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

• 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

      • INHALE_VEGETABLES@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        These comments are what is absurd ngl.

        Get a grip.

        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

      • SheeEttin@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ 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.

        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