[kasey_junk]

There are 3 issues being commingled within this.

First, the networks have brand protection stipulations for any partner that uses the network. None of them want to be known as the porn brand.

Second, porn (and other similar categories) have a different risk profile than other charges. Specifically chargeback risk goes through the roof. None of the members of the network want to deal with sales of things that spike chargebacks.

Third, the federal government and some states have outsourced enforcement of some laws to the banks and payment networks. It’s easier to ban things than to do this enforcement at times.

None of this is a ethics issue and none of this is about money transfers. It’s about extending credit, and there is no technical solution around credit extension with electronic payments.

[devnullbrain]

This is not true. Here's a page from Collective Shout, the group mentioned in the article:

https://www.collectiveshout.org/steam_campaign_history

[lupusreal]

It's probably true from the perspective of the credit card companies. For the activists it's about ethics and morality, but I think for the credit card corps it's about their fear of the reputational harm the activists might be able to inflict.

[devnullbrain]

That is not compatible with what I took from reading the article.

[HDThoreaun]

Collective shout isnt the one making decisions here, the payment processing companies are. Just because they came to the same conclusion doesnt mean it is for the same reasons.

[devnullbrain]

I can't square your understanding of this with what is said in the article.

[diath]

Considering the fact that these payment processors are still happily processing payments from PornHub, OnlyFans and other big real porn platforms, I don't think your explanation about the networks not wanting to be associated with porn holds any ground. They're targeting video games specifically.

[kasey_junk]

Payment processors don’t happily process pornhub payments they’ve been largely cutoff from the networks.

[Forgeties79]

The games they are targeting are primarily pornographic. It unfortunately was used to also cast a wider net. But at its core that is exactly the content that was being brought up.

[inemesitaffia]

Maybe the hub can distribute them

[Forgeties79]

> none of this is an ethics issue

A puritanical activist group circumvents the law/courts and successfully pressures the handful of companies that control the vast majority of transactions to remove content they find distasteful - content that is 100% legal - but this isn’t an ethics discussion?

[kasey_junk]

It’s not an ethics issue _for the bank_. It’s purely a business decision.

Mentally modeling this as “this bank doesn’t like porn” is incorrect in ways that will cause you to make incorrect downstream inferences.

[Forgeties79]

But that’s exactly what it is. They are worried about the blowback from the very easy PR advantage groups like this have, all based on weaponizing how it is basically a PR slam dunk to paint these companies as “supporting disgusting pornography” and “exposing harmful content to minors.” As long as you can couch your points in that kind of rhetoric, you are virtually unbeatable in the US when it comes to messaging. No major company is going to stand in defense of pornography outside of Pornhub.

There’s a reason this hasn’t been taken to the courts and regardless of what you attribute the motivation to the outcome is the same. This is top to bottom an ethics discussion, and the banks are a part of it. By capitulating they have made a choice. They decided the public debate would be bad for business.

[rdm_blackhole]

> They are worried about the blowback from the very easy PR advantage groups like this have, all based on weaponizing how it is basically a PR slam dunk to paint these companies as “supporting disgusting pornography” and “exposing harmful content to minors.”

They may be worried (slightly) but they also most likely simply don't want another headache.

A corporation is in business to make money and that means that they will do what makes the most money in the shortest amount of time as long as it's legal.

Getting entangled in a potential lawsuit that would take years to resolve and cost many millions of $ is a distraction that does not serve their interest. If you are Epic and it is in your interest to challenge Apple and if winning this lawsuit brings you potentially more revenue, then that is a different story entirely.

GP was right when he said this is a business decision. Porn has nothing to do with it. It could have been gambling and harry Potter books, the end result would have been the same.

To give you an example:

I have a small business with a very clear refund policy, yet every 6 months or so, someone will send me a message saying that they forgot that they have an active subscription and could I refund them the money or they will do a charge-back.

Please note before getting the pitchforks out, that my refund policy is very generous and that each customer gets an email before their subscription renews so there is nothing deceptive in my billing practices and also users have the ability to self refund their last payment in the app.

I am faced with the same question that Steam faced, what do I do? Do I fight the refund and eventually fight the charge-back costing me time and money when I could be doing other things or do I roll over and get it over with so that this headache goes away as soon as possible so that I can focus on my other customers?

That's how businesses see things. Opportunity cost. I understand that for some people (including you) this sort of decisions could be seen as some sort of morality judgement but IMHO it is not.

