3 ms·
>The people / companies involved made it really clear that they don't want to be making the rules They may not want to make the rules, but they do want the rul
by knome 1y ago
>The people / companies involved made it really clear that they don't want to be making the rules
They may not want to make the rules, but they do want the rules. They just don't want the blame. Otherwise they would just, not have the rules around who they'll work with. They would just work with anyone and tell anyone that complains about it to complain to the government, that it's company policy to work with any legal company.
DNS doesn't stop to check if you're okay to have a name. Water company and electric don't refuse to hook up your building because they don't like your business.
They have chosen to become content arbitrators. It was not foist upon them.
- bluGill 1y agoThe government has a history of going after the payment processors if an illegal purchase is made.
- JohnFen 1y agoBut they're only actually liable if they knew the purchase was illegal.
- bluGill 1y agoThat can still be several hundred thousand in lawyer fees.
- jlawson 1y agoThere is no hint that what they just censored (i.e. Steam games) was illegal. This isn't about fear of handling illegal payments; it's purely morality enforcement.