Valve needs Visa/Mastercard. Visa/Mastercard doesn't need Valve. The payment processors have them by the tender parts.

Valve didn't cave to a fundamentalist group. They were forced to cave by the companies who stand between them and all their revenue. If they refused to comply, they would be out of business by the end of the year.

I recommend you pressure your government to pass legislation to make it illegal for payment processors to stand between people and the legal content they want to purchase. The Fair Access to Banking Act[www.congress.gov] is one possible solution. Write your state rep.

Lmao, get real.
Valve's money? that's peanuts compared to what Visa and Mastercard make from... literally everything else in the world.

Originally posted by Bonejar:

Valve has more than enough power to tell Visa/Mastercard to suck a lemon when those payment providers try to impose moral policing on the rest of us.

I think you dramatically underestimate how much of Steam's business relies on those payment providers.

Also, they aren't "moral policing on the rest of us". They don't care what you spend your money on. You aren't part of the decision process. They only care what THEIR brand is associated with.

Their brand is processing money from Person A to Person B.

Their brand has nothing to do with endorsing the content of what's being bought and paid for.

Originally posted by Bonejar:

Their brand is processing money from Person A to Person B.

Their brand has nothing to do with endorsing the content of what's being bought and paid for.

Sure, to you.
They obviously see it differently.

And I didn't say "endorsing", I said "associated with".

lmao, no

Valve doesn't have the power. Mastercard and Visa control essentially all online commerce and are using their position as the middleman to control what is allowed to be sold, arbitrarily picking winners and losers. A LOT of effort was put in to amass this power, and governments are happy to see this sort of thing, allowing them to launder censorship through corporations to trick contract-brained people into thinking it isn't happening. Valve isn't going to be able to beat it with clever tricks. Being an actual enemy of corporations tends to suck, as much as people who like to playfight against corporations while still shopping at walmart like to pretend it is fun.

Originally posted by Bonejar:

Valve is a multi-billion dollar corp skimming 30% off of every game on the platform. Valve has more than enough power to tell Visa/Mastercard to suck a lemon when those payment providers try to impose moral policing on the rest of us.

Visa moved 13.2 TRILLION dollars last year. Steam is estimated to be making 10 Billion a year.

If just for the sake of this discussion we consider all Steam revenue comes from visa transactions, it means Steam represents 0.07% of Visa's annual revenue.

Steam may be big, but visa is 'capital B' Big.

Without Steam, Visa loses a bucket in the ocean. Without Visa, Steam loses a large chunk of their revenue.

Originally posted by Bonejar:

Valve is a multi-billion dollar corp skimming 30% off of every game on the platform. Valve has more than enough power to tell Visa/Mastercard to suck a lemon when those payment providers try to impose moral policing on the rest of us.

Valve failed to do so because they lack the spine. Visa/Mastercard caving to a tiny fundamentalist group is one thing; Valve doing the same is something just as, if not more, pathetic.

You've let them set the goal post, and you've signalled that they are free to move said goal post whenever they wish with nothing more than an email campaign. What's stopping them from deciding that the sex scenes in Mass Effect are too objectionable and so must be removed from the storefront? What if it's decided that Red Dead or Team Fortress or Half Life glorify guns and violence too much?

Valve has accepted and helped open the door to tiny fragments of a population in one corner of the world to dictate what is and what is not acceptable for us to spend our money on, and that, more than the content of the media that has been currently censored, is the big problem.

Do better Valve. You can't pretend you're powerless here.

There are other topics regarding this. best of luck, blocked, etc.

Valve could try to fight this in court, though there's not a lot of legal standing to do so (antitrust being the most likely). If they did though we're talking years in court and during those years they'd lose access to those payment processors. Which as others have pointed out is a significant blow to Valve and nothing to the processors business wise.

They've been in a lawsuit for 4 years now, over the defendants claim that they facilitated ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥'s ability to distribute revenge/child pornography by processing payments for them. A case that the judge refused to dismiss, so it's still ongoing, but it shows just how long these things can take. That's the only reason they severed ties with ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥. If not for that lawsuit, I have no doubt they'd still be processing payments for them.

With that being said, I personally find the "brand image" argument an absolute joke. Visa/Mastercard process payments for OnlyFans which is a site that without question has dealt in illegal content that has resulted in numerous criminal convictions. Trafficking, sexual content involving minors, revenge porn, child pornography has all been found on this site through the years. Cases like Wyatt Maxwell and Mathew Richardson etc. being examples of criminal convictions.

And do to the nature of the site (paywall for every individual 'creator)' the scope of how widespread that actually is can't really be determined. None the less these are actual victims that exist compared to fictional content without victims, that is not illegal or exists in a grey zone. What's worse for your image? There is, in my mind a very clear answer there.

Originally posted by On Vacation:

My main point though is if reputation and brand risk are driving enforcement, then a platform where actual harmful content with real victims occurs, even if it tries to bar such content, is objectively a far greater risk than one hosting controversial but legal fictional material.

