- cross-posted to:
- games@sh.itjust.works
- cross-posted to:
- games@sh.itjust.works
You must log in or register to comment.
There’s been two decades worth of lawsuits because PayPal has a history of withholding revenue and blocking small e-commerce stores.
I’m talking about e-commerce sites selling a board game, making $40k in sales through paypal, and PayPal refuses to give them money.
PayPal’s stance has been, “Fuck you sue us.”
I’m not saying this because I think Peter Thiel, who was one of the creators of Paypal, is a fucking evil villain.
It was an Elon company. Does it surprise anyone that it’s corrupt as fuck?
Silicon Valley used to call the founding staff of PayPal the PayPal Mafia
MasterCard’s and Valve’s statements seems to point at Stripe and PayPal as the ones who folded to the pressure. These payment processors then cited MasterCard’s rules to back up their change in policy.
MasterCard now clarifying that the payment processors are over-interpreting the rules and anything legal is ok seems a very good thing here. Valve should be able to go back to Stripe and PayPal with this and say: “Hey, you’ve misunderstood the rules you are quoting; MasterCard themselves say anything legal is ok, and that is the exact policy we’ve been using!”
I love how they form a consortium that stays in lockstep to maintain their oppressive control over everyone else.
By that standard, I ought not be able to use the card to buy booze (might give it to a minor or use for a Molotov Cocktail) a gun (obviously could use for crime) , and probably a million other things they let people buy with cards.
Well, you see, guns and booze are adult things (with tons of lobbying and taxes and corporate interest), while games are for kids and stupid and non-Christian. Simple!
Ima quote Serj on this: “La-la-la-la-la-la-la-la, lie, lie, lie 🎶”
Has anyone else noticed that the MasterCard logo kinda looks like a butt?
A fuckable butt at that.
MC: It’s not us.
Steam & Itch: It’s the payment processors.
Gee, I wonder who people are going to believe.
Thing is…I think both claims are correct.
Mastercard and Visa are not the only middle-men; the only “payment processors” involved in making sales.
Next time you check out at a cafe, look at the branding of the tablet/software the cashier is using. Chances are, it wasn’t developed by the cafe owners, or by MC/Visa. That’s a payment processor. There’s some big ones out there that can be hard to avoid.
Practically no one in the world who accepts payments for their online business directly integrates with visa or Mastercard. It’s all 3rd party companies who integrate (because it’s fucking hard and tedious) and then resell it in a nice easy package.
In almost all cases, any talk about payment processors, is them, not visa/Mastercard.
Yup, most times when a business gets set up for accepting credit card payments they need to set up a bank, merchant account, gateway, those things integrate with the CC companies. Often they aren’t even the same company so you’re kind of dealing with a bunch of different entities. I’m not sure if I missed any other middlemen.
The new thing is for the POS system / website / whatever to sell you the merchant account/gateway under their own systems so everything besides the bank and credit card companies are integrated through them (& they collect more money).
True. Collective shout targeted visa, mc, paypal and paysafe. I guess it’s possible the game storefronts acted due to concerns of one of them.
All of those devices are child companies of either Banks or Credit Card companies. Or, like Square, owe their continued existence to banking and wall st firms dumping cash on them.
The one outlier I know about is Canada’s Interac system, which was started by Canadian banks, but now is its own thing
That’s not quite true.
There are several layers between point of sale and the card brands and each layer is generally an independent company. Each of those companies makes or sells hardware and/or software that is used by the companies lower in the chain.
Square takes up several of these layers at once and charges much higher fees than other processors. The high fees and massive market coverage is why they exist, not because they’re chewing through VC funds still.
According to wikipedia, where it listed the many rounds of VC and bank finding they have, they haven’t yet made a profit
Square is owned by Block Inc who is a publicly traded company. They made $190m net profit in Q1 2025
And they lost 541 million in 2023.
And they were profitable in 2020 and 2021, what’s your point?
Companies lose money sometimes
I remember seeing a graphic that was about every layer of companies that are interacted with when you use a credit card. Must have been at least like 6 layers of companies each taking a fee from a company that took fees higher up the chain closer to the consumer. Similar when I read an explanation of, when you buy a stock through a company like Fidelity where is the stock actually held and that was layers of public/private companies/corporations
buy a stock through a company like Fidelity where is the stock actually held and that was layers of public/private companies/corporations
I learned that. It was the whole chain to get to that point and how that organization even came to be and how they came to be and how it’s regulated that was a bit disgusting with how make shift it seemed to me. The whole stack all came off as a multi decade saga of stapling org on top of org until we came to the present of things mostly work but it’s a bit fragile with a mix of public and private regulators trying to hold things together and make old paper systems work with modern technology
In online stores Visa and MC are the big ones. If we exclude China, Visa and MC make up 90% of all online purchases worldwide. For online stores they are the two players who matter. Losing one is a significant loss of revenue, losing both will kill the store.
