Mastercard deflects blame for NSFW games being taken down

>(not PayPal or Paysafe)...

As to paypal's policy...

https://www.paypal.com/us/cshelp/article/what-is-paypal%E2%8...

>We don't permit PayPal account holders to buy or sell: Sexually oriented digital goods or content delivered through a digital medium. Examples of digital goods include downloadable pictures or videos and website subscriptions.

Yeah it's a good question, why would they cite mastercard instead of their own policy?

It's entirely anecdotal, but in my 10 years of experience dealing with a multitude of processors and payment gateways... that's what processors do. Their very first instinct is to make things someone else's problem. With maybe the exception of First Data, this has held up consistently for me. Of course a lot of our high dollar business was through First Data so who knows what other people's experience is.

You are still completely avoiding the fact that processors that can handle this stuff exist. Sure Mastercard should probably change their rule, but that isn't going to change the situation.

That is why Itch is looking at their options:

https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/itchio-are-seeking-out-new-...

No, it's discussed everywhere, at the EU and the local level. There has been plenty of action at various levels (like in France, under Macron first as minister of the economy and later president; and he's been decried and criticised a lot, but has also gotten a ton of reforms through).

> This sentence is fundamentally wrong, no one is dying. And for me, it perfectly sums up the issues we're discussing.

That's the point though. Literally the main thing the law does is that if the AI can make decision that can result in deaths, there should be a human escalation and its decision making should be explainable. That's it. If that's too much burden, something is wrong.

> Or even worse, deciding when the problem does not yet exist. Or the technology is still in its early stages. Like AI

But the problem already exists, again, cf. United Healthcare Group in the US. We know they're killing people and hiding behind a well known faulty "AI". We don't want that shit in the EU.

> I don't know if you are for or against nuclear power. I am quite pro nuclear power. But everyone knows about the European Pressurized Reactor (EPR) project, it is a failure in terms of costs and bureaucracy

If you're pro nuclear, you should know what the real problems with EPR are. The main are failures at EDF with the quality of their work, due to lack of qualified personnel, like welders. This has been well documented for Flamanville and Hinkley Point, and EDF has even written extensively about all the lessons learned from those disasters that have been incorporated. They even flat out say that Flamanville has allowed them to build industrial capacity and human know how to be able to build the next ones.

Do you have anything to back your claim that somehow bureaucracy is to blame? EDF are a state owned company, but I'm pretty sure that the British wouldn't stop yapping around if EDF were bungling Hinkley Point because of French/EU bureaucracy. There should be at least as much material on it as there are about the quality control issues, right?

> The same EPR reactors built in China have low costs and short construction times (I am referring to the Taishan Nuclear Power Plant). The problem is exclusively European.

Yes, because we stopped building reactors for decades, and nobody is around that knows the intricacies of that. Hence the investment in EPR, to improve on the failures at Flamanville, Hinkley Point, Olkiluoto, and be able to reliably deliver EPR reactors with predictable costs.

It is to those who enjoy playing them.

Are you suggesting that playing a game involving incest is somehow unacceptable, while a game with graphic murder is fine? It's a strange moral line to draw, and despite what you may think, your views are not shared by everyone.

Imagine that the government instituted a private organization that had the power to cripple any business, with no recourse, and had control over it. The first amendment does not literally prohibit this, yet this would have clearly been a violation of the first amendment in spirit.