1) this is a community forum, valve will not reply here.
2) its common knowledge it was visa/mastercard.

Originally posted by FollowsJesus:

1) this is a community forum, valve will not reply here.
2) its common knowledge it was visa/mastercard.

It's currently up in the air right now. While the initial belief is Visa/MC, Mastercard has denied being responsible and even Valve has stated that MC didn't contact Valve, some side banks did using MCs name as reasoning. Whether it was a game of telephone, manipulation, or a lie, we don't know.

Originally posted by FollowsJesus:

1) this is a community forum, valve will not reply here.
2) its common knowledge it was visa/mastercard.

1. I know but i wanted to post it here also for discussion.
2. I dont care about vague info. i want them to point finger.

Calling it ‘common knowledge’ doesn’t make it true. Mastercard has denied direct contact, and Valve says they only heard from acquiring banks invoking Rule 5.12.7. If you really know which bank or group used Mastercard’s name, please share the actual email or sender domain. Otherwise it’s just rumor and we need hard evidence, not hearsay.

Originally posted by Hm1zaK:

[Transparency Request] Which payment processors or advocacy groups demanded NSFW game removals?

You want companies to act transparent?

That is so UN-AMERICAN!

Originally posted by Hm1zaK:

Hello Valve team and Steam community,

In your recent statement you explained that certain mature-rated games were removed because they “may violate the rules and standards set forth by our payment processors” (Rule 5.12.7). As developers and players, we want to understand exactly who made those demands so we can direct our feedback appropriately.

Which payment networks or acquiring banks invoked Rule 5.12.7?

Were any third-party advocacy groups (e.g. Collective Shout) officially involved in pressuring Steam?

If possible, please share the names of the institutions or organizations that contacted you, and any relevant policy citations.

Transparency here is crucial: without knowing the source of these content-policy pressures, the community can only guess at the motives and can’t effectively advocate for change. We greatly appreciate your commitment to keeping Steam’s store running, and we hope you’ll help restore trust by disclosing who asked for these removals.

Thank you for your consideration.

This is a Steam related sub-forum, to discuss using the steam user interface on the client, app, and websites.

There are no valve / steam employees or staff, server techs, steam support, or moderators in this steam related sub-forum. No one in this USER - USER only sub-forum can help you with your steam request.

Regardless of whether Valve post here, it is a good place to show we are fed up of people trying to control the games we play.

Valve should create his own bank and his own system, built on uncensorable blockchain.

We DO know that Mastercard was ONE of the elements in control as Valve has stated in an official response that rule 5.12.7 applies specifically to the Mastercard brand and is a rule by Mastercard. In Mastercard's response, Mastercard is stating, indirectly in order to save face, that they support the decisions of their payment processors to act in this manner and enforce 5.12.7.

The haziness comes into play as Mastercard did not communicate directly to Valve, but rather via "payment processors AND their acquiring banks". Keep in mind that Mastercard has issued statement saying they trust the judgement of their processors. These entities are enforcing the rule 5.12.7 which outlines the censorship in question, basically that merchants are not allowed to submit transactions that are illegal, nor are these purchase to include images which are deemed patently offensive or lacking in artistic value. Examples given, but not limited to, are non-consensual sexual activity, sexual exploitation of minors, non-consensual mutilation of a person or body part, and bestiality.

A recent official comment by Stripe, a payment processor, states that they currently are unable to process transactions that contain product used for sexual gratification, but they want to do so and hope that in the future they will be allowed to. They work for Visa.

Visa themselves point out in their policies that they will not support transactions that they feel endangers their brand. One of the examples stated: Pornography.

Based on this, with how long I've been a gamer and customer of Steam... Steam and players be boned. Most of the average violent games on Steam violate the "non-consensual mutilation" part and I can think of several games, that are still being sold(not listing them here cause I'm not gonna call out devs... but one in particular is BAD), that mix non-consensual sexual activity with mutilation. And then there's the murky waters of whether or not Furry should be considered 'Bestiality', which from what I've heard, they do consider it close enough to be considered that.

But all of this is moot in the circumstances since the root action that launched all of this was from Collective Shout. They took credit for it and have publicly bragged about it and have stated they are not done.

Also, Itch recently stated that they are relisting NSFW games that are free to own, meaning they cannot be blocked by a payment processor. The fact that they are doing this and that Steam has not de-listed the examples I eluded to, this tells you that fault does not lay with Steam or Itch.

