Well, this is happening earlier than I thought.

To be fair... Funger is pretty brutal, a little past regular "horror". Definitely against the censorship tho.

And then use what?

Nah, we'll still have our shooters and sports games, just not anything sexual (yucky), taboo or too outside of the ordinary.

Wow.... This count have happened in the 2010's with the anti-gaming feminist and conservative movement at the time.

If only they knew to go after payment processors instead of identity groups.

I've heard this reasoning a few times. I don't buy it. Illegal content is already illegal. You aren't allowed to sell it. Policing particular content beyond that doesn't cover your ass. In fact, it implicates you if you do process payments for illegal content.

I've never seen any argument from them that this is the reasoning. The only rule they need is that you aren't allowed to sell illegal content on your platform. That covers everything. Going beyond that implies there's a different reason. They're being influenced by something else other than the law.

Yeah, that's not what the payment processors are requesting. They aren't saying they don't want to be used to buy this content. They're saying, if your platform hosts this content at all then they won't process any payments. It doesn't matter if the option is removed if the content is still there. They're using their power of monopoly to police content.

We should, but also they aren't the root cause. If they're gone, there's nothing stopping a different group from doing the same thing (except for fear of retaliation). The ideal solution is to force payment processors to process any payment for legal content.

A few options include American Express, Discover, JCB, and the Steam Wallet, which can be funded through Steam gift cards.

Give them an inch, they'll take a mile.

1. Itch has come out and said it's not Visa, it's PayPal and Stripe.

2. Removing those payment options would cause a massive loss of revenue.

It's an asterisk...

I've never seen any argument from them that this is the reasoning.

What argument have you seen from them that is their reasoning?

But removing them from the specific games they object to would not lose any more revenue than removing the games entirely, and reduce the backlash significantly, as long as they could find 1 obscure payment provider to handle the obscure games and keep some form of access.

Do you have a source of where they are saying that?

I have seen an article about the Australian political action group that was claiming credit for getting the games banned. The story behind the start of the controversy.

And I have seen an article about the communication from Steam that they were banning games which were in conflict with the rules of their payment providers. The result basically.

But I've only seen conjecture and speculation about what went on to get from the start to the result. I haven't seen any article that spelled out exactly what the different payment providers demanded from the gaming platforms, nor anything about what they discussed in between them.

Edit: after 12 hours there's 4 downvoters and 0 sources. Another victory for vibes over facts.

I only use Steam myself, so I hadn't checked Itch Io's communication yet. I don't know the platform myself so it's quite possible that I'm misinterpreting this, but to me it appears that Itch Io will allow creators to delist payment options that they are not compliant with: "For NSFW pages, this will include a new step where creators must confirm that their content is allowable under the policies of the respective payment processors linked to their account.".

Source: https://itch.io/updates/update-on-nsfw-content

Likely not worth the effort.

If people had used cryptocurrency as a currency instead of as a "it's totally not a security, we swear, even though we're only saying that to evade SEC regulations a little longer"

...LTC definitely has been. Monero has and is. BTC's fall was a massive pullback on an extremely new and volatile idea that not even half the buyers entirely understood. BTC now is held up by ETF funds, private equity and everyone that cares putting a few chips in. Is it a scam now? Is everyone scamming everyone?

...there'd be a lot fewer people calling it a scam. For sixteen years, crypto's only use cases seemed to be buying illegal goods and securities fraud.

Some would call that decentralization and freedom. Spin it however you like. lol, "Illegal goods". Fuck the system, unless it's not against the grain of the community, right?

Finally, we have another use case presenting: perfectly legal transactions that credit card companies have gotten cold feet about.

They deserve every negative degree.

That slope got real slippery real quick.

Yay were back to the 2000s again, Jack Thompson rises again !