Updated: 8/1/2025 4:18 p.m. ET: In a statement to Kotaku, a spokesperson for Valve said that while Mastercard did not communicate with it directly, concerns did come through payment processor and banking intermediaries. They said payment processors rejected Valve’s current guidelines for moderating illegal content on Steam, citing Mastercard’s Rule 5.12.7.

“Mastercard did not communicate with Valve directly, despite our request to do so,” Valve’s statement sent over email to Kotaku reads. “Mastercard communicated with payment processors and their acquiring banks.  Payment processors communicated this with Valve, and we replied by outlining Steam’s policy since 2018 of attempting to distribute games that are legal for distribution.  Payment processors rejected this, and specifically cited Mastercard’s Rule 5.12.7 and risk to the Mastercard brand.”

Rule 5.12.7 states, “A Merchant must not submit to its Acquirer, and a Customer must not submit to the Interchange System, any Transaction that is illegal, or in the sole discretion of the Corporation, may damage the goodwill of the Corporation or reflect negatively on the Marks.”

It goes on, “The sale of a product or service, including an image, which is patently offensive and lacks serious artistic value (such as, by way of example and not limitation, images of nonconsensual sexual behavior, sexual exploitation of a minor, nonconsensual mutilation of a person or body part, and bestiality), or any other material that the Corporation deems unacceptable to sell in connection with a Mark.”

Violations of rule 5.12.7 can result in fines, audits, or companies being dropped by the payment processors.

  • JustTheWind@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 day ago

    We totally didn’t do that! Valve and other merchants obviously kept receipts.

    I almost love how normalized flagrant lying has become in the corpo-political sphere. They’ve become so emboldened by just telling whatever unbelievable lie they want and expecting to get away with it. If it’s not catastrophically illegal to do so, they just lie. I don’t take anything not said under oath seriously anymore, and even then, I take it with a grain of salt.

  • haloduder@thelemmy.club
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    So much fucking censorship and agenda-pushing on the internet.

    It makes me sick how many useful idiots are being herded like sheep just to satisfy those with more money than them.

  • reksas@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    1 day ago

    since they deny it, then everyone should just revert whatever was done to censor stuff.

  • surph_ninja@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    93
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    Put simply, we allow all lawful purchases on our network.

    As Valve correctly points out, this is a blatant & outright lie. They have cut off any number of legal entities over pressure from politicians or groups. Now they have to own it.

    • ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      2 days ago

      I mean, their own Rule 5.12.7 has that “or” in it, which includes transactions that are fully lawful but “may damage the goodwill of the corporation”.

      • Atomic@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        You will find such language pretty much everywhere. And there are reasons for it. A good example are certain drugs that are technically not illegal. Because they have not been officially classified yet.

        That used to be a thing here in Sweden some time ago, where they’d just change some little compound and could technically, legally sell it online until it was deemed otherwise. Because it’s now technically a new formula. Once it was classified, they just repeated the proceas.

        MasterCard might not want to be seen as an enabler in the drug trade. So while it’s technically legal. They don’t want anything to do with it. And would like the option to take action.

        And according to the articles. It’s not MasterCard pointing to that regulation, but the processors. As MasterCard notes. They’re not a bank, they’re not processing your payment. They just provide the technology to do so.

        Furthermore. I’m quite amazed that people seem to think Valve is this really good company that we can all trust and take their word on. Valve says one thing. MasterCard says another. I wouldn’t take either one of them on just their word. Better to take a step back, and see how it develops so you don’t make yourself a useful idiot.

  • Green Wizard@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    83
    ·
    2 days ago

    So obviously somebody is lying. I really don’t understand why Valve or Itch would be the ones lying about this. My money is on the group of self righteous censorship soldiers with too much time on their hands, and the payment companies. I could always be wrong I though.

    • rumba@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      ·
      2 days ago

      MasterCard is so big they don’t even know what all their departments are doing. The PR department probably asked a couple of the top level execs if they were pushing for this and they said no so they claimed it didn’t happen.

      • GreenKnight23@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        41
        ·
        2 days ago

        MasterCard knows exactly what they’re doing.

        executive leadership is varying degrees of Christian nationalist and trump supporters.

        source: me, I know people.

    • gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      2 days ago

      they’re blaming it on the middle men

      In a statement to Kotaku, a spokesperson for Valve said that while Mastercard did not communicate with it directly, concerns did come through payment processor and banking intermediaries.

    • Rose@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      2 days ago

      Not necessarily. Valve says they haven’t heard from Mastercard directly. Is there evidence of Itch.io having been approached at all? It seems to me that they just made the move to delist and investigate to be safe in the wake of Valve’s rule changes.

  • NONE@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    117
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    Collective Shout says it wasn’t their fault, MC and Visa say it wasn’t their fault, Steam and Itch say it wasn’t their fault. Conclusion? No one is to blame! No one did it! What’s more, it didn’t even happen!! it was all a figment of our imagination!

    • 5too@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      Which sounds to me like Steam and Itch could restore everything. Unless MC/Visa wants to publicly say they can’t?

    • UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      50
      ·
      2 days ago

      Gee golly I accidentally dropped internet privacy into the garbage and almost threw it out with the trash. Oops didnt mean to! Silly me.

    • Microw@piefed.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 days ago

      I mean, PayPal has not denied responsibility so far. Which is pretty interesting

      • NONE@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        2 days ago

        They must be like the guy who is involved in the mischief but since he is not as visible as the others, he pretends that the issue is not with him to see if he gets away with it.

  • dreugeworst@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    186
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    nonconsensual mutilation of a person or body part

    I feel like a strict reading of this rule would also put a lot of fighting games, shooters, horror games etc in the not approved category

    • Simulation6@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      123
      ·
      3 days ago

      I think some christian items could also be affected, like the bible. Cane and Able, crucifixion, etc are all in that book

    • Korhaka@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      2 days ago

      Right now in Rimworld I am sending child soldiers to bring more ammo to the mortars that are busy pounding away at some primitive tribesmen that are angry at me for dumping a few tons of toxic waste on their home or something.

      Those that survive the mortar bombardment will be lobotomised and enslaved. If they have enough limbs remaining to be useful to me I will probably use a few of them as slaves and the rest will be sold to the empire. Any that the empire don’t want will be harvested for organs and dumped in a corpse pit.

      I didn’t ask if the tribesmen consented to any of this.

        • AliasVortex@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          22 hours ago

          Absolutely and more! We also have psychic powers, murder robots, friendly murder robots, vampires, genetic engineering, organized religion, semi-sentient plants, space ships, cannibals, space drugs, drugs in space, rabid woodland critters, eldritch horrors beyond comprehension, giant bugs, orbital bombardments, and also the looming threat of starvation as you watch all that you built burn. That’s all before we talk about things that the modding community has brought to the game.

          To be clear, the RimWorld doesn’t force you into any one play style, and most of the things listed above can be disabled or avoided if that’s not your jam. At its core the game is trying to tell a story, it’s up to the player to help shape that story. It’s absolutely fantastic; quite literally the best $30 I’ve ever spent on a game (if we’re talking hours played, I’m just about to turn the corner on 2,000 hours (in the spirit of disclosure, a chunk of that is also spent making mods for the game)).

      • confusedbytheBasics@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 days ago

        I keep trying to learn rimworld. I drop out of most tutorials some time after building a refrigerator. Any recommendations on how to get further along? This is a game I’ll love once I know it but I’m not there yet.

        • Yeather@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          2 days ago

          Do the relaxed scenario girl and a lower difficulty for an easier time. Drop in a year round grow area, and mountainous area to mine a base into the mountain.

    • arin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      2 days ago

      Oh did you not read the years and years of actions religious groups did to snuff games and movies?

    • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      Mutilation seems to imply more than just violence or killing. For example, Days Gone has a scene very early that involves flaying someone’s skin off, I would imagine that type of stuff would qualify.

        • Khanzarate@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 days ago

          That’s true but anyone agaimt its inclusion would just say it doesn’t add to the story. “Clearly it detracts from the story, as the player would be distracted by the horrific event instead of enjoying the game” -some hypothetical mastercard Exec, right before fining Valve.

          It’s not a court, so there’s no appeal from that, unless there’s an appeal granted by the contract itself.

        • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          That’s the thing, who defines what artistic value is? I’ve seen some pretty creative pornography over the years. Is that artistic value? I’ve seen very creative depictions of violence and uses of profanity too. What about on the other end of the spectrum, Is Tetris have artistic value?

          • Danquebec@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            I think pornography is an “art” the same way gastronomy is an “art”. Both serve a simple function: one to arouse you, the other to be enjoyable food to eat.

            I think the more general definition of art is something that generates more complex emotions and thoughts.

            • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 days ago

              I was trying to keep it limited to gaming and Tetris was the most basic one that came to mind. How about Pong?

              Also not knocking these games at all. Just trying to make a point.

        • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 days ago

          They didnt have to show it so explicitly, although I’m not sure simply implying mutilation would qualify too.

          Its hard to say what the right level of shock for that kind of thing is, it probably should just be restricted to adults only.

  • SheeEttin@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    318
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    “Nonconsensual mutilation of a person or body part” includes just about every fighter or shooter game. They really want to have COD delisted over this?

    • acosmichippo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      73
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      3 days ago

      you’re missing some context in that.

      “The sale of a product… which is patently offensive and lacks serious artistic value… (such as… images of… Nonconsensual mutilation of a person or body part”

      insert joke about COD lacking artistic value, but clearly there is more to COD than just body mutilation.

      • SPRUNT@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        185
        ·
        3 days ago

        “Patently offensive” and “lacks serious artistic value” are entirely subjective classifications. With those restrictions, any game with country music should be delisted.

        • bryndos@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          3 days ago

          Man, if i could get a patent on offending people . . . money, money money, win win win.

        • Lembot_0004@discuss.online
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          Wagner and Mahler: Listen, we have some really badass tracks. Use them! And nobody would dare to call this music “not art enough”.

    • joelfromaus@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      2 days ago

      Unironically, COD getting delisted would probably get mainstream media coverage and legitimate outrage from people who “don’t play video games” but actually do.

    • jaybone@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 days ago

      Some kid on COD said he fucked my mom and then he called me a faggot.

  • Itdidnttrickledown@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    We have seen the same behavior out of the credit card companies before. Its pretty clear that they do pressure companies to remove content they don’t approve of. Its censorship and its legal since the companies are not the government. They are just tied in at a high level to the banking industry. Its a good example of how lack of regulation harms both creators and consumers.

    It lets a bunch of poorly adjusted individuals force their personal mental problems on us all.

    • haloduder@thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      Taking away our freedom of speech is something to go to war over.

      If this trend of giving all the government power to companies continues, well, let’s just say I’m glad we have the 2nd amendment to fight back against tyranny.

      I’m not going to live in a reddit cuck-world without a fight.

  • darthelmet@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    60
    ·
    2 days ago

    Gotta love it when companies put something in their legal agreements that just says “we can do whatever the fuck we want.” Is the rest of the wall of text just there to hide that somewhere someone won’t read?

      • Darkonion@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 days ago

        This might just be my insomnia talking, but I thought a reasonable idea might be to call and reduce the available credit by however much is comfortable. For me, it would be fairly reasonable to reduce it by 50%. I assume they use some kind of magicians handshake to value their company based on how much potential credit is out there… Maybe it’d do nothing though. Anyone know?

        • Saleh@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          42
          ·
          3 days ago

          You guys use them for actual credit? To me it seems that in Europe they are mostly used as a debit card directly charging your account, but compatible with the global payment processing of them.

          • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            I thought credit was the main selling point.

            • Ability to dispute & reverse charges.
            • Flexibility to keep cash in an account earning higher interest until payment is due.
            • Not having to constantly check enough cash is in your low interest checking account (which you’ll keep low so your cash earns more interest elsewhere & to minimize losses in case of unauthorized debits).
            • Björn Tantau@swg-empire.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              2 days ago

              You have an account that earns interest?

              Last time I saw that was as a child.

              But then again I was able to get a loan for my house at ridiculously low interest, so I’m not complaining too much.

              • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                2 days ago

                Yep, like this one, though it could earn more in bonds or investments.

                Low-interest loans are great, too: if they don’t need to be repaid right away, they can be leveraged to earn back more than their cost.

              • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                2 days ago

                Well think of it like this. I keep an amount in my checking account (basically no interest) to cover the credit card bills. Extra I move out to an online savings account that does have a ddcent interest rate. By having a date when the CC bill comes due, I can check once a month (7 days before due) and move money if needed to cover the bill. So while the checking has practically no interest, I was getting close to 5% on the savings for a while. Still a far stretch from the 12% cds I got as a kid, but it’s something.

        • proudblond@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          I am not a financial guru so hopefully someone will correct me if I’m wrong about this, but your credit score is affected positively the more available credit you have. So by voluntarily lowering your available credit, you’re actually hurting yourself way more than the card companies. At least I think that’s how it works, or rather one of many factors.

        • M0oP0o@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          Amex charges up to 14% of every transaction. If a place takes it, they are almost always ripping you off.

            • M0oP0o@mander.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 days ago

              As someone who does not take amex they want to charge me between 7% and 14%. Maybe if I did more sales they would not charge as much, but the reason amex is not taken in as many places as mastercard or visa is the 7% to 14%.

              • ripcord@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                24 hours ago

                Weird. All the info I can find shows a maximum merchant fee of 3.3% + $0.10 per transaction.

                Even this article about the topic says the reason is because amex charges .5% - 1% more. Not 6-13% more.

                Maybe it varies by country? Are you in NoAm or somewhere else?

                • M0oP0o@mander.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  23 hours ago

                  I am in Canada, and amex is famous for charging way too much in merchant fees. They also charge it under a silly system based on the type of card used (the more “elite” the more the merchant pays).

    • filcuk@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      40
      ·
      3 days ago

      Does it really matter when you’re a duopoly and equally bad as one another?

  • Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    161
    ·
    3 days ago

    Brilliant, just make your rules vague and force everyone else down the chain to self-censor. Surely this will result in the best outcome.

    Fucking mastercard

    • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      57
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      It’s not even that vague.

      Valve basically said: “we are not doing anything illegal”.

      To which mastercard responded: “yeah but you’re making us look bad, so tough”.

      • Ulrich@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        2 days ago

        To which mastercard responded

        I don’t think you read this properly. Mastercard didn’t respond at all.

        • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          22
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          Of course they did.

          They just did so from behind a veil of plausible deniability.

          You think a citatation of a specific mastercard contract clause came from a concerned partner?

          • Microw@piefed.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            A lawyer for a processor like PayPal or Stripe could easily have gone “uh, the Mastercard contract clause prohibits this”.

            And PayPal is well known for doing shitty things, so it wouldn’t surprise me.

            • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              2 days ago

              Maybe.

              But Valve asked mastercard directly.

              A lack of a response is a also a response, in this case essentially an endorsement of whatever their partner was telling Valve.

              • Ulrich@feddit.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                2 days ago

                Did you not read literally the first line?

                In a statement to Kotaku, a spokesperson for Valve said that while Mastercard did not communicate with it directly, concerns did come through payment processor and banking intermediaries

                • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 days ago

                  Yes.

                  Plausible deniability.

                  “Oh so sorry that wasn’t us, one of our partners just overzealously applied our policies”

      • Dunstabzugshaubitze@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        63
        ·
        3 days ago

        or any other material that the Corporation deems unacceptable to sell in connection with a Mark

        which could be just anything.

      • IronKrill@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        38
        ·
        3 days ago

        If they just wanted to follow the law, they could have left it at “don’t sell anything illegal” without all the extra “brand damage” nonsense.

      • Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        3 days ago

        Up to the third comma, yes, but all the rest seems to go beyond that pretty arbitrarily.

        When they say anything that “may damage the goodwill of the corporation”, and qualify that with “in the sole discretion of the Corporation” that just means “anything we don’t want to be associated with, and we will be the judge of that”.

        That’s what makes it so vague, how is a Merchant or an Acquirer supposed to know what Mastercard might find damaging to the goodwill? They have to guess, or use trial and error*. Most will just err on the side of caution, which means customers get blocked from even more purchases, just to be safe.

        * Or talk to Mastercard, which Valve apparently tried, but they wouldn’t respond.

