Itch.io is shadowbanning or deleting NSFW and LGBTQ content

[Jd Smith1]

Actually, in European Union, they do not have a right to refuse payments like that. The law not being actively enforced is how they get away with it, but it is illegal.

Only in Europe. Its unlikely to be enforceable, particularly given the state of politics right now.

How is that "free market"?

A company is free to do business with whom they wish. No one is being told what they can buy or publish; its just some companies exercising their right to do business in a manner they desire.

And the new laws in the USA, which have nothing to do with the Aussies or right-wing groups, are impacting porn businesses with their heightened age verification.

Like I said, there are other porn venues.

 

[Jd Smith1]

And why does it affect the world globally?

Lots of things affect the world globally. Look at the war in Ukraine:

The citizens of the EU are going to be impacted by expanded defense spending because of the Ukraine. Nations have abandoned centuries of neutrality because of the Ukraine.

Compared to that, having to mildly change your venue for buying porn seems rather small.

Just how much porn are you buying? You know there's masses of free porn, right?

 

[Not a Decepticon]

itch.io issued a statement and people in replies are, rightfully, pissed. A lot of comparisons to tumblr.

Only in Europe. Its unlikely to be enforceable, particularly given the state of politics right now.

Then you admit what the companies did was illegal and they should, at very least, revert those policies in regards to European countries?

No one is being told what they can buy or publish

The company refusing to process my payment on something I want to buy sounds very much as people being told what they can buy or publish.

Compared to that, having to mildly change your venue for buying porn seems rather small.

Why are you deliberatelly ignoring what I have said to minimalize the issue? Adress the fact there is NO venue that cannot be pressured by credit cart companies the same way. Adress the fact this is already affectig LGBTQ+ games. Adress the fact that getting the foot in by banning pornography, to then push to declare LGBTQ+ content as pornographic is well-known right-wing tactic. If you won't, I will have to assume you are debating this in bad faith or from position of ignorance.

Just how much porn are you buying? You know there's masses of free porn, right?

Gee, strawman much? It's not porn I care for here. As I have said, already a number of LGBTQ+ creators have confirmed to have their work affected. A lot of games I support or want to buy are LGBTQ+ or from LGBTQ+ creators. It is disengenious to try to label anyone opposing this as just being in it for porn. Again, one of games they're trying to take down from Steam is Detroid: Become Human, a mainstream game, to claim this is jsut about porn is at best ignorant. The porn is the first victim of this because the actions against LGBTQ+ people always target nsfw content first - once it is accepted all pornographic material is banned, they can then get rid of all GBTQ+ content by labeling it as porngoraphic. For right-wing groups the mere existence of queer people is inherently porngoraphic.

 

[Retros_x]

Just how much porn are you buying? You know there's masses of free porn, right?

Its a tale as old as time to put queer content in the pornographic, pervert category to have a "moral reason" besides hating non-conforming livestyles to remove them from society, to "protect the children".

Just because lobbyism happens, doesn't mean its good and its sad to see how relativists like you spent their energy to promote apathy to such developments. We of course can try back to influence and to lobby work and spread awareness and this is what this post is about. I don't see any reason to argue against this.

A company is free to do business with whom they wish. No one is being told what they can buy or publish; its just some companies exercising their right to do business in a manner they desire.

Yes and? You repeat that as a like its a mantra, as if actors make legal decisions we are not allowed to criticize them for it? In your eyes we can only criticize decisions that are illegal or what? How should discourse work in a society like that?

 

[Koloth]

This tactic by Visa/Mastercard isn't new. Been going on in the US for several years. Discover has long been the card of choice in such situations but Discover was recently bought by Capitol-One(What's in your Wallet?) so that may change. Don't think Discover works in the EU/GB since it has not worked on several non-US KS. The expansion to LGB products is new as that group generally has significant political cover in the US, unlike porn groups.

But yes, I agree that I don't want the payment networks acting as a gateway censor as to what products are acceptable. Imagine the chaos in the RPG business if a repeat of the 'Great Satan' scare were to happen and the payment networks decided to go along?

 

[BrokenTwin]

Oh boy, it's Tumblr all over again, but worse. Gotta love when even the acknowledgement of non-heteronormative identities is considered pornographic. Bloody pearl clutching puritans strong-arming businesses.

Hopefully it at least turns into an OnlyFans situation, where the owners were successfully convinced to revert their decision.

(That one was especially baffling. The vast majority of their creator economy and brand recognition is sex work, how did they actually expect that would go?)

 

[Morrus]

True, but they do have a right to decide who they will do business with.

Sure. But political activism is legal, and in the USA at least, a right.

You were told this in the last thread where you did this, but the world exists outside of courtrooms, and people can criticise behaviour -- like I am doing to you right now -- irrespective of its legality.

Yes. We all know that what they are doing is not illegal. But that is not the conversation being had by anybody except for you. Please drop that disingenuous strawman, and either participate in the actual conversation being had or find a different conversation. Because this is, effectively, simple threadcrapping.

 

[aco175]

I seem to be a bit confused about the OP in that is the problem about credit card companies blocking sales of anything, or that the publishers of LGBQ things are being blocked? I kind of see credit card companies as the middleman between a seller and a buyer where their job is to make the sale and make money themselves. They should not be concerned about what it is, but there are some things not legal to sell like this. I guessing drugs and body parts and such which crypto might be a way to do this is you wish.

LGBQ publishers being banned from sales I find wrong as well. More from the freedom of speech and slippery slope side of things. I might be targeted by buying golf (silly i know), but what about guns or gun parts. I do think that sellers should be able to not sell to customers, like the Nazi in your bar argument, but going through the 3rd party company seems wrong.

 

[NN]

No, companies do not have an absolute right to choose who they do business with.
Thats libertarian extremist fantasy nonsense.

 

[Alzrius]

At some point, it's entirely possible for the products/services of a private enterprise—or even a small group of private enterprises—to become so ubiquitous in the functions/transactions of everyday life that they're essentially acting as a de facto public utility. At that point, the government has not only the right but the obligation to step in and stop them from arbitrarily deciding who can use them and/or what they can use them for.

Now, to be sure, that's a heavy burden to meet, and it's not a power that the government should use lightly. But I'd say we're well past that point where the credit card companies are concerned.