Gee, I wonder who people are going to believe.
Other payment processors? Why is this hard for you?
It’s been pretty widely reported that it’s PayPal and Stripe(mostly Stripe) that have been the ones that were requiring them to remove the NSFW material.
Well, everyone discussing this seems to have been confused about it. Is it fucking PayPal and Stripe or fucking Mastercard and Visa?
It almost certainly wasnt the card brands forcing the issue. They outsource that stuff to payment processors and other middle men because it’s cheaper and gives them some legal shielding if someone buys something illegal with their cards
We’ll probably never get the whole story. Itch’s update from yesterday points the finger at stripe, others could still be involved.
From what I understand it wasn’t actually mastercard and visa?
Itch statements made it very clear the issue was PayPal and Stripe.
Steam even disabled PayPal payments for a while, a couple days before the purge. While direct card payments with Visa/Mastercard still worked fine.
Valve also clarified today that it was the processors, not the card management companies, that they talked to. The processors were pointing at MasterCard’s rules, but refusing to provide Valve with someone at MasterCard to talk to.
So it’s Valve’s fault for just going with it, seems to me.
Still requires them to find a solution, putting it on patreon won’t work forever. I think most game stores should find a way to adopt cryptocurrency.
They are both telling the truth, which is how the best lies work.
Mastercard: “It’s all good as long as it is legal”.
Religious zealots: “Games depict sex with children!!!”
Steam/Itch: “Which games?”
Zealots: “Yes”
Mastercard: “Sex with children is illegal. Get rid of those games.”
Steam/Itch: “Which games???”
Mastercard: “That’s a you problem. Figure it out and get rid of them or lose the ability to process payments.”
Steam/Itch: *pulls most NSFW games while they figure out "which games
“which games”
The multitude of incest games that litter Steam’s new releases?
they are not illegal tho, also you have to click multiple checkboxes to even see these games, you don’t see them by default
Wouldn’t it be nice if the payment processors required more than being really annoying to get something classified as possibly illegal?
The United States is a VERY litigious country. The biggest motivator in America is profit, and the possibility of lawsuits is contrary to profit. Fucking over indie devs selling niche games that makes a few bucks on Steam is a lot cheaper than the legal expenses of a lawsuit and the bad press of “Mastercard funds child pornography”.
It isn’t about fairness. It’s about profit.
Kind of off topic, but this just activated one of my trap card rants,
The problem is not that we’re a litigious society, the problem is we make litigation artificially costly and time consuming by restricting the number of lawyers and judges we create and only trying to address the bottleneck that creates by making courts harder to access (e.g. increasing filing fees, giving defendants more ability to force things into arbitration kangaroo courts, etc.).
Especially in light of how our courts have been just making up bullshit to let cops/soldiers/Republicans do whatever the fuck they since circa 1968/2001/2025, you can’t tell me that people need as many years of education to practice law as we require in this country.
Also, private bar associations are fucking weird, feudal era anti-democratic bullshit that ought to get replaced with proper public licensing agencies that are accountable to democratic systems and accessible to the public
/end rant
Most other countries don’t do punitive damages, only compensatory. That makes winning in a judgment much less lucrative than in the US.
Single payer healthcare systems get all the political attention, but we really need a single payer judicial system. Basically public defenders but properly funded and for prosecution as well.
The US judicial system is also particularly bad because each party is responsible for their own legal fees. Most of the world has the loser pay the winner’s fees.
American rule (attorney’s fees) - Wikipedia - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_rule_(attorney’s_fees)
Kind of off topic, but this just activated one of my trap card rants,
You just activated the right wing trap card!
Or, maybe, it’s just MasterCard’s way of saying “It’s Visa”? (Not that I know this. It could well be a lie for all I know. But also, maybe it’s not.)
Mastercard: “Sex with children is illegal. Get rid of those games.”
Games depicting it aren’t, which would be easy enough to state. Cool mental theater, though.
I feel really dirty siding with this sort of thing, but also murder, assault, drugs, theft, vigilantism, the list goes on, is also illegal.
MC and Visa are not technically payment processors, that would be stuff like stripe or ayden.
