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.
Comment on [Update: Valve Responds] Mastercard Denies Pressuring Steam To Censor 'NSFW' Games
INHALE_VEGETABLES@aussie.zone 3 weeks agoTheir rules seem to just follow, the law or am I retarded and missed something?
IronKrill@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de 3 weeks 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.
Passerby6497@lemmy.world 3 weeks 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.
psx_crab@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
Their rules seem to just follow the law
Whose law? The US? UK? Netherlands? Japan? Or Singapore?
That’s why it’s vague.
bouh@lemmy.world 3 weeks 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.
AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 3 weeks 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.
SheeEttin@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
Yeah, right up until assholes start posting “MASTERCARD SELLS SMUT INCEST HENTAI GAMES” on TikTok. Then it’s a problem, and MasterCard considers that damaging to the brand.
Passerby6497@lemmy.world 3 weeks 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.
INHALE_VEGETABLES@aussie.zone 2 weeks ago
please sir may I have another
Dunstabzugshaubitze@feddit.org 3 weeks ago
which could be just anything.
fakeman_pretendname@feddit.uk 3 weeks ago
NugganMastercard has decided the following things are abominations, and are therefore unacceptable to sell:Enkers@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
A few of those even have actual real live victims, unlike video game porn.
INHALE_VEGETABLES@aussie.zone 3 weeks ago
These comments are what is absurd ngl.
Get a grip.
dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Obviously our solution here is to send a pissed off bard to beat up Mastercard, then.