Poll of the Day > Credit card companies should not have this kind of power

(+) Yeah! (+)

Revelation34 posted...

It's enabled by default.

Yeah, and you can just disable it.

Hence my post.

You don't need weird religious group to censor stuff for you.

You can just, you know, do it yourself with one click.

Bat178 posted...

The Heritage Foundation own the current government, and this shit is part of Project 2025.

ding ding ding, we have a winner

ooger posted...

Yeah, and you can just disable it.

Hence my post.

You don't need weird religious group to censor stuff for you.

You can just, you know, do it yourself with one click.

It's already disabled without a click. You would have to click it in order to enable it. If the option is on by default then there's no reason to complain about adult games that you'll never see.

I'm sure sull56ivan2010 would find a new thing to complain about.

sull56ivan2010 posted...

Eye roll. No company, payment processor or not, is going to fully support NSFW games. Hiding the adult content doesn't mean the problem magically disappear.

They don't have to support it, they just have to stop trying to be the fun police and prevent others from doing something that harms no one, otherwise they are just being giant assholes

Muscles posted...

They don't have to support it, they just have to stop trying to be the fun police and prevent others from doing something that harms no one, otherwise they are just being giant assholes

This isn't the 60s where you can easily hide a Playboy magazine. It's not that simple, even with having a feature to hide adult content on Steam.

sull56ivan2010 posted...

This isn't the 60s where you can easily hide a Playboy magazine. It's not that simple, even with having a feature to hide adult content on Steam.

Nah it is. You literally have to go search for it in order to see it on Steam. Since you can only see the content if you have an account and you then have to disable the option to hide it.

Revelation34 posted...

Nah it is. You literally have to go search for it in order to see it on Steam. Since you can only see the content if you have an account and you then have to disable the option to hide it.

Doesn't make a difference. Disabled or enabled, those NSFW games continued to exist. And no company, doesn't matter who, would want to be associated.

sull56ivan2010 posted...

Doesn't make a difference. Disabled or enabled, those NSFW games continued to exist. And no company, doesn't matter who, would want to be associated.

The fact is that Steam and Itch were perfectly fine with being associated with it. And up to a couple days ago, Visa and MC were perfectly fine being associated with it. Maybe you want to associate with the moralizing Karens but you are hardly in the majority.

willythemailboy posted...

The fact is that Steam and Itch were perfectly fine with being associated with it. And up to a couple days ago, Visa and MC were perfectly fine being associated with it. Maybe you want to associate with the moralizing Karens but you are hardly in the majority.

That's rich of you to think I'm one of those Karens of the world. I don't have a side on this situation, but Steam can put all sorts of security and features and it still wouldn't make a difference. Maybe you should look at what Nintendo is doing right now in terms of curbing NSFW type stuff for Switch 2. You don't need to be a Karen to understand why the House of Mario has changed their guidelines.

sull56ivan2010 posted...

That's rich of you to think I'm one of those Karens of the world. I don't have a side on this situation, but Steam can put all sorts of security and features and it still wouldn't make a difference. Maybe you should look at what Nintendo is doing right now in terms of curbing NSFW type stuff for Switch 2. You don't need to be a Karen to understand why the House of Mario has changed their guidelines.

sull56ivan2010 posted...

Disabled or enabled, those NSFW games continued to exist.

Yes, you're absolutely one of those Karens.

sull56ivan2010 posted...

Disabled or enabled, those NSFW games continued to exist.

sull56ivan2010 posted...

I don't have a side on this situation

Dammit I can smell the oxymoron from all the way over here.

Revelation34 posted...

Good thing the payment processors are not the government then.

No, the government is preparing to fuck us all in a completely different way:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_Online_Safety_Act

ParanoidObsessive posted...

No, the government is preparing to fuck us all in a completely different way:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_Online_Safety_Act

Yeah it's like COPA where they started enforcing it and it led to Fandom blocking IP addresses because it could potentially be a minor. Even more stupid since a lot of IP addresses are from other countries

It fits America though since America thinks it owns the entire world.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

No, the government is preparing to fuck us all in a completely different way:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_Online_Safety_Act

Speaking of Online Safety Acts, how is the UK's one going? Oh, right, it's complete ass and a petition against it already has triple the signatures needed to get Parliament talking about it.

Bat178 posted...

Speaking of Online Safety Acts, how is the UK's one going? Oh, right, it's complete ass and a petition against it already has triple the signatures needed to get Parliament talking about it.

But on the plus side (from the government's perspective), protests against the government are considered "adult content" and blocked from users by default.

Bat178 posted...

Speaking of Online Safety Acts, how is the UK's one going? Oh, right, it's complete ass and a petition against it already has triple the signatures needed to get Parliament talking about it.

They'll ignore it most likely.

sull56ivan2010 posted...

