- cross-posted to:
- gaming@beehaw.org
- cross-posted to:
- gaming@beehaw.org
Collective shout seems to have expanded its scope: games like cult classic Fear And Hunger have been removed from Itch.io, while horror game VILE: Exhumed has been delisted from Steam just a week after launch.
The worm that keeps getting put into payment processor’s brains is that they might somehow be held criminally liable for games people purchase. It’s like telling a bus driver that they might be liable because they gave a ride to someone who robbed a store.
NOW that they’ve started curating, that has become way more likely to actually happen. They could have claimed to be a neutral carrier before. Actively filtering means they’ve decided to take on that responsibility, and the consequences for missing stuff.
They’re morons
i assume you’re allowed to buy guns with them in the US? that’s WAY more directly attributable
Time to sue my credit card company for preventing my purchases, but failing to prevent a purchase that was detrimental to me
That’s one way to not understand what I meant, I guess.
That what I just dont get about this.
If payment processors think they are liable because these games cause harm then where does it stop? Supermarkets sell cigarettes and so on…
I hate corpos as much as the next guy, but I don’t think that’s a good rule to have.
It should also be bullshit in most if not all countries.
I’ve heard this reasoning a few times. I don’t buy it. Illegal content is already illegal. You aren’t allowed to sell it. Policing particular content beyond that doesn’t cover your ass. In fact, it implicates you if you do process payments for illegal content.
I’ve never seen any argument from them that this is the reasoning. The only rule they need is that you aren’t allowed to sell illegal content on your platform. That covers everything. Going beyond that implies there’s a different reason. They’re being influenced by something else other than the law.
What argument have you seen from them that is their reasoning?
We don’t know their reasoning. However, we do know their requirement, which is not “no illegal content.” It’s “no content involving rape or incest” or something like that. They have also stated publicly they do not want to be involved in regulating legal content, but, again, that isn’t what they required. If they only cared about illegal content then that’s what their requirement would say, but it isn’t.
Okay so none then.
And also none from the person above, but the logic doesn’t check out. Using basic inference, we know it isn’t about legal content. That already wasn’t allowed, so no changes needed to be made. There must be another reason. What is it? I don’t know. I’m not making a claim to knowledge of what it is. I’m only proving that it isn’t what the other person claimed. Burden of proof is on the person making a claim, not the one disputing it.
The point is “I haven’t heard them say this” is not a legitimate argument, because you haven’t heard them say anything about anything, because they haven’t said anything, and speculation is all we have.