I’m guessing there’s legal pressure from some countries, and to stay in their good graces (i.e. ward off alternatives), they’re making these policies global.
Comment on Phonecall campaign to tell MasterCard & Visa to stop censoring adult content
AlecSadler@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 day ago
I don’t understand this fully, from a profiteering gluttons standpoint, why wouldn’t they want to process anything and everything and make all the money they can?
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
princessnorah@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 day ago
It’s not at all countries, with the recent round of censoring on Steam and Itch it was an Australian TERF/SWERF advocacy group called Collective Shout. But other policy changes have been linked to their sister orgs in places like the US. They got 1000 people to complain until the policy was changed.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
They at least took credit, but I’m guessing there was pressure from other areas as well. Hopefully this campaign will help reverse this policy.
x0x7@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Yes. But some countries includes the United States, and US states, and others. There is an established relation between the US government and payment processors to shut down activity the government doesn’t like but either can’t or hasn’t make illegal.
x0x7@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I’ll tell you why. Government uses soft threats to encourage private business to censor things. I know some of you guys don’t like this side of this parallel story, but do you remember when the FBI was marking posts for twitter to take down as “misinformation” that then was shown to not be misinformation, but rather just inconvenient for the current presidency in charge.
The legal code in the US is so large and companies engage in so much activity that it is impossible to run a 100% legal business. Companies instead run by an “ask forgiveness later” model. It’s the only one that can actually work in the US. But to be able to run that model you need the good graces of the government. So when it says jump companies do it.
There was a time when you could be banned off of twitter for saying factual things the FBI didn’t like. And it’s not like the FBI didn’t know better. We didn’t need independent verification of the Hunter Biden emails because we had confirmed cryptographic signatures on all of the emails. Journalists get a pass because they are technologically illiterate, but the FBI and Twitter sure didn’t.
What’s crazy about this is that the supreme court ruled against this use of third parties. But the practice wasn’t new when it hit social media because it’s been a long practice with payment processors. So my question when that ruling came out was “what about the existing similar practice in payment processors.” Apparently the government and processors are still in cahoots in violation of that ruling. That relationship was actually started in an effort to crack down on bestiality porn, which is never the less legal in the US.
So the question is do you like to government directing third parties to censor?
CocaineShrimp@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
Probably image. They don’t want to be associated with something they think the public will perceive as negative. Bitcoin was vilified initially because “criminals were using it” (but let’s forget about the part where cash is also untraceable). So they prob don’t want to be the “credit card company that supports pedophiles and rapists”
squaresinger@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Cash is traceable (at least bills). All bills have serial numbers and any time cash enters a bank it’s tracked who took it into or out of the bank.
So if I withdraw cash, hand it to you and you put it in the bank, the bank knows we are somewhat connected.