        • Passerby6497@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          2 days ago

          When they say anything that “may damage the goodwill of the corporation”,

          Looks like MasterCard is going to have to ban MasterCard because of all the damage they’ve done to MasterCard’s goodwill.

      • psx_crab@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        3 days ago

        Their rules seem to just follow the law

        Whose law? The US? UK? Netherlands? Japan? Or Singapore?

        That’s why it’s vague.

        • bouh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          19
          ·
          3 days ago

          It’s much worse than that. How they word it is “if it may damage the public image of mastercard”. And they don’t review the content, they review the means used to prevent the damage to their brand.

          So valve doesn’t even need to have anything that actually damage mastercard brand, it just need to be that mastercard is not comfortable enough with the measures used to prevent it.

          • AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            3 days ago

            Like buying anything would actually damage the brand of Mastercard. It’s such a nonsensical excuse that I’m surprised nobody laughed in their face.

            • SheeEttin@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              2 days ago

              Yeah, right up until assholes start posting “MASTERCARD SELLS SMUT INCEST HENTAI GAMES” on TikTok. Then it’s a problem, and MasterCard considers that damaging to the brand.

              • bouh@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                9 hours ago

                Except that’s entirely false. Even now they are pretending they do nothing, it’s the intermediaries who force things.

                Mastercard sells absolutely nothing. And they have no responsibility for anything sold. And no one ever thought it was mastercard selling or even allowing to sell illegal things.

                In fact, most people will believe no one sound of mind will buy something illegal with a credit card because mastercard and the likes will give your identity to the police.

                So it’s not about illegal things, and it’s not about their image.

              • AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                2 days ago

                There’s really nothing stopping anyone from posting that right now. That’s the quality level of most of the online content nowadays.

                • SheeEttin@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  That’s my point. They are posting it, and MasterCard does consider it harmful to the brand, so now we’re here.

      • Passerby6497@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        No, the rules don’t (that’s why it’s been fine for 7 years), and you used a derogatory term so cry harder about your downvotes.

  • Grizzlyboy@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    141
    ·
    3 days ago

    I love how this has damaged Mastercards brand much more than anything Valve sells. MC would rather pressure Valve for selling NSFW games, than clean up billionaires buying and trafficking children.

    • Luouth@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      3 days ago

      Hey, Mastercard don’t deal with those transactions. Too traceable! Diplomatic narcotics and crypto have less of a paper trail…

    • Barbecue Cowboy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 days ago

      Mastercard is living the corporate dream. They’ve colluded their way to a near monopoly and don’t have to care about the value of their brand. They just have to be invisible enough that they don’t pull heat for something or other from various governments.

  • merdaverse@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    109
    ·
    3 days ago

    “Mastercard did not communicate with Valve directly, despite our request to do so,” Valve’s statement sent over email to Kotaku reads. “Mastercard communicated with payment processors and their acquiring banks. Payment processors communicated this with Valve

    This whole thing reads like a telephone game where nobody wants to take any responsibility.

    • Passerby6497@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      78
      ·
      2 days ago

      Honestly, I don’t care if MasterCard doesn’t want to take responsibility. It was their rule and their intermediaries that caused the situation and they did not intervene when valve tried to reach out directly.

      They are responsible through action or inaction, no matter how they try to deny it.

      • 5too@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        It seems like, if they’re publicly denying responsibility, Steam and Itch now have legal cover to restore everything.

        I’m not a lawyer, etc. etc., but don’t public statements from these kinds of entities inform how these clauses can be enforced?

    • rozodru@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      2 days ago

      they did the exact same thing in the porn industry. naturally Visa and MC didn’t communicate directly with the individual porn companies. So thats’ how places like CCBill and what have you took off. and then Visa and MC laid out their weird rules to CCBill who then passed it along to the individual companies.

    • bryndos@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 days ago

      At work when no one wants to pick up a task, I issue the “slopey shoulders” award.

      https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/mrmen/images/1/15/Mr_cheeky1.png/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/250?cb=20170519093913

    • ZeroOne@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      11 hours ago

      CollectiveShout did take responsibility & they’re Confirmed to be pedos, so what are we waiting for ?