It’s about the danger posed by a monolithic government or corporation deciding what things get to be traded and sold. Like a fucked up capitalist version of that poem “First They Came”.
Oh, interesting! I know the poem. But I find it a harsh comparison to the situation about Valve’s new regulation. And I did not see it as such a highly-charged political topic. But apparently it is.
To me it does not look like “a monolitic corporation”, as you can still buy games elsewhere. But I surely see the influence that the big banks/transactors have on Valve here. - But how would you limit this? Any technical solutions?
On the other hand, if Valve would have implemented stricter rules for critical games themselves earlier, we would not have that problem/discussion now. (Please also see my other answer below.)
Edit: Typo
To be clear, I’m talking primarily about Visa and Mastercard, the payment processors, not Valve. Those two companies have a pretty big stranglehold on the payment processing industry outside of possibly east Asia? I heard japan has their own payment processor, I assume it isn’t limited to just Japan.
Ok, yes. They are quite “heavy-wheight”. And I might agree with their action now, but maybe another time it might be problematic for me. Also, that’s how Capitalism works: The one with the money decide. But then, we should put pressure on them and not Valve! And the question remains: How would you solve that technically? (This is what the community is about. And I am looking for solutions, not problems here.)
Maybe I’m wrong, but nothing about your side of this conversation seems like good faith in any way.
Just going to put that out there. Your comments reek of someone with zero intentions of challenging their pre-held belief, while pretending that’s not true.
No matter what evidence people bring up to you, you either ignore it or move the goalposts. Almost like there’s an agenda…
hmmm, an agenda? I am not aware I have any. Only here to discuss the topic and get other opinions to understand better. Just being here and chatting with all the folks, even the aggresive ones, already prooves (to me) that I am challenging my point of view.
Sorry, if I gave such bad imression on here. But may I ask some questions, as I find your critique a bit vague? - What do you think is my pre-held belive here? What angenda are you impying? And where am I ignoring evidence or moving the goalposts specifically?
The article mischaracterized the petition. If you read the change.org petition it’s about protesting Visa, Mastercard, and moral advocacy groups. The petition even goes as far as to point out the hypocrisy of the decision.
These same payment processors allowed platforms like OnlyFans to operate with minimal oversight, despite multiple credible reports and lawsuits alleging the presence of real sexual abuse content involving real-life minors. That is a criminal failure of responsibility. Yet, when it comes to entirely fictional depictions, these same companies act swiftly — shutting down creators, restricting access, and acting as global censors.
I wish I had a technical solution but I really don’t. As much as I can’t stand cryptocurrency in the way that it’s being implemented, this is the kind of problem blockchain technology could potentially eliminate. I think the bigger problem is social - people trust credit card companies because of things like charge backs and fraud protection. Shopping in a store is one thing but when you’re buying from a faceless digital store front people seem to want a third-party to secure things and protect their money.
There should just be a nationalized payment option.
I realize this sounds ridiculous given Trump’s government, but do keep in mind that Trump is the private sector. Ultimately, he represents credit card companies in this fight.
Is it a good thing that conservatives want to dismantle USPS? I don’t think so.
It’s about the danger posed by a monolithic government or corporation deciding what things get to be traded and sold. Like a fucked up capitalist version of that poem “First They Came”.
Oh, interesting! I know the poem. But I find it a harsh comparison to the situation about Valve’s new regulation. And I did not see it as such a highly-charged political topic. But apparently it is. To me it does not look like “a monolitic corporation”, as you can still buy games elsewhere. But I surely see the influence that the big banks/transactors have on Valve here. - But how would you limit this? Any technical solutions? On the other hand, if Valve would have implemented stricter rules for critical games themselves earlier, we would not have that problem/discussion now. (Please also see my other answer below.) Edit: Typo
To be clear, I’m talking primarily about Visa and Mastercard, the payment processors, not Valve. Those two companies have a pretty big stranglehold on the payment processing industry outside of possibly east Asia? I heard japan has their own payment processor, I assume it isn’t limited to just Japan.
Ok, yes. They are quite “heavy-wheight”. And I might agree with their action now, but maybe another time it might be problematic for me. Also, that’s how Capitalism works: The one with the money decide. But then, we should put pressure on them and not Valve! And the question remains: How would you solve that technically? (This is what the community is about. And I am looking for solutions, not problems here.)
Maybe I’m wrong, but nothing about your side of this conversation seems like good faith in any way.
Just going to put that out there. Your comments reek of someone with zero intentions of challenging their pre-held belief, while pretending that’s not true.
No matter what evidence people bring up to you, you either ignore it or move the goalposts. Almost like there’s an agenda…
hmmm, an agenda? I am not aware I have any. Only here to discuss the topic and get other opinions to understand better. Just being here and chatting with all the folks, even the aggresive ones, already prooves (to me) that I am challenging my point of view.
Sorry, if I gave such bad imression on here. But may I ask some questions, as I find your critique a bit vague? - What do you think is my pre-held belive here? What angenda are you impying? And where am I ignoring evidence or moving the goalposts specifically?
The article mischaracterized the petition. If you read the change.org petition it’s about protesting Visa, Mastercard, and moral advocacy groups. The petition even goes as far as to point out the hypocrisy of the decision.
I wish I had a technical solution but I really don’t. As much as I can’t stand cryptocurrency in the way that it’s being implemented, this is the kind of problem blockchain technology could potentially eliminate. I think the bigger problem is social - people trust credit card companies because of things like charge backs and fraud protection. Shopping in a store is one thing but when you’re buying from a faceless digital store front people seem to want a third-party to secure things and protect their money.
There should just be a nationalized payment option.
I realize this sounds ridiculous given Trump’s government, but do keep in mind that Trump is the private sector. Ultimately, he represents credit card companies in this fight.
Is it a good thing that conservatives want to dismantle USPS? I don’t think so.