The problem is that cc companies have rules that put the onus of ensuring nothing illegal is purchased with their issued cards on the ones actually meditating the transaction, so it becomes a chilling effect because the intermediaries don’t want to risk burning a bridge with the largest cc networks in the world, and overcorrect as a result.
cc companies
best to say card networks, as cc companies both include a lot of other things (like issuers), and doesn’t include some things (like debit cards, which still use the card networks)
Instead of linking the actual statement, we have a 3 and a half paragraph “article”. Here is the actual statement from MC
Mastercard has not evaluated any game or required restrictions of any activity on game creator sites and platforms, contrary to media reports and allegations.
Our payment network follows standards based on the rule of law. Put simply, we allow all lawful purchases on our network. At the same time, we require merchants to have appropriate controls to ensure Mastercard cards cannot be used for unlawful purchases, including illegal adult content.
deleted by creator
In fact this statement states that they ask their clients to litteraly do the job of justice. That’s quite scary.
Ensuring a card cannot be used to buy illegal content.
That means they can shut you down if they think you didn’t do enough, which is literally their whim.
Or if there is any possible ambiguity in the law. I’m thinking it’s possible this has something to do with the recent weakening of constitutional protections for adult content in the US, where censorship by states of somewhat arbitrarily “obscene” content can be deemed illegal. The quote in the article by Valve seems to reference the concept of offensiveness in Mastercard’s policies:
Payment processors rejected this, and specifically cited Mastercard’s Rule 5.12.7 and risk to the Mastercard brand. See https://www.mastercard.us/content/dam/public/mastercardcom/na/global-site/documents/mastercard-rules.pdf.
the rule including the text:
- The sale of a product or service, including an image, which is patently offensive and lacks serious artistic value (such as, by way of example and not limitation, images of nonconsensual sexual behavior, sexual exploitation of a minor, nonconsensual mutilation of a person or body part, and bestiality), or any other material that the Corporation deems unacceptable to sell in connection with a Mark.
So what I’m reading between the lines here is, there is now doubt among the lawyers of credit card companies or the lawyers of their middlemen that these games are for sure legal, and not in violation of obscenity laws that rely on hazy standards of offensiveness.
It never was about the laws. If it were, Mastercard wouldn’t have been doing it for quite some time now.
It’s truly idiotic. They backed down to 200 phone calls from CS. They probably cited that rule, saying doing what they do (processing payments) will damage their brand.
Lo and behold, once they stopped processing transactions their brand got damaged. And due to the ego damage already associated, they won’t back down and backtrack not that they actually have a problem on their hands. What with their brand being seen as discriminatory, weak to undue influence and excersizing undue power against their own clients. Very “good brand” of you, Mastercard.
If Mastercard wants to display Christo-fascist family friendlyness they can slap a cross onto their logo and change the font to Comic sans.
The precedent setting supreme court ruling I’m thinking of is very recent, and there are other recent significant changes to law that could also be relevant. My guess is that the phone calls didn’t make the difference on their own, but rather prompted internal conversations about legal liability given the new landscape and how they should be handling it to best avoid potential damages.
Yes, the statement is in the article, which gives background context.
Good point, I also forgot the footer.
About Mastercard
Mastercard powers economies and empowers people in 200+ countries and territories worldwide. Together with our customers, we’re building a resilient economy where everyone can prosper. We support a wide range of digital payments choices, making transactions secure, simple, smart and accessible. Our technology and innovation, partnerships and networks combine to deliver a unique set of products and services that help people, businesses and governments realize their greatest potential.
Good for them. Just stop judging the platforms, take the payments. You’re making money no matter what.
Porn will always win.
just ask betamax
And hddvd
It’s time for Steam to launch their own payment processing company, and apply pressure directly on the card networks and the future competition.
It won’t be nearly as profitable as their current business model, but sometimes industries need a shakeup.
They don’t need to start a payment processing company. All they gotta do is start accepting crypto again.
I mean come on, the solution is so obvious. This is what cryptocurency was designed for. But Lemmy refuses to see it. You’ll just downvote me and call it a scam like you always do.
This, but hating on crypto is trendy
Trendy and morally correct. If we can hate on Mastercard for the banning of adult content on Steam, we can blame crypto and the people around it for the scams and the continuing environmental harm.
Why blame crypto instead of the specific parts of a different community? You can’t generalize a group because of the actions of a few individuals
Cryptos impact is high but not as much as many other fields, and it’s not for the love of profit, but as a necessity to protect a decentralized currency used by lots of people
Many cryptos don’t even have any environmental cost
Why use Mastercard as an excuse to move to crypto? You can’t generalize the problems of the current monetary system because of the actions of a few. Crypto’s impact is high? It is a non-essential. Many cryptos don’t matter. And bitcoin, as the one people gravitate towards, is awful for the environment, for something that is a non-essential (and not even a practical currency).
