Comment on [Update: Valve Responds] Mastercard Denies Pressuring Steam To Censor 'NSFW' Games

Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

• MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  It’s npt even that vague.

  Valve basically said: “we are not doing anything illegal”.

  To which mastercard responded: “yeah but you’re making us look bad”.

  source

  • Ulrich@feddit.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    To which mastercard responded

    I don’t think you read this properly. Mastercard didn’t respond at all.

    source

    • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      Of course they did.

      They just did so from behind a veil of plausible deniability.

      source

      • Microw@piefed.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        A lawyer for a processor like PayPal or Stripe could easily have gone "uh, the Mastercard contract clause prohibits this".

        And PayPal is well known for doing shitty things, so it wouldn't surprise me.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • Ulrich@feddit.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        So you think Valve is lying?

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• INHALE_VEGETABLES@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  Their rules seem to just follow, the law or am I retarded and missed something?

  source

  • Dunstabzugshaubitze@feddit.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    or any other material that the Corporation deems unacceptable to sell in connection with a Mark

    which could be just anything.

    source

    • fakeman_pretendname@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      Nuggan Mastercard has decided the following things are abominations, and are therefore unacceptable to sell:

      Cats, the colour blue, oysters, mushrooms, chocolate, garlic, cheese, the smell of beets, jigsaw puzzles, and rocks

      source

      • Enkers@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        A few of those even have actual real live victims, unlike video game porn.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        Obviously our solution here is to send a pissed off bard to beat up Mastercard, then.

        source
  • IronKrill@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    If they just wanted to follow the law, they could have left it at “don’t sell anything illegal” without all the extra “brand damage” nonsense.

    source
  • Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    Up to the third comma, yes, but all the rest seems to go beyond that pretty arbitrarily.

    When they say anything that “may damage the goodwill of the corporation”, and qualify that with “in the sole discretion of the Corporation” that just means “anything we don’t want to be associated with, and we will be the judge of that”.

    That’s what makes it so vague, how is a Merchant or an Acquirer supposed to know what Mastercard might find damaging to the goodwill? They have to guess, or use trial and error*. Most will just err on the side of caution, which means customers get blocked from even more purchases, just to be safe.

    * Or talk to Mastercard, which Valve apparently tried, but they wouldn’t respond.

    source

    • Passerby6497@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      When they say anything that “may damage the goodwill of the corporation”,

      Looks like MasterCard is going to have to ban MasterCard because of all the damage they’ve done to MasterCard’s goodwill.

      source
  • psx_crab@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    Their rules seem to just follow the law

    Whose law? The US? UK? Netherlands? Japan? Or Singapore?

    That’s why it’s vague.

    source

    • bouh@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      It’s much worse than that. How they word it is “if it may damage the public image of mastercard”. And they don’t review the content, they review the means used to prevent the damage to their brand.

      So valve doesn’t even need to have anything that actually damage mastercard brand, it just need to be that mastercard is not comfortable enough with the measures used to prevent it.

      source

      • AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        Like buying anything would actually damage the brand of Mastercard. It’s such a nonsensical excuse that I’m surprised nobody laughed in their face.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • Passerby6497@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    No, the rules don’t (that’s why it’s been fine for 7 years), and you used a derogatory term so cry harder about your downvotes.

    source