What else do you need? Signed documents? Official response from Mastercard, Visa and others to say "oh yeah, Collective Shout did this in the method they publicly stated: flooding us with coorespondence stating the illegal nature of transactions on these platforms?" Collective Shout is standing in front of you, twerking their hinies like the kids in that fashion show that they endorsed, and they are proudly exclaiming that they have a smoking gun. There is your transparency.

Originally posted by Teh Monke:

We DO know that Mastercard was ONE of the elements in control as Valve has stated in an official response that rule 5.12.7 applies specifically to the Mastercard brand and is a rule by Mastercard. In Mastercard's response, Mastercard is stating, indirectly in order to save face, that they support the decisions of their payment processors to act in this manner and enforce 5.12.7.

The haziness comes into play as Mastercard did not communicate directly to Valve, but rather via "payment processors AND their acquiring banks". Keep in mind that Mastercard has issued statement saying they trust the judgement of their processors. These entities are enforcing the rule 5.12.7 which outlines the censorship in question, basically that merchants are not allowed to submit transactions that are illegal, nor are these purchase to include images which are deemed patently offensive or lacking in artistic value. Examples given, but not limited to, are non-consensual sexual activity, sexual exploitation of minors, non-consensual mutilation of a person or body part, and bestiality.

Based on this, with how long I've been a gamer and customer of Steam... Steam and players be boned. Most of the average violent games on Steam violate the "non-consensual mutilation" part and I can think of several games, that are still being sold(not listing them here cause I'm not gonna call out devs... but one in particular is BAD), that mix non-consensual sexual activity with mutilation. And then there's the murky waters of whether or not Furry should be considered 'Bestiality', which from what I've heard, they do consider it close enough to be considered that.

But all of this is moot in the circumstances since the root action that launched all of this was from Collective Shout. They took credit for it and have publicly bragged about it and have stated they are not done.

Also, Itch recently stated that they are relisting NSFW games that are free to own, meaning they cannot be blocked by a payment processor. The fact that they are doing this and that Steam has not de-listed the examples I eluded to, this tells you that fault does not lay with Steam or Itch.

What else do you need? Signed documents? Official response from Mastercard, Visa and others to say "oh yeah, Collective Shout did this in the method they publicly stated: flooding us with coorespondence stating the illegal nature of transactions on these platforms?" Collective Shout is standing in front of you, twerking their hinies like the kids in that fashion show that they endorsed, and they are proudly exclaiming that they have a smoking gun. There is your transparency.

I don’t think this qualifies as “non-consensual mutilation.” You can’t get consent from a game character, it’s not a living being, it’s just code or whatever non living. Consent only applies to real living beings. The whole idea falls apart the moment you try to apply that concept to something fictional. If we follow that logic, we might as well say a rock can’t consent either. It makes no legal sense. That’s why this isn’t a real violation, it’s just being used as an excuse. If the problem was actually about that, they could easily say “it doesn’t apply to non-living things.” But they don’t, because the real reason is somewhere else.

Making the games that are free available won’t fix anything either imo. The payment processors or banks can still go after platforms or publishers just for allowing this kind of content to exist, even if no money changes hands. They can say “we don’t want to work with anyone who hosts this, even for free.” It’s not about individual games, it’s about who allows them. From the start this was never about the law it’s about image and pushing their standards onto everyone else.

Originally posted by Hm1zaK:

I don’t think this qualifies as “non-consensual mutilation.” You can’t get consent from a game character, it’s not a living being, it’s just code or whatever non living. Consent only applies to real living beings. The whole idea falls apart the moment you try to apply that concept to something fictional. If we follow that logic, we might as well say a rock can’t consent either. It makes no legal sense. That’s why this isn’t a real violation, it’s just being used as an excuse. If the problem was actually about that, they could easily say “it doesn’t apply to non-living things.” But they don’t, because the real reason is somewhere else.

You're arguing semantics that have been historically proven to not hold in court. In this case, the crime isn't whether or not the entity is alive or actually exists, it is that the act is being portrayed. There is content that is illegal, whether it is filmed irl or hand drawn fictional characters. Possessing "art" in either context is equally punishable in a legal sense. "It's just code" does not hold water in court of law.

These credit companies exist because they have protections and allowances from the governments to allow them to operate. the credit companies have their policies written by legal experts to circumvent and trap "creative thinking" like you stated. And in the end, there's very little legal recourse to stop them.

