Steam is cracking down on porn games, to keep Payment Processors happy.
-
The payments can become a legal liability for the processors. I believe there are federal laws that have penalties for anyone who facilitates transactions for certain prohibited goods or services. It's the same reason cannabis shops have such a hard time getting payment and banking services.
The payment processors have very little incentive to take risks here. As others have noted, there isn't much competition pressure.
EDIT: I went to find a source, and found the cannabis analogy isn't right. Seems that Visa and MasterCard really are the primary censors of the porn industry. This archived FT article went in depth. https://archive.ph/zXKuD
Not really. In the US, the first amendment protects a lot. Just like with YouTube censorship, capitalism has created a more restrictive regime through financial pressure than the government does. This has affected the porn industry, as well (see another comment in this subthread on that).
-
This doesn't sound like a good idea in any way. Why the fuck do banks get to say how my money is used? They can literally eat my shit.
I 100% agreed. BUt maybe some people thought it sounded like a good idea.
-
Ted Cruz in shambles
I'm sure the young escorts in Cancun are unaffected by this.
-
in some previous times something like this happened (I forgot specifically which), visa/mastercard would deny all payments with a platform until whatever offended them was removed (don't know if they only threatened that or actually followed through)
-
Why shouldn't the payment processors get a say in the payments they process? Illegal or not, why should they be forced to process payments that facilitate things against their beliefs?
Steam could pursue other payment processing possibilities instead of acquiescing to their demands.
Because I'm not a right-libertarian who ignores how corporations setup coercive structures all their own in a perversion of free association.
-
in some previous times something like this happened (I forgot specifically which), visa/mastercard would deny all payments with a platform until whatever offended them was removed (don't know if they only threatened that or actually followed through)
They shouldn’t be allowed to do that. They should be required to process any legal payment. Even the icky ones.
-
The payments can become a legal liability for the processors. I believe there are federal laws that have penalties for anyone who facilitates transactions for certain prohibited goods or services. It's the same reason cannabis shops have such a hard time getting payment and banking services.
The payment processors have very little incentive to take risks here. As others have noted, there isn't much competition pressure.
EDIT: I went to find a source, and found the cannabis analogy isn't right. Seems that Visa and MasterCard really are the primary censors of the porn industry. This archived FT article went in depth. https://archive.ph/zXKuD
It's not even legal risk. It's brand risk.
There's a difference with cannabis shops because that's actually still federally illegal. As such, the required business accounts and tax documents required to use a national payment processor are often not forthcoming. It's a low level regulation that you can't generally tell a federal bank you'd like an account to store the proceeds of a federal crime.
With porn, the legal standards and protections are pretty well established. As long as the company is in possession of the required tax documents and business accounts, there's no legal risk beyond the standard due diligence they need to do for every customer. Visa isn't generally liable if a tire shop is discovered to be breaking a non-financial law. What processors don't want is to have their brand attached to something that they worry could make them look bad.
-
Why shouldn't the payment processors get a say in the payments they process? Illegal or not, why should they be forced to process payments that facilitate things against their beliefs?
Steam could pursue other payment processing possibilities instead of acquiescing to their demands.
Because they're a financial institution, not an individual. They don't have beliefs.
Arguing that corporate "beliefs" (image management) and interests take priority over societal order is ridiculous.
We regulate banks and financial institutions all the time. We regulate businesses all the time.
They should suck it up and treat businesses with legal activities and proper tax documents as just another business. Kinda like how we have laws that say that public shipping companies need to generally treat all customers the same. It's why they don't typically ask what's in the box aside from questions related to operational characteristics. Porn doesn't spontaneously ignite and threaten an aircraft, but lithium batteries can.
-
I find the fact that people want to fuck animals pretty nasty, yes.
Well then stuff your puritanical BS. Stop making your discomfort towards something that causes no harm into someone else’s problem.
-
Steam could pursue other payment processing possibilities
Imagine you can't use visa or mastercard. What other fucking payment card acceptance system are you going to use for payment processing in under 30 seconds?
