• 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 🇮 @pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    21 days ago

    Need to petition Visa, MasterCard, PayPal, and American Express. I don’t think trying to get Valve to reverse these recent changes will necessarily be effective, since they are being pressured by the payment processors and they definitely aren’t going to risk not being able to effectively do business at all.

    • Aussieiuszko@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      21 days ago

      Yeah, nah.

      Petition these people:

      https://www.collectiveshout.org/partners

      Collective Shout is sustained by a small number of Australian partners. These are not big groups, and would quickly pull funding under any sort of pressure.

      Collective Shout has a deep history with Christofascism and TERFs, so highlighting those angles is the way to go to get them pariahed. Once CS is out of the picture, we can work on undoing the damage they did.

      • artyom@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        21 days ago

        Petitioning people to do something that is against their entire purpose doesn’t seem like it would be effective.

      • Pamasich@kbin.earth
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        20 days ago

        This is incredibly shortsighted.

        If you get Collective Shout to stop, another group might pick up where they left off.

        The problem needs to be fixed, what you’re suggesting is just making the people currently abusing it stop doing so. That’s not a long term solution.

        • Aussieiuszko@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          18 days ago

          No it’s incredibly idiotic to do otherwise.

          You don’t fight a fire while the arsonist is still setting it on fire.

          • Pamasich@kbin.earth
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            18 days ago

            Except they’re not fighting the fire here, they’re taking away the arsonist’s flamethrowser so he can’t continue making the fire. Without that flamethrower, the arsonist can’t do shit.

            Fighting the fire would be petitioning Steam, but the target is the payment processors that pressured Steam on request of Collective Shout.

            • Aussieiuszko@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              18 days ago

              Fighting the fire happens after stopping the person lighting the fire. Focus on the immediate threat, don’t get distracted by the lofty long term.

    • dan@upvote.au
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      21 days ago

      The petition is directed at Visa and MasterCard. I’m not sure why the article says it’s a petition directed at Steam, because it’s not.

    • burgerpocalyse@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      21 days ago

      i would expect the multi billionaire owners of the largest gaming platform on PC to have the ability to not fold like paper mache. I can also be mad at payment processors and valve at the same time

    • dindonmasker@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      21 days ago

      Under what arguments would we be able to push back on something like this? Most people would agree that these games where distasteful so arguing for them to be put back to not start a slippery slope isn’t that easy it seems.

      • mycodesucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        21 days ago

        See, THAT is not the slippery slope. STARTING to ban ANYTHING at all from legal transactions is the slippery slope. What happens when they decide R-rated films are distasteful? Or birth control?

        Payment processors should have ABSOLUTELY no role in making ANY decisions about what legal transactions they process. Period.

      • 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 🇮 @pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        21 days ago

        Mainly that the companies controlling nearly all digital financial transactions across the entire globe should not be the arbiters of what is morally acceptable. If they must exist at all, they should just be handling the transfer of funds regardless of what is being bought and sold*.

        *illegal shit would not be protected.

        They are parasitic middle men that don’t need to exist in the first place, though.

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

          I would go further and say they shouldn’t have the ability to block any transaction consumers are making, regardless of legality.

          I basically want them classified like utilities (or the Internet), and the money they’re processing should operate like digital networked cash. If I hand you a dollar bill, it doesn’t arbitrarily decide to stop being money if it thinks the transaction might possibly be even tangentially related to crime. That’s how you end up with these corporations becoming so invasive in the first place, with their overbroad policies blocking entire groups/categories from being in the economy.

          Don’t think that I’m pro-crime – but only actual crime is crime. A transfer of funds itself is only sometimes a crime. You don’t see the federal reserve trying to foil small-time drug deals in cash, and for good reason – legitimate crimes should be investigated by law enforcement, not “prevented” at the whims of overeager corpos. It’s not the payment processor’s right or responsibility to prevent or they to predict crime, especially once they’ve built such a system as to become indispensable for most of us. If they are allowed to do that they will always do it the easy way – blanket bans with massive collateral damage to non-criminals.

          These companies should be disbanded and their systems should be handed over to the public. Hot take, I know, but I’m of the mind that transaction processing (much like air and water) should not be privatized. You may think at this point that I’m a crypto-head, but not really. It seemed promising at one point and may be still, but now it’s perhaps permanently associated with unsavory types. I’ll use it if it fits the purpose, but expecting the general public to use it as money is insanity. Crypto brought us part of the way there, but such a system can’t really flourish in furtherance of the public good in the current environment – even disregarding the bad PR.

          • 0x0@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            20 days ago

            It’s not the payment processor’s right or responsibility to prevent or they to predict crime,

            Of course not, only PreCogs can predict crime.

          • SabinStargem@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            21 days ago

            Honestly, I am kinda expecting that with the way that America is becoming, something like Monero could become legitimized. There wasn’t much reason for crypto to be a currency, so long as the world order remained orderly and useful to the everyday person.

            Should the American Dollar collapse, there would be a howling void that must be filled - it could be Euros, the Yen, Monero, or something else entirely, but the opportunity would be there for currencies to change.

            • 0x0@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              20 days ago

              something like Monero could become legitimized.

              And yet banks are moving in the opposite direction and forcing it being banned precisely because it’s a threat to their control, unlike Bitcoin.

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

          *illegal shit would not be protected.

          They can push for some law that makes certain groups or their depictions illegal. Then it’s their morals becoming a law.
          If there’s corruption lobbying, there’s a way for them to twist “immoral” into “illegal”, which is fucked.

      • 0x0@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        20 days ago

        Most people would agree that these games where distasteful

        Regardless, tasteless people have the right to pay for them and play, so… no?
        This is about payment processors censoring shit just 'cos they can. They stick to handling money instead of dictating how that money is used.