Itch.io is shadowbanning or deleting NSFW and LGBTQ content

[Ruin Explorer]

I think being unaware is probably more common than buying into mainstream media lies.

Oh definitely. But when lies are the only thing being reported, and the subject isn't something people are familiar with, I think most people do still tend to buy them (it's almost not even a bad thing, because for several decades the press, was, as a whole, relatively truthful or at least adjacent to that, and has reverted to a sort of pre-WW2 level of casual dishonesty over the last couple of decades (particularly as billionaires - including Murdoch) have exercised increasing day-to-day control. It's not even just sensationalism-driven anymore either, there's far more active ideological control being exercised.

Even non-billionaire-owned news media is very clearly being told what they're allowed report and how they can report it in a ideologically-motivated way - c.f. the BBC's approach to reporting on a certain issue changing overnight 2-3 months ago. I mean, maybe they just got a new person in charge? But it given it coincided with the papers and government similarly changing their tunes (over the course of about the same week or two), even if did happen, that was a choice too.

(To be clear I'm not suggesting any kind of organised conspiracy or similar nonsense. Rather, the media and the government in the UK are all essentially run by upper-middle class people who know each other - indeed, I am part of that group, as many of my friends - and clearly the mood among that group changed. Patience ran out. Apologia became uncool. It wasn't the facts on the ground that changed, or access to reporting or whatever. But the people who made the decisions about what got reported and how changed their minds. For now.)

And also at the same time, places like Steam and Itch shouldn't have to host games they don't want to host. But credit card companies shouldn't try to enforce morals on either individuals or corporations.

So... it's complicated.

I mean, it's really not that complicated. Steam and Itch should be allowed to host the games they want to, subject to the laws of the jurisdictions they operate in. If a game is illegal to sell in a country, they shouldn't sell it - and guess what? They don't! This is nothing new. A bunch of fairly mainstream games were not sold in Australia for quite a while because of this. Some in Germany too.

Payment processors shouldn't have anything to do with it. If something is legal in a country, frankly major payment processors should not be allowed to not support that, or should have to go to court in order to win a legal exception to not support it, and argue their case publicly. We can't have both a society where cash/purchases are increasingly digital, and a society where unaccountable international payment processors get to override national laws to decide what's legal to buy and sell. Pick a lane.

As I've noted before, payment processors are basically parasites who don't even know what's good for their own success - they kicked and screamed and bit and lobbied and threatened about being regulated into to having strict limits on what they could charge for transactions in the EU (and the UK separately), and guess what? They're still making fat stacks of cash, and now credit/debit cards and digital payments are far MORE widely accepted than they were, because the companies can no longer have unfair minimum fees that only applied to small business unable to negotiate with them.

This situation seems similar - Visa and Mastercard are, as corporate entities, fundamentally too stupid and cowardly to understand what's good for them - which is following jurisdictional laws and enabling legal transactions in those jurisdictions. They'll make more money not being idiots, they're just like bad children who frankly the state needs to be a parent to. People often like to act like the "free market" always leads to rational decisions, but we can see very clearly the opposite is frequently true. That without regulation, many companies behave in ways adverse to their own profit, adverse to society, adverse to them even existing in a decade or three.

 

[The Firebird]

How?

So visa mastercard is essentially a monopoly. Where would these puritans go? Stop paying digitally? All cash?

Things seem a monopoly until they aren't, and the environment can change awfully fast. I imagine their primary goal is to avoid public backlash that could lead to regulation. They also probably want to avoid the perception that there is a group of dissatisfied consumers a competitor can monetize.

That's a strong justification for avoiding the worst of the content. It also makes me skeptical that they really will crack down on LGBTQ+ content. Millenials and younger are a major part of the market and you won't win with us if you're perceived as overtly hostile, unless you are working in a more niche market.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Things seem a monopoly until they aren't, and the environment can change awfully fast. I imagine their primary goal is to avoid public backlash that could lead to regulation. They also probably want to avoid the perception that there is a group of dissatisfied consumers a competitor can monetize.

That's a strong justification for avoiding the worst of the content. It also makes me skeptical that they really will crack down on LGBTQ+ content. Millenials and younger are a major part of the market and you won't win with us if you're perceived as overtly hostile, unless you are working in a more niche market.

You appear to think these companies are far more rational and wise than they are.

They are demonstrably far dimmer and far more short-term-ist than you're suggesting.