But again, those sites don't allow such content. Visa and Mastercard don't have to worry about being associated with content that isn't allowed there. If it was allowed there, they would withdraw their services from that site. Whether or not people using those sites for purposes they are not intended for and that they are not allowed to do doesn't reflect on Visa and Mastercard.

Originally posted by On Vacation:

That to me is worse than controversial fiction that while visible harms no one (at least to the same extent), but sparks controversy.

You are not owed only decisions that make sense to you based on your subjective and personal values. If they believe rape and incest games are wrong, they are entitled to withhold their services from sites that allow such content.

Originally posted by On Vacation:

Originally posted by Tanoomba:

Pretty sure none of that is allowed and action will be taken when it occurs. How would that be different from what they're asking for here?

It’s not really different from the lens of both being asked to “handle” their content. One point I wanted to change in your reply though is it's not "when it occurs", it's "when it's reported". There is a distinct difference between the two and why these cases can fly under the radar for so long.

My main point though is if reputation and brand risk are driving enforcement, then a platform where actual harmful content with real victims occurs, even if it tries to bar such content, is objectively a far greater risk than one hosting controversial but legal fictional material.

This is why it's a joke to me. If real harm occurs and it's only caught after the fact, then these platforms pose an ongoing risk that they are willing to tolerate because it's less visible. That to me is worse than controversial fiction that while visible harms no one (at least to the same extent), but sparks controversy.

As the middlemen, they aren't really handling ANYTHING but transferring money from buyer to seller. There is no reputation or brand risk component to this at all. Mastercard and Visa are not at risk of anything at all in these transactions. "Brand risk" is a totally obviously false justification attempt. It is probably best not to listen to these sorts of guesses from people not related to the companies involved.

Originally posted by William Shakesman:

Originally posted by On Vacation:

It’s not really different from the lens of both being asked to “handle” their content. One point I wanted to change in your reply though is it's not "when it occurs", it's "when it's reported". There is a distinct difference between the two and why these cases can fly under the radar for so long.

My main point though is if reputation and brand risk are driving enforcement, then a platform where actual harmful content with real victims occurs, even if it tries to bar such content, is objectively a far greater risk than one hosting controversial but legal fictional material.

This is why it's a joke to me. If real harm occurs and it's only caught after the fact, then these platforms pose an ongoing risk that they are willing to tolerate because it's less visible. That to me is worse than controversial fiction that while visible harms no one (at least to the same extent), but sparks controversy.

As the middlemen, they aren't really handling ANYTHING but transferring money from buyer to seller. There is no reputation or brand risk component to this at all. Mastercard and Visa are not at risk of anything at all in these transactions. "Brand risk" is a totally obviously false justification attempt. It is probably best not to listen to these sorts of guesses from people not related to the companies involved.

So being a payment processor and associated with a company that sells incest, rape porn isn’t a brand image issue? Do you even think before you post or just desperately try to be right despite how obvious it is you’re grasping at straws?

Originally posted by William Shakesman:

There is no reputation or brand risk component to this at all. Mastercard and Visa are not at risk of anything at all in these transactions.

The very existence of groups that attempt to pressure these companies based on what they see as facilitating the purchase of objectionable content proves that wrong.

Originally posted by On Vacation:

Originally posted by William Shakesman:

As the middlemen, they aren't really handling ANYTHING but transferring money from buyer to seller. There is no reputation or brand risk component to this at all. Mastercard and Visa are not at risk of anything at all in these transactions. "Brand risk" is a totally obviously false justification attempt. It is probably best not to listen to these sorts of guesses from people not related to the companies involved.

To be fair though, there is some risk in the form of litigation. The lawsuit against PH, includes Visa under the argument that it facilitated monetization of the content that was in this case illegal. Now that's still ongoing, but given the judge refused to dismiss it, we can see how Visa/Mastercard started behaving after the fact with new terms and actually enforcing them.

So there is some risk involved when looking at the complete picture, but in this specific case as it pertains to Steam, I would agree that the risk is so negligible overall that it may as well not exist. We're talking about institutions that handle trillions of dollars. To actually harm then to any level of significance is going to take a lot more than "there's this game on Steam...".

Valve already even before this was extremely scrupulous in avoiding even the faintest whiff of illegal content.

It's obviously total nonsense aside: "There's this game on Steam, the gay bear sex with Hitler platform (All of which approved by MC and Visa, FYI) so that means I am scared to use Mastercard and Visa." "Then who else are you gonna use? You can buy everything with them. That's the point!" "Uh..." It's so obviously a bad joke with a worse punchline because people don't want to admit that sometimes people in power just do things, probably mixed with a little of the old corporate cheerleading because they are so certain the monopoly can't be beaten ever (And they're not wrong) but suddenly they think it's legitimate for them to be afraid of being involved in a transaction between two other parties selling something legal but distasteful as if THAT breaks the monopoly. It's so silly. It's like the guy at the cash register suddenly saying "You aren't allowed to buy that."