Collective Shout, a small but vocal lobby group, has long called for a mandatory internet filter that would prevent access to adult content for everyone in Australia. Its director, Melinda Tankard Reist, was recently appointed to the stakeholder advisory board for the government’s age assurance technology trial before the under-16s social media ban comes into effect in Australia in December.

Mastercard and Visa face backlash after hundreds of adult games removed from online stores Steam and Itch.io

Payment platforms demand services remove NSFW content after open letter from Australian anti-porn group Collective Shout, triggering accusations of censorship

the Guardian (www.theguardian.com)

It's amazing how they have a book that tells them to love everybody and somehow they've taken that, and turned it into oppress everybody.

You need a hug or something?

I feel sorry for you

This is some low effort trolling, isn’t it?

I delight in causing you pain. Please tell me more about how I hurt you.

I mean, you haven’t so far. I recommend Prozac for those feelings of anger that just come out of nowhere. Worked wonders for me.

Keep the pressure on.

Collective Shout got them to change their position and they're a small group. We are legion, as the kids say

"Face backlash" = about 160,000 people signed a petition saying they disagreed with it, then went about their daily lives and totally, 100% without a doubt continued using their Visa or Mastercard credit cards.

They don't care, there are no alternatives. They can do whatever they want.

The Mastercard/Visa monopoly (or duopoly) is bad for consumers. It should be broken up.

Exactly. We need thousands of people calling them non stop disturbing them for hours on end, not just signing petitions.

They're the ones at risk of losing money if they get sued by reintroducing said content. You're not going to stop using the payment processors because there's literally no other option. This is performative.

I would prefer if the EU/Swiss backed project based on GNU Taler makes it instead: https://www.taler.net/en/ngi-taler.html

What's wrong with Capital One? I feel like Discover/Capital One / Diner's Club network is a good thing for Discover customers.

What benefits would Discover customers get from Capital One's acquisition? Discover acceptance in the US has been almost on-par with Visa/MC for many many years.

How would secret transactions make a the coin not deflate? The issue is control of the production of the currency. If you can't control it, it's a cointoss wether it'll be infaltionary or deflationary. A lot of inflation is bad, and any deflation is catastrophic, so I'd really rather not leave the economy up to random chance and private entities' willingness to control the production of their shitcoins.

Sued for what? They aren't stopping illegal content from being sold. That, as is implied by the word "illegal", was already not allowed on these stores. They're stopping legal, but potentially (not my opinion) objectionable, content from being sold. There's no legal risk for allowing it.

I'm not saying there is illegal content. Read my comment.

I'm saying the possibility of there being illegal content only exists if they allow the reintroduction of those titles. They'd need trust in the store moderation, in the lack of bad faith actors, in a lot of things.

And it would be an absolutely stupid business decision for them.

I am NOT condoning what they did, nor what they are doing. I am explaining, from their business perspective, why allowing potentially illegal content back on the platform is a non-argument and you cannot convince them otherwise.

I'm saying the possibility of there being illegal content only exists if they allow the reintroduction of those titles.

Again, no. If there were illegal content before then it's already breaking the rules. If you're breaking rules once, why would adding more rules change anything?

They'd need trust in the store moderation, in the lack of bad faith actors, in a lot of things.

What? Yeah, the store moderators have to enforce the rules. I don't know what this has to do with anything. Illegal or just banned, they have to be removed by the moderators. What difference does it make? This doesn't make any sense. Adding more rules doesn't magically remove the content. Moderators still have to do it. If they weren't doing it for illegal content, why would they do it for only banned but legal content?

The reason they did it is because they were pressured by a weird group who has a lot of influence. It wasn't because they were worried about illegal content, which is obvious because that's not the rule they applied. If the rule was "you're not allowed to sell illegal content" (which is obviously always true) then it'd be fine. Instead they made a rule for not allowing specific types of legal content.

Collective Shout, a small but vocal lobby group, has long called for a mandatory internet filter that would prevent access to adult content for everyone in Australia. Its director, Melinda Tankard Reist, was recently appointed to the stakeholder advisory board for the government’s age assurance technology trial before the under-16s social media ban comes into effect in Australia in December.

Mastercard and Visa face backlash after hundreds of adult games removed from online stores Steam and Itch.io

Payment platforms demand services remove NSFW content after open letter from Australian anti-porn group Collective Shout, triggering accusations of censorship

the Guardian (www.theguardian.com)