Doesn't make a difference. Disabled or enabled, those NSFW games continued to exist. And no company, doesn't matter who, would want to be associated.

At any point in your life, have you ever even once associated the credit card you used to buy something with that thing?

If not, why would you expect anyone else to do so? If so, what's wrong with you?

Bat178 posted...

Speaking of Online Safety Acts, how is the UK's one going? Oh, right, it's complete ass and a petition against it already has triple the signatures needed to get Parliament talking about it.

it's required signing up with verification on at least two websites i regularly visit. unfortunately i can't tell you what they are because vodka and also probably gamefaqs rules, but it is actively being rolled out already

https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/1ma2t26/people_in_the_uk_are_using_norman_reedus_highly/

agesboy posted...

it's required signing up with verification on at least two websites i regularly visit. unfortunately i can't tell you what they are because vodka and also probably gamefaqs rules, but it is actively being rolled out already

That's so fucking stupid. Every alcohol website has that shit where you have to enter a birthday when it isn't illegal to look at alcohol.

HelIWithoutSin posted...

https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/1ma2t26/people_in_the_uk_are_using_norman_reedus_highly/

That's fucking hilarious and well deserved to a shitty government.

no the vodka thing is just me being me. its i think two gaming things. i just remember looking at them and going "well thats really fucking dumb"

agesboy posted...

no the vodka thing is just me being me. its i think two gaming things. i just remember looking at them and going "well thats really fucking dumb"

Oh I have an idea what website one of those is then.

pretty sure major credit cards are accepted on actual porn sites.
"But the horror of seeing sex in fantasy and make believe games. That's a bridge too far."

Amuseum posted...

pretty sure major credit cards are accepted on actual porn sites.
"But the horror of seeing sex in fantasy and make believe games. That's a bridge too far."

I assume the removed content also applies to actual porn sites too. Like what site was mentioned in this thread earlier.

Revelation34 posted...

I assume the removed content also applies to actual porn sites too. Like what site was mentioned in this thread earlier.

This restriction seems to be solely on games at present. For example you can use Visa on OF or streaming services that have shows that contain live action depictions of the sort of content that is now forbidden in games. If TV was being held to the same standard as games are by Visa/MC, you wouldn't be able to pay for any service that has Game of Thrones on it, for example.

willythemailboy posted...

This restriction seems to be solely on games at present. For example you can use Visa on OF or streaming services that have shows that contain live action depictions of the sort of content that is now forbidden in games. If TV was being held to the same standard as games are by Visa/MC, you wouldn't be able to pay for any service that has Game of Thrones on it, for example.

I'm talking about the rape roleplay content in particular. That's what hit that site in particular.

Revelation34 posted...

I assume the removed content also applies to actual porn sites too. Like what site was mentioned in this thread earlier.

The content removal on actual porn sites was more about content that was hosted without the consent of the participants/IP holder. Content depicting fictional non-consensual sex is still fair game, so long as it's not outright illegal.

adjl posted...

The content removal on actual porn sites was more about content that was hosted without the consent of the participants/IP holder. Content depicting fictional non-consensual sex is still fair game, so long as it's not outright illegal.

The content itself was targeted. In particular that site was hit because they weren't checking if it was real rape or just fantasy.

If they couldn't tell whether it was real or fantasy rape, they were policing it on the basis of not being able to verify the consent of the participants, not on the content. The content just drew attention to that inability.

adjl posted...

If they couldn't tell whether it was real or fantasy rape, they were policing it on the basis of not being able to verify the consent of the participants, not on the content. The content just drew attention to that inability.

If it was copyright only then that content would be allowed and even Steam wouldn't have removed it either.

I didn't say it was copyright only.

adjl posted...

If they couldn't tell whether it was real or fantasy rape, they were policing it on the basis of not being able to verify the consent of the participants, not on the content. The content just drew attention to that inability.

Actually, they were policing it on whether the participants consented to the content being posted which is why mostly amateur stuff was hit hardest. IIRC the ban wave went through in response to a new revenge pron law passing in California, so if they couldn't verify whether all parties in the video consented to it being uploaded it got axed.

willythemailboy posted...

Actually, they were policing it on whether the participants consented to the content being posted which is why mostly amateur stuff was hit hardest. IIRC the ban wave went through in response to a new revenge pron law passing in California, so if they couldn't verify whether all parties in the video consented to it being uploaded it got axed.

Yep, that was the main thing. It stands to reason that somebody being raped on video probably also didn't consent to the video being uploaded, so by proxy that means they axed content with non-consenting participants, but consenting to the upload was what they were primarily looking for (and in cases of animated stuff and whatnot, they went by consent of the IP holder, since obviously the fictional characters can't consent).

adjl posted...

Yep, that was the main thing. It stands to reason that somebody being raped on video probably also didn't consent to the video being uploaded, so by proxy that means they axed content with non-consenting participants, but consenting to the upload was what they were primarily looking for (and in cases of animated stuff and whatnot, they went by consent of the IP holder, since obviously the fictional characters can't consent).

