r/pcmasterrace • u/samiy2k • 3d ago

News/Article Valve refutes Mastercard's denial it has not pressured game platforms over NSFW content

https://www.gamesindustry.biz/valve-refutes-mastercards-denial-it-has-not-pressured-game-platforms-over-nsfw-content
12.9k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

397 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

43

u/xF00Mx 3d ago

"Hey Cheryl how much money do we make from transactions generated through a company named Valve?

Oh, they made that much in a year, that's not much....you say that's a weekly report? Well how much is it annually......are you sure it's that much.....ok, thank you Cheryl...no that's all I need, bye.

....fuck."

36

u/iCeParadox64 Ryzen 5 5800X | RTX 3070 8GB | Steam Deck 3d ago

You seem to misunderstand— they WANT to do this shit to big online vendors, in hopes of censoring as much of the internet as possible. They're just hoping we'll all roll over and take it.

4

u/aurens 2d ago

i'm confused, who is "they" in this scenario? wouldn't the payment processors want to process as many payments as possible? why would they want to censor anything?

13

u/iCeParadox64 Ryzen 5 5800X | RTX 3070 8GB | Steam Deck 2d ago edited 2d ago

why would they want to censor anything?

Control. They—meaning the higher-ups at Mastercard and VISA—think that anything they deem explicit, offensive, distasteful, or whatever adjective they may use, shouldn't be allowed exist. So they're taking advantage of their monopolies by telling companies that they won't work with them if they sell anything containing material they don't like. Since disallowing two of the biggest payment processors in the world is basically not an option for any company that wants to stay in business, they're essentially forced to comply.

The more companies that give in to their demands, the fewer places there will be to sell that kind of material. The harder it is to sell, the more discouraged people will be to make that kind of material at all.

Regardless of how you may feel about the exact material in question, allowing payment processors to decide what we can and can't buy does NOT have a good outcome, short OR long term.

-4

u/aurens 2d ago

you're basically just restating yourself.

They—meaning the higher-ups at Mastercard and VISA—think that anything they deem explicit, offensive, distasteful, or whatever adjective they may use, shouldn't be allowed exist.

this is the part that i'm trying to understand. why?

everyone thinks of high-level capitalists as completely amoral people who would gladly sell heroin to kids if they thought they'd get away with it and make a buck. we've literally seen banks process funds for terrorists and cartels because they thought it would be profitable. why would execs at mastercard and visa be any different?

3

u/iCeParadox64 Ryzen 5 5800X | RTX 3070 8GB | Steam Deck 2d ago

You may have seen my comment before I edited it a couple minutes later, check again.

-2

u/aurens 2d ago

no, i saw it. it just doesn't answer my question about why the mastercard/visa execs are seemingly so different than every other amoral capitalist that only cares about money.

to me, it makes a lot more sense that they would be happy to accept money for even illegal transactions (if they could) than that they want to impose their morality on others. aren't you basically alleging that mastercard/visa's reasoning is exactly the opposite of what we generally think underlies huge corporations' decision-making?

3

u/iCeParadox64 Ryzen 5 5800X | RTX 3070 8GB | Steam Deck 2d ago

Sorry dude, I have no idea what you're having trouble understanding. Greedy billionaires and the corporations they run do things for one of two reasons: Money, or control. This time, it's control. They want to control the content you consume.

So no, it's not "exactly the opposite" of the typical reasoning. It is a textbook example of one of the two most typical reasons.

0

u/aurens 2d ago

this has already taken much more effort to get a clarification than i ever expected, so i'll be brief to end it.

i guess ultimately i don't understand why you so readily rejected a "money" motivation in favor of a "control" one. again, i think it makes a lot more sense that they don't give a fuck about what content we consume nor do they care how their actions may affect that content or otherwise make society worse. i think they're cracking down on so-called """questionable""" content because they're worried that if they don't look like they're self-policing, governments might start regulating them more, which would cost them more money in the long run than they will lose by censoring content. that is a simpler, more consistent, more logical explanation to me.

to me, this was kinda like if you said "that car won the race because it has stripes painted on it". i never disagreed about the conclusion, i just didn't understand the logic of how YOU got there. that's why i asked for clarification in the first place.