You make it sound a lot easier than what is really happening. It’s not that it’s porn, it’s what type of porn. This applies globally but let’s say we are only focused on the US only, it’s possible depending on how extreme of the material to have oversight by local or federal governments. This is a definite consideration when Visa is making their guidelines, you think they has a business care? Nope, it’s purely to satiate the external parties.
That would be a change from preventing illegal transactions.
As it stands currently, the risk associated to the company for allowing illegal transactions is what drives their policy since they get brought into lawsuits for allowing monetization of illegal content in some jurisdiction.
Changing it (world wide) so that payment processors are not subject to money laundering laws and cannot be held liable when a merchant sells something illegal would allow them to change their model to allow all lawful transactions and not have false negatives.
Until false positives (allowing an illegal transaction) is not a risk for them, their policies are unlikely to change.
They do allow lawful transactions. However, they do require that these transactions be properly coded. If you are processing for certain types of products (adult in nature) it has to be coded as such. If Itch and Steam aren't coding these properly, or don't have the appropriate relation and accounts to process these transactions, you run into issues like this.
People keep saying this but I don’t see any reason any administration would do this. It is that type of argument that feels good to think about but has no legal basis.
It seems to me like Visa and MasterCard controlling the payment processing market, and restricting the sale of legal goods would fall under existing antitrust laws.
I don't think the current US administration has any desire to enforce antitrust laws though.
It’s not credible that Collective Shout actually caused some change in policy. They’re being used to deflect blame from Visa/MC, who in any case have done rolling purges of adult content creators’ accounts for decades.
> 1) not antagonizing regulators with extreme content
Who is this regulator that's going to care that Visa and Mastercard are processing payments for porn?
You make it sound a lot easier than what is really happening. It’s not that it’s porn, it’s what type of porn. This applies globally but let’s say we are only focused on the US only, it’s possible depending on how extreme of the material to have oversight by local or federal governments. This is a definite consideration when Visa is making their guidelines, you think they has a business care? Nope, it’s purely to satiate the external parties.
They should be allowing all lawful transactions, and if they can't, they should get broken up.
That would be a change from preventing illegal transactions.
As it stands currently, the risk associated to the company for allowing illegal transactions is what drives their policy since they get brought into lawsuits for allowing monetization of illegal content in some jurisdiction.
Changing it (world wide) so that payment processors are not subject to money laundering laws and cannot be held liable when a merchant sells something illegal would allow them to change their model to allow all lawful transactions and not have false negatives.
Until false positives (allowing an illegal transaction) is not a risk for them, their policies are unlikely to change.
They do allow lawful transactions. However, they do require that these transactions be properly coded. If you are processing for certain types of products (adult in nature) it has to be coded as such. If Itch and Steam aren't coding these properly, or don't have the appropriate relation and accounts to process these transactions, you run into issues like this.
People keep saying this but I don’t see any reason any administration would do this. It is that type of argument that feels good to think about but has no legal basis.
It seems to me like Visa and MasterCard controlling the payment processing market, and restricting the sale of legal goods would fall under existing antitrust laws.
I don't think the current US administration has any desire to enforce antitrust laws though.
It’s not credible that Collective Shout actually caused some change in policy. They’re being used to deflect blame from Visa/MC, who in any case have done rolling purges of adult content creators’ accounts for decades.
[dead]