Even then it's irrelevant to this thread since everything is fictional and also legal. None were removed because of copyright claims.

Revelation34 posted...

Even then it's irrelevant to this thread since everything is fictional and also legal.

When it comes to pretty much anything sex-related, consent needs to be provided, not assumed. If consent has not been provided by all participants in a given porn video, you cannot assume that you have consent to distribute it.

The issue was not that the removed videos depicted rape. The issue was that it was impossible to verify that the participants consented to having the videos distributed. If the rape depicted was fictional and nothing illegal happened? Great. Big fan of people not getting raped. The site still didn't have consent from the participants to keep them up, though, so they took them down. The legality of the content played no role in that, only the legality (or rough approximation thereof) of hosting videos without the consent of those featured.

Revelation34 posted...

None were removed because of copyright claims.

Perhaps not directly, but copyright played a role. Broadly speaking, the user verification process allowed users to confirm that they have a right to distribute the content they upload. For amateur or self-produced stuff, that means the user has to confirm that they represent the participants and can provide consent to host the material, which is pretty intuitive. For commercial material, though, the participants signed over that consent to the production company, establishing them as their representative for the purposes of consenting to distribution. That means it's the copyright holder's consent that's needed to distribute the videos.

In the case of videos with no participants that need to consent (animated stuff, mostly), the consent of participants obviously isn't relevant, but the account verification process still requires users to prove that they have a right to distribute the videos they upload. Unless they are themselves the copyright holder, though, they can't really do that, so the videos get taken down due to a lack of the copyright holder's consent. It's not explicitly a copyright claim (stuff can get taken down for that reason, but that wasn't what happened in the purge in question), but it effectively amounts to taking it down for copyright reasons.

adjl posted...

When it comes to pretty much anything sex-related, consent needs to be provided, not assumed. If consent has not been provided by all participants in a given porn video, you cannot assume that you have consent to distribute it.

The issue was not that the removed videos depicted rape. The issue was that it was impossible to verify that the participants consented to having the videos distributed. If the rape depicted was fictional and nothing illegal happened? Great. Big fan of people not getting raped. The site still didn't have consent from the participants to keep them up, though, so they took them down.

Perhaps not directly, but copyright played a role. Broadly speaking, the user verification process allowed users to confirm that they have a right to distribute the content they upload. For amateur or self-produced stuff, that means the user has to confirm that they represent the participants and can provide consent to host the material, which is pretty intuitive. For commercial material, though, the participants signed over that consent to the production company, establishing them as their representative for the purposes of consenting to distribution. That means it's the copyright holder's consent that's needed to distribute the videos.

In the case of videos with no participants that need to consent (animated stuff, mostly), the consent of participants obviously isn't relevant, but the account verification process still requires users to prove that they have a right to distribute the videos they upload. Unless they are themselves the copyright holder, though, they can't really do that, so the videos get taken down due to a lack of the copyright holder's consent. It's not explicitly a copyright claim (stuff can get taken down for that reason, but that wasn't what happened in the purge in question), but it effectively amounts to taking it down for copyright reasons.

I'm was literally talking about the removed games in that post.

Games are indeed entirely a matter of policing content and nothing to do with consent.

adjl posted...

Games are indeed entirely a matter of policing content and nothing to do with consent.

There's no reason to if the content isn't illegal.

Mastercard responded to the backlash by lying their ass off on Twitter, and got immediately called out by community notes: https://twitter.com/MastercardNews/status/1951280013799510020

Valve also called out their BS: https://kotaku.com/mastercard-denies-pressuring-steam-to-censor-nsfw-games-2000614393

ew, twitter.

ooger posted...

ew, twitter.

It's all there is to complain on right now.

Revelation34 posted...

It's all there is to complain on right now.

I can complain on here without twitter.

Another thing to add to the "Revelation 34 is wrong" list.

ooger posted...

I can complain on here without twitter.

Another thing to add to the "Revelation 34 is wrong" list.

I haven't been wrong in this thread about anything.

Source?

ooger posted...

Source?

My posts. You can start with posts #1 and #6.

Revelation34 posted...

I haven't been wrong in this thread about anything.

Even this post is full of wrong. It's like you feed your wrong wrong things and the wrong keeps growing.

Revelation34 posted...

My posts. You can start with posts #1 and #6.

well, that is 3 more wrongs to add to the list...

ooger posted...

well, that is 3 more wrongs to add to the list...

They're not wrong though.

ooger posted...

I can complain on here without twitter.

Okay, let's revise it to "it's the only active place to complain where more than a few dozen people will see it". And lol BlueSky is dying off pretty rapidly. It spiked hard in November but 2/3rds of its registered users haven't logged on in the past 90 days.