I have always criticized the current system
Payment processors are just part of it. Each time similar issues arise, I’m here
The current system’s problems are not just the actions of a few. The few in question have an incredibly high market share. Crypto would fix these issues: no need for middlemen, more privacy and anonymity (for applicable cryptocurrencies), cheaper international transactions, decentralized to prevent censorship (as long as governments don’t fuck it up too much)
Not to mention your original message was about criticizing Mastercard which is a single entity, and you’re comparing that to criticizing crypto which isn’t
What isn’t essential to you could be essential to others. For many people, card payments are not essential. Emails aren’t essential. Cars or public transport aren’t essential. You’re saying something is useless based on adoption. So it is just useless until it becomes essential at an arbitrary point? So it does not prove anything
Cryptocurrency is essential to protect your online financial privacy. If you don’t care about it, that’s on you.
I think you getting my upvote was a scam
The problem is not with crypto itself, it’s with the part of the community (certainly the loudest) who have been telling the public to treat it as an investment asset.
For me, the fact that you have to burn down an amazon forest for every transaction kinda matters, too.
Eth supposedly solved this problem with proof of stake
And then people associate crypto with scam even if that’s incorrect because they don’t know better
So it’s a people problem?
Funny, it turns out it is more brand damaging not to sell adult games, than to sell them…
Yeah before all this if you told me “MasterCard is selling incest and rape games!” I would have said no, Steam is doing that. But now I feel like they want to have a heavier hand.
Ultimately I think it’s pressure from the Trump admin/project 2025 on companies to eventually make porn illegal
That’s not a statement. It’s just a lame excuse and attempt to escape the blame for their behavior.
“Unlawful” based on what? American law?
These are global payment companies, they can’t just have a “we don’t allow payment for illegal content” cause that varies by country (and by state even).
What an absolutely nothing statement.
Just because you don’t understand their response, doesn’t mean it’s a nothing statement.
“Unlawful”, based on the region that you and the vendor operate in. And yes, that does vary based on which region you and they are in. And yes, it can get very complicated. Welcome to the world of economics.
In short. Vendors can be considered unlawful in your region, even if they don’t offer the specific illegal service or product in your region, but do in others.
What MasterCard is saying here is. “If we’re not legally required to take any action. We won’t”
Exactly in the US I can buy an assault rifle. Something that would be a crime in most other countries.
They’re obviously basing it on the local laws of the business and customer. That varies from each transaction to the next. They’re just saying that they don’t restrict anything that they aren’t legally required to restrict.
I don’t think that’s accurate because they asked Dlsite before them to restrict their content based on American Law. They tried to remove access to content from outside Japan that Visa was complaining about and Visa still told them to remove the content (I guess cause people were using VPNs) so they had to remove the ability to pay with visa and Mastercard entirely.
By that reasoning they should not accept payments for alcohol, as that’s illegal in some countries…
We should demand mastercard shut down all payments to everyone, as their very business model clearly falls afoul of the laws of the People’s Republic of North Korea.
Now this is the kind of movement I can get behind.
From the article
So this seems like Mastercard are basically saying “it’s not us”.
Publicly, they’re saying we don’t want to get sued for allowing the purchase of illegal content, We have no problem with legal content.
That’s not to say that’s how they are phrasing it too the publishers.
I do kind of wonder of any of these game devs could go after these payment processing companies for loss of income? I’m not a lawyer, but I’d definitely be looking into it if I was a Dev that has been effected by this.
Likely not, the devs don’t have an agreement of any kind with the processor.
Valve, on the other hand, should be sueing if the Mastercard statement proves false and it was in fact their policies forcing the Steam and Itch io takedowns.
correct. so they could sue itch, which does have an agreement with them. and itch can sue the processors.
Yeah, I figured it would probably be something more like that order of operations. But I’m also sure there is probably a clause in the agreement between dev and store that says they can pull your game for any reason without notice, so there’s probably nothing that can be done.
correct, but it could be argued the clause is too broad and doesn’t fit into the current circumstances considering it wasn’t a choice itch made, but a choice their payment processor forced them to make.
that in itself could be a bridge that leads to a direct confrontation between developers and mastercard.
Loss of income is really difficult to sue for. Especially if you’re an indie company in another country, trying to sue an international company. You either sue locally, or open up a office in their nation.
And your case has to be rock solid.
Like tech companies still lose cases around loss of income, even when it’s obvious to the average person that the major company is going out of their way to stamp out competition.
