Hacker News Reader

Comment by amiga386 | Hacker News Reader

Click on the article link at the top of this page and find out. Let me quote the article for you:

> In a statement provided to PC Gamer, Valve said that it had tried to work things out with Mastercard directly prior to removing the games, and suggested that Mastercard did have at least an indirect influence on the outcome.

> "Mastercard did not communicate with Valve directly, despite our request to do so," a Valve representative said. "Mastercard communicated with payment processors and their acquiring banks. Payment processors communicated this with Valve, and we replied by outlining Steam’s policy since 2018 of attempting to distribute games that are legal for distribution.

> "Payment processors rejected this, and specifically cited Mastercard’s Rule 5.12.7 and risk to the Mastercard brand."

View on HN

This text is also consistent with Valve making a determination, checking with payment processors and not being told no. (Versus the payment processors reaching out to Valve first.)

Like yes, there is a problem with Mastercard. But I want to know this isn’t Valve having complied with some activists trying to cover their tracks.

As far as it goes, collective shout claimed Valve didn't respond to them and that's why they complained to MC visa about it. They even mention how many calls they made to them to get the complaint heard.

So everyone would have to be pretty invested in this show for it to have originated from Valve?

Which means Collective Shout didn't have any legal weight behind their demands.

Of course - they've never invoked a legal justification. What they seem to be leaning on is basically "we can create bad press about you supporting payments for X", promising headlines like "MasterCard is paying for women to be beaten and raped!" or other sensational nonsense.

They're based out of Australia and so have the Australian porn laws behind them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography_in_Australia#Illeg...

> Some types of pornography (both real and fictitious) are technically illegal in Australia and if classified would be rated RC and therefore banned in Australia. This includes any pornography depicting violent BDSM, incest, paedophilia, zoophilia, certain extreme fetishes (such as golden showers) and/or indicators of youth (such as wearing a school uniform).

https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/pornography-la...

https://www.kptlegal.com.au/resources/knowledge/pornography-...

Steam already has the ability to block certain countries and regions from buying specific products. IIRC many of the adult games were already banned in the German region for example.

If it was about the laws, at worst Valve could block Australian users from buying adult content and that would be it.

... and if Valve and Itch had blocked content that was illegal in Australia before Collective Shout weaponized the Australian laws, we wouldn't have heard about it beyond it showing up in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banned_video_games_in_...

From the Valve rules:

    6. Content that violates the laws of any jurisdiction in which it will be available

1. Everything on your banned list that Steam sells was already banned in Australia (you can tell by looking it up on SteamDB and noticing it has "n/a" for the Australian price e.g. https://steamdb.info/app/2456420/)

2. Collective Shout aren't weaponising Australian laws in this case - those only apply in Australia. At best they could get games banned in Australia by drawing the state censor's attention to them. What Collective Shout did was weaponise American corporations fear of negative publicity by calling them repeatedly and threatening them with negative campaigning, and as a result got games banned in countries they don't live in, over and above the say-so of the people who do live in those countries, and the laws of those countries allowing them to purchase such games.

If this is just evil old Valve, why did itch.io - a site founded on openness and the right to sell adult-only games, especially if they cover LGBT themes, tell everyone that their payment processors also want them not to offer adult-only games?

Which is more likely:

1. Porn-hating, sex-hating, LGBT-hating activist group from Australia bombards Mastercard with complaints that Valve and Itch are selling adult games. Mastercard reminds its payment processors not to bring shame on The Mark. Valve's and Itch's payment processors tell them not to sell adult games.

2. Porn-hating, sex-hating, LGBT-hating activist group from Australia bombards Mastercard with complaints that Valve and Itch are selling adult games. Valve and Itch agree with these harpies and remove their revenue streams and support for developers (because they hate revenue and hate supporting their developers; they'd much rather align with moral prudes from Australia in order to lose money and abandon the people who make them that money), then they sneakily pin the blame on Mastercard. Valve and Itch also use telepathy to know Collective Shout's desires, which they agree with, to ban games precisely at the time Collective Shout are calling up Mastercard, in order for it to be Collective Shout -> Valve/Itch rather than Collective Shout -> Mastercard -> Payment processors -> Valve/Itch

> why did itch.io - a site founded on openness and the right to sell adult-only games, especially if they cover LGBT themes, tell everyone that their payment processors also want them not to offer adult-only games?