And you think they're trying to avoid public backlash that would lead to regulation? That's a perfect example of this! What they're doing is the surest, most certain path to further regulation. If you insist on being a part of most transactions in an increasingly digital society, but you decide to pick and choose what is legal to buy, in direct contravention of the laws of the societies involved (and note, what they're doing right now is already illegal under EU so you really need to explain how they're "avoiding regulation" by breaking the law!), then why wouldn't you get regulated?

Further, you're right re: monopoly and change fast, which makes these actions even more demented. Especially as they're clearly a knee-jerk reaction to bullying by some Aussie idiots. That's proof positive that this isn't some wise and considered chess movie, this is a coke-addled panic-spasm. Refusing to sell legal things is a great way end up obsoleting yourself, and who is going to replace them? Crypto. Ugh. Even worse.

EDIT : Also:

They also probably want to avoid the perception that there is a group of dissatisfied consumers a competitor can monetize.

Bro, they literally just created that perception BY THESE VERY ACTIONS. Before, the idea of bunch of Australian nutcases being dissatisfied wouldn't have created that perception. It would just have lead to the usual right-wing grifters grifting those Aussies. But by doing this, and suddenly pissing off and alarming millions of normal people they're showing there really is a large group of dissatisfied customers, and it ain't approximately 1000 Aussie wingnuts, it's millions of Westerners, especially LGBTQ+ people. You can handwring and say "BUT THEYD LOSE GEN Z!!!!", but first off, companies have done dumber things, and second off, by having such vague and extreme restrictions on what they are willing to work with (c.f. Itch.io's list of payment-processor-enforced restrictions today, which are vague and fuzzy as hell) you're ensuring LGBTQ+ stuff is going to be risky to work with, and other stuff like, say, anything Furry or anthro (including stuff like Redwall, potentially), even if mostly not sexual, is potentially banned, or could be at any second. People loathe uncertainty, as do businesses and Visa and Mastercard are manufacturing huge amounts of uncertainty for the sake of these Aussies.

TLDR:

To put this in Die Hard terms, you're writing as if the credit companies are Hans Gruber:

But they're actually Harry Ellis:

 

[The Firebird]

You appear to think these companies are far more rational and wise than they are.

They are demonstrably far dimmer and far more short-term-ist than you're suggesting.

And you think they're trying to avoid public backlash that would lead to regulation? That's a perfect example of this! What they're doing is the surest, most certain path to further regulation.

Yes, I do think they have a better understanding of their interests than the backseat drivers.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Yes, I do think they have a better understanding of their interests than the backseat drivers.

They demonstrably, provably do not. It's not even open to question given how regulations in the EU and UK, which Visa and Mastercard fought violently against, promised would destroy their business and render them penniless and unable to operate here and so on, ended up benefiting them and significantly increasing their acceptance. And the "backseat driver" accusation is exactly the sort of one that got levelled against people advocating for their regulation.

Also, you've failed to address any of my points, which frankly, is kind of odd, given I've demonstrated that they've succeeding in doing the exact opposite of what you propose. Again, this is unsurprising. Businesses frequently shoot themselves in the foot if not the face when making ill-considered decisions that don't match up with the laws of the jurisdictions they operate in.

The whole "Omg backseat drivers" thing might have flown 30 years ago. But we've seen how incredibly stupid extremely rich and on-paper "successful" businesses and investors/VCs from 2008 onwards, time and time and time and time and time again ad nauseum, and how they don't stop being stupid. So now? < fart noises > frankly

 

[The Firebird]

Also, you've failed to address any of my points, which frankly, is kind of odd, given I've demonstrated that they've succeeding in doing the exact opposite of what you propose.

Honestly I'm not interested in going into the details given the tone of the conversation. I know I'm not going to convince you of anything and I don't see much point to trying.

In general I think there is a complex situation here. You mentioned EU regulations. There are also concerns in the US. It is easy to write off the people asking for actions as "Aussie idiots", but there are also reasons to think the US environment has changed drastically with respect to what actions are subject to regulatory punishment. My own industry, academia, has gotten walloped, for actions most people did not think were going to lead to regulation. (Some did).

I am allergic to the idea that complex situations like this are obvious or that there is a clear answer. That includes the idea that the executives are always right; they can and do make massive errors.

