Mastercard and Visa face backlash after hundreds of adult games removed from online stores Steam and Itch.io
Technology
181
Beiträge
111
Kommentatoren
7.5k
Aufrufe
-
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 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.
-
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.
I’m sorry to hear of your troubles.
Do you need a hug?
-
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
That's something we all have to remember. We have to be just as vocal as these idiots or they take over. They are not the majority, they are only the most vocal.
-
"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.
Exactly. We need thousands of people calling them non stop disturbing them for hours on end, not just signing petitions.
-
The Mastercard/Visa monopoly (or duopoly) is bad for consumers. It should be broken up.
Discover was just acquired by Capital One, so one less viable competitor too.
-
Exactly. We need thousands of people calling them non stop disturbing them for hours on end, not just signing petitions.
You mean like exactly what's been happening over the past few days?
-
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.
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 would prefer if the EU/Swiss backed project based on GNU Taler makes it instead: https://www.taler.net/en/ngi-taler.html
Sounds great, but as with so many of these projects, they sound overly complicated for the masses. Wero is already a thing and it's straight forward. Even that is too complicated for many people, but it's gaining traction at least.
Anywho, I'm rooting for both!
-
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.
-
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.
Remember that Discover is self-banked (unlike Visa/Mastercard that banks sign up with). This means that every credit line needs to be backed by... well ... A bank.
Bigger banks mean more credit opportunities, better interest rates (etc. etc). Deeper credit lines.
-
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.
It wouldn't help much with inflation, but it wouldn't fluctuate as much as bitcoin due to all transactions being secret It is relatively stable. With monero you wouldn't have to worry about the value changing a lot in the span of a couple of hours.
-
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 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.
-
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.
You're not great at risk assessment, are you?
They have a risky move, which in 1/10000 cases leads to an illegal game being paid for through their payment platform.
And they have a safe move, where this never happens. Literally.
If the expected risk is positive in case 1, they will opt for case 2.
You must at least be able to understand this simple logic, right? If not, then I'm afraid this conversation is over because you're not even remotely trying to understand their logic, and you're just looking for a reason to be mad. Your irrationality makes me nauseous.
-
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)
Let's say it like it is: after the world of hundreds of developers is undermined, and the property of thousands of customers is compromised.
-
You mean like exactly what's been happening over the past few days?
Right, the actual solution is everyone taking their money out of the bank on the same day
-
You're not great at risk assessment, are you?
They have a risky move, which in 1/10000 cases leads to an illegal game being paid for through their payment platform.
And they have a safe move, where this never happens. Literally.
If the expected risk is positive in case 1, they will opt for case 2.
You must at least be able to understand this simple logic, right? If not, then I'm afraid this conversation is over because you're not even remotely trying to understand their logic, and you're just looking for a reason to be mad. Your irrationality makes me nauseous.
They have a risky move, which in 1/10000 cases leads to an illegal game being paid for through their payment platform.
And they have a safe move, where this never happens. Literally.
You're not getting it. They're the exact same risk. If it was illegal, it wasn't allowed before. If you're breaking the rules, you don't care. Especially if you were breaking the law and the rule before, you don't care that there's a new rule that also applies. This doesn't change risk at all. It doesn't make it any more unlikely, and certainly not "literally never happens."
The opposite could be true, if it were just against the rules but then is also made to be against the law. It might dissuade some people who were skirting the rules to reconsider. If they were breaking the law already, they don't care that they're breaking a new rule because they already were breaking the rules. It doesn't make it any worse for them. It's the exact same. If they're discovered, they're removed from the platform, exactly the same as before.
You must at least be able to understand this simple logic, right? Once you're breaking the rules enough to be removed from the platform, why do you care if there are more rules that will remove you from the platform? You're either stopped or you're not, and the platform either stops them or it doesn't. The risk to the payment processors is the same. You trust the moderation or you don't. They aren't going to do a better job because the illegal content is doubly not allowed. They're either stopping content that isn't allowed or they aren't.
-
Who's behind this sudden wave of age verification bullshit, Schrödinger's parents? The ones who shove an iPad in front of their 2 year old and berate school teachers for not being poorly paid babysitters who raise their kids for them? And yet they claim to care SO MUCH about the well being of children that they push these obscene and draconian policies on the rest of us? What a bunch of fucking hypocrites, but that's typical for conservatives.
Don't be fooled, that's not the real reason. Parents that shove iPads in front of their children are not even remotely worried about what their kids are watching online. This is purely about control, has nothing to do with children.
-
How can you know a game is LGBTQ+ if they don't talk about sex/gender? They look like normal humans to me, which differ in sexual preferences only? Example: How can you say this guy is gay without knowing his sexual preferences?
LGBTQ games love to tag themselves as such even when there's no talk of gender sexuality or relationship.
The number of times iv seen the LGBTQ tag on a game just because the dev is gay or trans or something is absolutely fucking absurdly high.
Honestly it's a huge pet peeve of mine. I don't give a single flying fuck what you are as a dev. I care what's in the god damn game. The tags ARE FOR THE GAME NOT YOU. stop making tags fucking useless by adding worthless tags.
Joke tags can ALSO fuck off.