What does Steam have to gain from starting a fight with Visa or Mastercard? A better reputation with gamers? Will that help them increase their revenue in the short term or the long term? Will this make them liable for other things down the line like an angry parent suing them because their son or daughter bought a game with naked people in it and the kid was only 8 at the time?

This is the equation that I am sure many people at Steam ran and the they decided that it just wasn't adding up.

It sucks because from a personal point of view I agree with you, they should have thought harder but from a business point of view they simply followed what made most sense and decided that the risk wasn't worth the reward.

Does it mean Mastercard/Visa are right, absolutely not? This duopoly should be broken up but no politician in the west or elsewhere is going to go after them for the same reason that nobody went after the banks that brought the global economy to it's knees in 2008.

[lupusreal]

> circumvents the law/courts

That phrasing makes it sound somehow illegal, but all the activists did was exercise their right to engage in political speech. I don't particularly agree with their cause, but there's nothing untoward about their methods.

The real problem for society isn't the fact that political groups can raise a ruckus about things we personally don't agree with, but rather the fact that payment processors are such a narrow choke point, ideal for putting up gates and thereby giving a small group of people way too much control. The solution is to address the choke point, not to play wack-a-mole trying to slap down activist groups whenever they vie for control of the choke point (which will inevitably continue to happen as long as the choke point exists.)

[Forgeties79]

I didn’t say it was illegal. I said they circumvented the courts, the obvious place for this debate to play out. Their methods are absolutely untoward. Not only that, I can all but guarantee you these same people use “freedom of speech” as a shield whenever their opinions and systems are considered less than popular/challenged.

[immibis]

None of this has to be about extending credit. People are trying to buy games with money they have. Why do you say credit has to be involved?

They could try cash-by-mail, like Mullvad.

[kasey_junk]

If you are taking electronic payments you are extending credit. The rails (currently) require it.

Cash by mail would be either the merchant extending credit to the purchaser if they allowed the game download before receipt or the purchaser extending credit if not.

[rictic]

You're speaking out of ignorance here. Steam has a long-term relationship with its customers. They can and will remove a title from a user's library if the payment is charged back, as well as placing restrictions on the account.

[kasey_junk]

I'm a long term customer of Steam _and_ work in the payments industry. In the _easiest_ Steam payment there are 7 different parties extending or receiving credit from each other. Most of those counter parties have no relationship with each other at all (I certainly don't maintain close ties with the game publishers bank), do you?

The rules that are being invoked around porn exist to protect different parts of that chain, from each other.

The argument about Steams ability to revoke the good in question doesn't help with that. What it does is provide an alternate path if Steam wanted to extricate themselves from that chain of 7 counterparties. Steam could stop being involved with all those other players and become a payment network unto themselves. They could demand ach (or cash in the mail as the parent suggests). Give the game with the understanding they would rapidly revoke it for bad customers, and limit their exposure to the publisher by giving them very delayed payment terms. Of course, then the customer is taking on more risk and losing choice and Steam has to account for that in their sales numbers.

[ranger_danger]

How is sending cash in the mail equivalent to the purchaser extending credit?

[kasey_junk]

Cash has left their account but goods have not been received. Anytime there is a mismatch between those 2 there is credit risk.

[immibis]

By this reasoning every transaction involves credit, since there's a time period between me swiping my card for the apples, and me walking out of the store with the apples, during which time you could tackle me and take my apples. And if it's a word that applies to every transaction, then it's meaningless.

[kasey_junk]

Every transaction _does_ involve credit risk (specifically counter party or settlement risk) but the amount of it changes based on the difference in time between when payment happens and the transaction is completed. So for most purposes a cash transaction where I give you cash and you give me the goods is viewed as riskless (even though it's not as you point out).

But in your example, you don't need to invoke a security guard stealing your apples. There is a _ton_ of credit risk already just by the invocation of the electronic payment. Your funds will not hit the account of the merchant in question for _a long time_ (usually modeled as 1-3 days for risk purposes in the US). All kinds of things can happen in that time. The merchant has extended you credit and has taken on credit risk. They've done so because of the chain of credit and agreements that the banks, processors and networks have worked out.

If Mastercard gets a bunch of its transactions reversed because a Congressional panel gets huffy about pornography, that potentially blows up transactions for apples miles away. That's why this is mostly a conversation about risk management, not morals. To the apple vendor's bank, they largely don't care if you buy porn, they just don't want their settlements caught up in the blowback.

[rpcope1]

What exactly do you think "credit card" means?

[immibis]

Why do you think that buying games necessarily involves a credit card?