Thank you, this is the context I was missing.

What is more likely is the processors made the decision themselves and cited Mastercard's rule without interacting with Mastercard.

If Mastercard cared about this stuff then processors like CCBill wouldn't exist. The absurd amount of money that porn brings in on the internet would dry up over night.

This was a decision made by paysafe and paypall and so far they are the only ones not getting the blame pinned on them.

Itch: Our processors told us to do it.

Mastercard: That is correct, we weren't involved.

Half of Hacker News: MASTERCARD AND VISA!!!!!!

The other half: VALVE AND ITCH!!!!!!

Paysafe and Paypall: Lol

> What is more likely is the processors made the decision themselves

If you think that, please explain how the payment processors didn't say anything since Valve started selling adult games in 2018... and only a few days after Collective Shout specifically started targeting MasterCard and Visa (not PayPal or Paysafe)... the payment processors used by Valve cited MasterCard's rules to Valve?

It's also MasterCard that set the rules. Valve can always get another payment processor. They can't get another payment processor that is not beholden to Visa and/or MasterCard.

Mastercard doesn't care.

Payment processors that handle adult material exist but they charge a premium rate. These companies could switch to CCBill as quick as they could code it up. Exactly the same as what OnlyFans did. They would have to explain to their entire customer base across the board why they have to charge more though.

Also, look at https://www.collectiveshout.org/open-letter-to-payment-proce...

They absolutely targeted paysafe and paypall. Paypall was the very first on their list, I wonder why that is. They knew the processor is the weak link.

After 10 years in the POS industry, I can assure you it came from their processor. The only card network I have ever seen take action like this is AMEX and they have have separate processing. Processors involve themselves in their customers' business constantly for risk assessment. Collective action like this is enough to make them ask, "Should we treat this as a video game vendor or as adult industry?" It's that simple to tip the scale.

Also, it doesn't make sense that Itch did it themselves. Why would they throw their vendors under the bus instead of just pulling the titles? Or are we supposed to believe they facilitated collective shout just to pull a couple of low value titles? I can't see any angle here that doesn't border on conspiracy.

> They absolutely targeted paysafe and paypall

OK, I read the link. They targeted Paysafe and PayPal AND VISA AND MASTERCARD AND DISCOVER AND JCB. All of them, in no particular order. Why did you not mention those?

Why are Valve's and Itch's payment processors, instead of citing their own policies, citing MasterCard's policies?

If "MasterCard doesn't care" then section 5.12.7 "Illegal or Brand-damaging Transactions" of MasterCard's rules, that specifically lists out transactions MasterCard prohibit processors from performing, specifically citing the percieved risk to MasterCard's brand... that's a really weird way for MasterCard to say they "don't care" about those exact sorts of transactions, which Valve's payment processors have been facilitating for Valve since 2018... until now, when a media campaign has put them and MasterCard, Visa, Discover and JCB on blast.

If MasterCard "doesn't care", let them show it by completely removing section 5.12.17 of their own rules. They made those rules, and those rules say they care, no matter how much you say they don't.

Ok, I'll assume good faith and answer that. I didn't mention those because you weren't questioning them. I feel that is kind of obvious.

>(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-...

So the question is, could both Valve and Itch take on several payment processors, and choose which game on their store goes through which processor? Or would porn-shy processors have blanket rules saying your whole company can't have any porn in the same store, even if it's locked away, even if you use not-us to process payments for it?

And secondly, let's say Valve moves to a porn-friendly processor (Itch has said it's looking for one, not that it's found one). MasterCard clearly has a rule, right there in black and white, saying don't facilitate this particular type of porn. How do you think it will look if for any potential processor, and MasterCard, if Valve switches processor and continues accepting MasterCard payments for games in direct contravention of MasterCards's given rule, while the world's press, and the angry lobby group, is watching?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com