What needs to happen is that we raise a stink. We catch attention... legally. use the tactics that were levied against Steam and Itch by making our voices heard. Stop using the payment methods, look into alternatives. Yeah, all this will be hard to do. It will be annoying to do. But once the payment processors and creditors and banks feel it where it COUNTS, that being their bottom line, then they'll backpedal. We also need to get the government to step in and make some regulations on this crap. Asmongold and Moist critical make some good points in their coverages.

And on your 2nd point, it shows even more that Itch is not to blame here. By re-listing these games that were free, they are putting their necks out for the sake of their customer base. If they were to blame, they would not take this step.

Originally posted by Teh Monke:

Originally posted by Hm1zaK:

I don’t think this qualifies as “non-consensual mutilation.” You can’t get consent from a game character, it’s not a living being, it’s just code or whatever non living. Consent only applies to real living beings. The whole idea falls apart the moment you try to apply that concept to something fictional. If we follow that logic, we might as well say a rock can’t consent either. It makes no legal sense. That’s why this isn’t a real violation, it’s just being used as an excuse. If the problem was actually about that, they could easily say “it doesn’t apply to non-living things.” But they don’t, because the real reason is somewhere else.

You're arguing semantics that have been historically proven to not hold in court. In this case, the crime isn't whether or not the entity is alive or actually exists, it is that the act is being portrayed. There is content that is illegal, whether it is filmed irl or hand drawn fictional characters. Possessing "art" in either context is equally punishable in a legal sense. "It's just code" does not hold water in court of law.

These credit companies exist because they have protections and allowances from the governments to allow them to operate. the credit companies have their policies written by legal experts to circumvent and trap "creative thinking" like you stated. And in the end, there's very little legal recourse to stop them.

What needs to happen is that we raise a stink. We catch attention... legally. use the tactics that were levied against Steam and Itch by making our voices heard. Stop using the payment methods, look into alternatives. Yeah, all this will be hard to do. It will be annoying to do. But once the payment processors and creditors and banks feel it where it COUNTS, that being their bottom line, then they'll backpedal. We also need to get the government to step in and make some regulations on this crap. Asmongold and Moist critical make some good points in their coverages.

I agree, we do need to raise a stink and hit their bottom line. At the same time, laws were made to solve real-world problems between humans, not to police fiction. Applying those rules to games ignores our free will to choose. Laws should punish people who actually harm others. Making the point that something like this is hurting me because I don’t want it to exist should not be considered illegal in the first place.

My point is, if someone says ‘this hurts me because I don’t want it to exist,’ Someone can just as easily say ‘it hurts me because it doesn’t.’ At that point, they’re on the same playing field. That’s exactly why we should strive for freedom, not censorship.

Originally posted by Minsk:

Valve should create his own bank and his own system, built on uncensorable blockchain.

They should make a teleportation machine powered by cold fusion that lets me insert my gold bullion and replace it with Steam bucks from the Micronation of GabeNia.

Fictional depictions of any crime are not illegal in any non-dystopian country.

Originally posted by boxythecat:

Fictional depictions of any crime are not illegal in any non-dystopian country.

Okay, I tried to not directly point it out because we're in a games community forum, but I'm referencing pedophilia, the same thing prohibited by the payment processors.

Yes, most crimes being fictionally portrayed would fit what you're saying.. but certain others...

FBI have confirmed, and prosecuted, that hand-drawn or cgi or even AI created "loli" is illegal in all states in America. It does not matter that it is fake or make-believe or in a game or movie or still image. In fact, if it is in a movie, they will prosecute you 1 count for each frame of video that contains it(This HAS actually happened). When it comes to certain crimes, any personal justification, belief or mindset you try to argue will not hold in court. The most important questions in court will be "does it portray it?" and then followed by "Did you have it?". If the answer to both is "yes", then you will be fined, sentenced to a very long time in prison and then hope you can leave prison without "nonconsensual sexual activity" or "nonconsensual mutilation" happening to you because, newsflash: Being tried for any sexual crime will have you labeled as a sexual predator and placed on a public registry with requirement that you report it while also complying with life-altering laws. The people in prison will not be told that you are in for owning fictional, video game/hand drawn whatever of kids. They will just know that it involved kids. And they will hate you for that.

And NO ONE will care that it was "just code/fictional/may as well have been a rock if you use this sort of thinking" or whatever.

Arguing this point is pointless. What is NOT pointless is getting back on track to the main reason this thread was started: Credit Companies be doing illegal things themselves in doing this pressure. EU government is starting a class action suit. Hopefully, this clears things.

According to Steam it was intermediaries, not MC or Visa..