But it also includes the idea that someone on the internet knows exactly what a massive corporation should do, and especially that that conclusion is obvious.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Gee Golly, what a cowardly, vapid, statement. Leaving the conclusion of the post up but using @Morrus 's warning to avoid having to defend it is... I'm bewildered.

Mod Note:

Don’t name call; report.
Don’t escalate; report.

Because when you name call & escalate, you get reportED.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I am allergic to the idea that complex situations like this are obvious or that there is a clear answer.

I'm sure that's true, but that is, with respect, part of the problem. The belief that there's never a clear or obvious answer to a complex problem is not a rational belief, though it is a common one among certain relatively well-educated parts of US society. It's a not a belief that withstands even light analysis. It's an irrational article of faith-type belief.

That said, plenty of groups in our society, particularly the traditional media and elements of academia commonly encourage that viewpoint, even when it is manifestly unsupportable, and to be fair to you, there are obviously "clear answers" which are themselves totally false and irrational, even they make emotional sense to a lot of people, which are used to bolster this non-rational belief, this as you put it so rightly "allergy".

However, I don't think "comply with jurisdictional laws, don't ignore them in favour of making up your own moral code which pleases literally no-one" is even possibly a "bad" answer/solution. Do you? Especially as no harm whatsoever had come to Visa/Mastercard by doing that, had it?

This isn't Solomon carefully tricking the lady so the real mother will be revealed. This is Solomon leaping off his throne and chopping the baby exactly in half before anyone can even react. Everyone is horrified and disgusted.

It is easy to write off the people asking for actions as "Aussie idiots", but there are also reasons to think the US environment has changed drastically with respect to what actions are subject to regulatory punishment.

Do you think these changes go far enough to please or defang anyone in the US environment who is concerned about this kind of thing?

Because I do not.

On the direct contrary, I believe, and I think I absolutely have history on my side here, that this will draw attention to the credit card companies from exactly the people they don't want attention from, and make those people feel empowered to bully the credit card companies further. This is, at best, showing weakness and that they can be persuaded to ignore EU regulations and similar in favour of bullies. This is why I'm saying they have to follow the laws of jurisdictions. Otherwise they follow these Aussie idiots, then the US bullies them, then the EU sues them, and so on.

 

[Staffan]

On the direct contrary, I believe, and I think I absolutely have history on my side here, that this will draw attention to the credit card companies from exactly the people they don't want attention from, and make those people feel empowered to bully the credit card companies further. This is, at best, showing weakness and that they can be persuaded to ignore EU regulations and similar in favour of bullies. This is why I'm saying they have to follow the laws of jurisdictions. Otherwise they follow these Aussie idiots, then the US bullies them, then the EU sues them, and so on.

That's a good point. If the payment processors take the stance "We won't interfere with any legal sales", that's a pretty solid stance that's hard to attack. You think that crap should be illegal? Take it up with the government or with the platform, but as long as it's legal we won't interfere. But once they start making calls on their own, they will have to own every call they make. Why do you allow X but not Y? And that's just inviting more complaints from the peanut gallery.

 

[The Firebird]

However, I don't think "comply with jurisdictional laws, don't ignore them in favour of making up your own moral code which pleases literally no-one" is even possibly a "bad" answer/solution. Do you? Especially as no harm whatsoever had come to Visa/Mastercard by doing that, had it?

I think any attempt at the right solution here has to address the fallout to the Kristof article. Is the world a better or worse place for payment processors taking action in response? IIRC it led to the removal of a massive amount of exploitative content.

I think there is a defensible stance that says that was a bad choice for MC/Visa to take. But I don't see many people biting the bullet there.

And if you don't want to bite that bullet, then we are in the territory of companies taking action beyond what the legal system does. Note also the ESG pressure, in this regard.

Do you think these changes go far enough to please or defang anyone in the US environment who is concerned about this kind of thing?

Which changes do you mean? I think most people would be happy with payment processors not supporting exploitative pornographic content even if the people behind it are not punished legally. Kristof is, and he isn't, I believe, part of the Aussie group. (I don't know how he feels about the No Mercy game).

That's a good point. If the payment processors take the stance "We won't interfere with any legal sales", that's a pretty solid stance that's hard to attack. You think that crap should be illegal? Take it up with the government or with the platform, but as long as it's legal we won't interfere. But once they start making calls on their own, they will have to own every call they make. Why do you allow X but not Y? And that's just inviting more complaints from the peanut gallery.

They had something like this stance, and got some high-profile asks in the media and from investors to change it.