the Federal Reserve (that one's really gone horseshoe theory, and is a republican plan now).

The only thing 'far left' people want to nationalize is health care, and that's simply the fiscally responsible policy. The thing that is crushing the federal budget is the obscene level of graft occurring in that industry, and the only way out is to nationalize or otherwise burn the existing system to the ground via government policy.

Re: Mastercard deflects blame for NSFW games being taken down

#506

Post by [deleted] »

shagie wrote: post #496
altairprime wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No: it’s cheaper for them to follow the minimum common compliance across all countries, but Mastercard-sized firms absolutely can and often do vary compliance per country ( gestures at Google, Facebook ) when it’s profitable to do so. Mastercard could have simply enforced Australia-specific rules on Itch if they’d wanted to, but they’re anxious about being labeled as smutty due to domestic U.S., and apparently export…

Mastercard and Visa have rather corse information about the transactions. They've got the credit card number, the merchant name, the time, and the total amount of the transaction. They do not have line item level filtering of a transaction. Remember those old carbon paper credit card thingies? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_card_imprinter - that's all that's needed and all they get. Similarly, the credit card t…

[deleted]

Re: Mastercard deflects blame for NSFW games being taken down

#507

Post by amiga386 »

jfyi wrote: post #435
amiga386 wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this is just evil old Valve, why did itch.io - a site founded on openness and the right to sell adult-only games, especially if they cover LGBT themes, tell everyone that their payment processors also want them not to offer adult-only games? Which is more likely: 1. Porn-hating, sex-hating, LGBT-hating activist group from Australia bombards Mastercard with complaints that Valve and Itch are selling adult games. Ma…

What is more likely is the processors made the decision themselves and cited Mastercard's rule without interacting with Mastercard. If Mastercard cared about this stuff then processors like CCBill wouldn't exist. The absurd amount of money that porn brings in on the internet would dry up over night. This was a decision made by paysafe and paypall and so far they are the only ones not getting the blame pinned on them.…

> What is more likely is the processors made the decision themselves

If you think that, please explain how the payment processors didn't say anything since Valve started selling adult games in 2018... and only a few days after Collective Shout specifically started targeting MasterCard and Visa (not PayPal or Paysafe)... the payment processors used by Valve cited MasterCard's rules to Valve?

It's also MasterCard that set the rules. Valve can always get another payment processor. They can't get another payment processor that is not beholden to Visa and/or MasterCard.

Re: Mastercard deflects blame for NSFW games being taken down

#508

Post by crazygringo »

notatoad wrote: post #495
btown wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

i think that sounds like a perfectly fine compromise - choosing not to provide services that are an especially high risk of fraud should be within their rights. it just means that they could be forced to defend those decisions in court, which is good and exactly the sort of thing that courts are supposed to decide.

Exactly. If they are misapplying their fraud criteria, companies start suing and winning and Mastercard stops misapplying their criteria.

Re: Mastercard deflects blame for NSFW games being taken down

#509

Post by altairprime »

shagie wrote: post #496
altairprime wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No: it’s cheaper for them to follow the minimum common compliance across all countries, but Mastercard-sized firms absolutely can and often do vary compliance per country ( gestures at Google, Facebook ) when it’s profitable to do so. Mastercard could have simply enforced Australia-specific rules on Itch if they’d wanted to, but they’re anxious about being labeled as smutty due to domestic U.S., and apparently export…

Mastercard and Visa have rather corse information about the transactions. They've got the credit card number, the merchant name, the time, and the total amount of the transaction. They do not have line item level filtering of a transaction. Remember those old carbon paper credit card thingies? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_card_imprinter - that's all that's needed and all they get. Similarly, the credit card t…

Mastercard can deny all transactions from Australia-billed cards to one merchant if they wish to. They are absolutely wired up for “Area of Use” internally and have this data available to their transaction approval processes. That they chose not to use it, instead pressuring merchants to remove content disliked by an Australian puritanical fringe group, is the corporate laziness I describe. Why respond with their own effort when they can just externalize the problem onto their customers, etc.

Re: Mastercard deflects blame for NSFW games being taken down

#510

Post by amiga386 »

shagie wrote: post #499
aranelsurion wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Steam already has the ability to block certain countries and regions from buying specific products. IIRC many of the adult games were already banned in the German region for example. If it was about the laws, at worst Valve could block Australian users from buying adult content and that would be it.

... and if Valve and Itch had blocked content that was illegal in Australia before Collective Shout weaponized the Australian laws, we wouldn't have heard about it beyond it showing up in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banned_video_games_in_... From the Valve rules: 6. Content that violates the laws of any jurisdiction in which it will be available

1. Everything on your banned list that Steam sells was already banned in Australia (you can tell by looking it up on SteamDB and noticing it has "n/a" for the Australian price e.g. https://steamdb.info/app/2456420/)

2. Collective Shout aren't weaponising Australian laws in this case - those only apply in Australia. At best they could get games banned in Australia by drawing the state censor's attention to them. What Collective Shout did was weaponise American corporations fear of negative publicity by calling them repeatedly and threatening them with negative campaigning, and as a result got games banned in countries they don't live in, over and above the say-so of the people who do live in those countries, and the laws of those countries allowing them to purchase such games.

Post reply on HN