Collective Shout, a small but vocal lobby group, has long called for a mandatory internet filter that would prevent access to adult content for everyone in Australia. Its director, Melinda Tankard Reist, was recently appointed to the stakeholder advisory board for the government’s age assurance technology trial before the under-16s social media ban comes into effect in Australia in December.
What’s even the argument here? Steam already has parental control options, age gates, and content filters… if you don’t want your kids seeing that shit on steam, then, like, don’t let em?
…meanwhile, let’s just continue shoving blatant gambling down minors’ throats in the form of lootboxes.
The argument is control. Religious zealots are all about controlling society and subduing people to follow their rules (that they themselves tend to break all the time)
That’s their goal for sure, what I mean is how are they pretending to justify it?
There’s usually some on-paper benevolent veneer to wrap their hateful bullshit up with.
For example, they hate trans people, but they don’t campaign on that out loud - they justify that hated under the guise of shit like protecting bathrooms.
But this is fucking Steam - access to that bathroom is already under lock and key behind an armed guard. They can’t just pull the “think of the children!” card when the children already have a myriad of protections.
…or maybe they can, considering what just happened. We live in stupid times.
They precisely can and they kinda just did. “Think of the children” is the magic phrase to shut down critical thinking and give you carte blanche to do whatever you want.
Maybe it’s just because I’m so focused on my own issues as a US citizen… But how the hell did some Australian Christofascist group get this powerful? Like, the RIAA and MPAA combined couldn’t get the United States government to make this much movement on “objectionable content” (piracy at the time, and also now, and all of the time between then and now), but even the crypto fascists of yesterday year couldn’t get this much traction. Probably because people like Frank Zappa and Fred Rogers came forth to criticize the ridiculousness and the consequences of such a position and search policies.
May 1, 1969: Fred Rogers testifies before the Senate Subcommittee on Communications
And 16 years later:
Frank Zappa at PMRC Senate Hearing on Rock Lyrics
STAND UP!!! FIGHT BACK!! Citizen complacency is the most powerful weapon the fascist have – – relying on that you will be paralyzed with fear and do nothing to stop them.
RISE UP! RESIST! REVOLT!!
And show us the fucking Epstein files already, you fucking rapist, con man, felon, pedo, traitor!
They got together enough people to mass email, that is all it took.
Companies tend to multiply received responses to represent the total number of people who were to lazy to complain, so Visa and MasterCard saw 1,000 emails as 10,000,000 in their risk averse actions.
Now 4chan is pissed and have started their own mass email and phonecall campaign, so we shall see where this goes…
Who do you even email for that? mastercard@gmail.com?
I assume they own their own domain.
gmail@com.mastercard
Keep the pressure on.
Collective Shout got them to change their position and they’re a small group. We are legion, as the kids say
And we’re the ones spending the money
That’s really what I don’t get. Why make it impossible for people to give you money. That doesn’t seem to be the way capitalism is supposed to operate if something is popular then you should allow it.
They’re the ones at risk of losing money if they get sued by reintroducing said content. You’re not going to stop using the payment processors because there’s literally no other option. This is performative.
Sued for what? They aren’t stopping illegal content from being sold. That, as is implied by the word “illegal”, was already not allowed on these stores. They’re stopping legal, but potentially (not my opinion) objectionable, content from being sold. There’s no legal risk for allowing it.
I’m not saying there is illegal content. Read my comment.
I’m saying the possibility of there being illegal content only exists if they allow the reintroduction of those titles. They’d need trust in the store moderation, in the lack of bad faith actors, in a lot of things.
And it would be an absolutely stupid business decision for them.
I am NOT condoning what they did, nor what they are doing. I am explaining, from their business perspective, why allowing potentially illegal content back on the platform is a non-argument and you cannot convince them otherwise.
I’m saying the possibility of there being illegal content only exists if they allow the reintroduction of those titles.
Again, no. If there were illegal content before then it’s already breaking the rules. If you’re breaking rules once, why would adding more rules change anything?
They’d need trust in the store moderation, in the lack of bad faith actors, in a lot of things.
What? Yeah, the store moderators have to enforce the rules. I don’t know what this has to do with anything. Illegal or just banned, they have to be removed by the moderators. What difference does it make? This doesn’t make any sense. Adding more rules doesn’t magically remove the content. Moderators still have to do it. If they weren’t doing it for illegal content, why would they do it for only banned but legal content?
The reason they did it is because they were pressured by a weird group who has a lot of influence. It wasn’t because they were worried about illegal content, which is obvious because that’s not the rule they applied. If the rule was “you’re not allowed to sell illegal content” (which is obviously always true) then it’d be fine. Instead they made a rule for not allowing specific types of legal content.
You’re not great at risk assessment, are you?
They have a risky move, which in 1/10000 cases leads to an illegal game being paid for through their payment platform.
And they have a safe move, where this never happens. Literally.
If the expected risk is positive in case 1, they will opt for case 2.
You must at least be able to understand this simple logic, right? If not, then I’m afraid this conversation is over because you’re not even remotely trying to understand their logic, and you’re just looking for a reason to be mad. Your irrationality makes me nauseous.
They have a risky move, which in 1/10000 cases leads to an illegal game being paid for through their payment platform.
And they have a safe move, where this never happens. Literally.
You’re not getting it. They’re the exact same risk. If it was illegal, it wasn’t allowed before. If you’re breaking the rules, you don’t care. Especially if you were breaking the law and the rule before, you don’t care that there’s a new rule that also applies. This doesn’t change risk at all. It doesn’t make it any more unlikely, and certainly not “literally never happens.”
The opposite could be true, if it were just against the rules but then is also made to be against the law. It might dissuade some people who were skirting the rules to reconsider. If they were breaking the law already, they don’t care that they’re breaking a new rule because they already were breaking the rules. It doesn’t make it any worse for them. It’s the exact same. If they’re discovered, they’re removed from the platform, exactly the same as before.
You must at least be able to understand this simple logic, right? Once you’re breaking the rules enough to be removed from the platform, why do you care if there are more rules that will remove you from the platform? You’re either stopped or you’re not, and the platform either stops them or it doesn’t. The risk to the payment processors is the same. You trust the moderation or you don’t. They aren’t going to do a better job because the illegal content is doubly not allowed. They’re either stopping content that isn’t allowed or they aren’t.