Why shouldn’t the payment processors get a say in the payments they process
Because it's none of their business what I buy. If a store is a reputable business that isn't defrauding me, and are a legal entity, then whatever they sell to me or I buy from them should only matter to me and the seller.
Illegal or not, why should they be forced to process payments that facilitate things against their beliefs?
So half the market can get nuked once the CEO decides whatever faith du jour they have disallows whatever?
Imagine you can't use visa or mastercard. What other fucking payment card acceptance system are you going to use for payment processing in under 30 seconds?
This is one of the few places where I think cryptocurrency could be useful. It ain't much, but there it is.
-
Because they're a financial institution, not an individual. They don't have beliefs.
Arguing that corporate "beliefs" (image management) and interests take priority over societal order is ridiculous.
We regulate banks and financial institutions all the time. We regulate businesses all the time.
They should suck it up and treat businesses with legal activities and proper tax documents as just another business. Kinda like how we have laws that say that public shipping companies need to generally treat all customers the same. It's why they don't typically ask what's in the box aside from questions related to operational characteristics. Porn doesn't spontaneously ignite and threaten an aircraft, but lithium batteries can.
Arguing that corporate "beliefs" (image management) and interests take priority over societal order is ridiculous.
Good thing I'm not arguing that.
-
Imagine you can't use visa or mastercard. What other fucking payment card acceptance system are you going to use for payment processing in under 30 seconds?
This is one of the few places where I think cryptocurrency could be useful. It ain't much, but there it is.
Incorrect! Bitcoin transactions take 10 FUCKING MINUTES.
-
Incorrect! Bitcoin transactions take 10 FUCKING MINUTES.
How many fingering minutes is that?
-
They shouldn’t be allowed to do that. They should be required to process any legal payment. Even the icky ones.
i agree. However, they'll continue to get away with it because it aligns with republican psuedo-christian ideals of oppression.
-
Why shouldn't the payment processors get a say in the payments they process? Illegal or not, why should they be forced to process payments that facilitate things against their beliefs?
Steam could pursue other payment processing possibilities instead of acquiescing to their demands.
In a world without regulation etc... maybe. Bottom line we've given payment processors power. Bottom line we need to buy things in the digital world, unless crypto can actually be stabilized or designed in a way that doesn't require an unsustainable massive energy waste and polution to use.
There either needs to be a universal good as cash payment processor that anyone can easily use... or we need to force ones that exist to transfer payments without bias.
-
Incorrect! Bitcoin transactions take 10 FUCKING MINUTES.
Bitcoin has lightning or you could use a chain with faster blocks.
-
These payment processors are businesses. They provide a service. Like valve does. It seems to me like you're making an argument for valve, but not for these other businesses which only differ in the service they provide.
If your point is "our society is too dependant on a small selection of payment processors and we need better options," that's a separate discussion and one I don't think I'd disagree with.
Well I think bottom line is that's the rub, the burden to become a payment provider is high... which it should be, but that's because we need pretty damn good regulations on them (as obviously if their security goes to crap, the consiquences are insanely high).
In addition it kind of is a small group by design because, we can't have it as a large group. If we have a nice even spread across 50 payment processors, then either everyone needs 50 credit cards, or every service that needs to be paid needs contracts with 50 payment services.
-
Incorrect! Bitcoin transactions take 10 FUCKING MINUTES.
There are countless other cryptocurrencies than Bitcoin
-
These payment processors are businesses. They provide a service. Like valve does. It seems to me like you're making an argument for valve, but not for these other businesses which only differ in the service they provide.
If your point is "our society is too dependant on a small selection of payment processors and we need better options," that's a separate discussion and one I don't think I'd disagree with.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Yes, Valve and Visa/MasterCard differ massively in their service. Valve operates a store within a specific industry, Visa/MasterCard process payments across our whole society.
It should be clear to anyone that payment providers must be held to a much stricter standard and have certain requirements of neutrality imposed on them. If not then in the best case you risk destroying the "free market" part of free market capitalism, worst case you're weakening democracy by letting unelected, unaccountable people decide what is and what isn't legal.
-
After looking at the game list, I fully support this and urge anyone who doesn't to look at the banned games.
