6 ms·

Full title that doesn't fit in the HN headline: "Mastercard deflects blame for NSFW games being taken down, but Valve says payment processors 'specifically cit

by kmfrk 1y ago

Full title that doesn't fit in the HN headline: "Mastercard deflects blame for NSFW games being taken down, but Valve says payment processors 'specifically cited' a Mastercard rule about damaging the brand" (For the people who don't click the link to read the article.)

petcat 1y ago
There are definitely a lot of links in this chain. Maybe leafo can chime-in and say exactly what happened with Itch.io. But I suspect that someone downstream of Visa/Mastercard anticipated that the payment card companies would not permit the transactions and relayed that back up to the merchants, and they shut it off preemptively. But it's hard to say. Mastercard is now saying that they never said or did anything. So where did the outrage come from? Someone must have done something.
- Shank 1y ago
  > But I suspect that someone downstream of Visa/Mastercard anticipated that the payment card companies would not permit the transactions and relayed that back up to the merchants, and they shut it off preemptively. It sure is tragic that benevolent and majestic Mastercard is having their name thrown into the mud over this. Coincidentally, it sure is convenient that they have a number of middleman scapegoats who can take the blame on their behalf.
  - eastbound 1y ago
    All Mastercard has to do is say “We ordered payment processors to let Valve sell their games”. It is sure convenient that they stop at “We didn’t say the opposite.”
- Mindwipe 1y ago
  FWIW Mastercard are simply lying, as anyone who has ever had to touch adult payment processing will tell you. There's even a (non-public) list of keyword banned terms.
  - TimorousBestie 1y ago
    Indeed, and the keywords are vague and they refuse to rigorously define them. Adult payment processors just run around in the dark until they trip over one of these landmines. Even the (rare) categories of content that have been legally determined to be non-obscene (e.g., werewolf erotica [1]) can fall under banned keywords (in this case, “bestiality”). It’s a stupid extralegal system and ought to be destroyed. [1] https://time.com/archive/7118599/california-prisoner-fights-for-his-right-to-read-werewolf-erotica/ https://time.com/archive/7118599/california-prisoner-fights-...
- leafo 1y ago
  Throughout this our only contacts have been representatives at Stripe and PayPal. They indicated that they got a notice and kicked off their own audit. As far as I'm aware, the Collective Shout letter caused a "formal card network inquiry" to originate from both Mastercard and Visa. I did not have access to the actual inquiry, but my assumption is that it wasn't "we see this content, take it down" and more like "we saw this letter, look into whats going on before we do our own investigation and fine you"
weberer 1y ago
It was Mastercard's rule, but any one of the companies in the payment network could have brought it up to Valve. The whole system is set up so one transaction has to go through up to 6 different companies, and they all have to abide by each other's rules. The US Internet Preservation Society explained it recently: >Each of these companies maintains its own terms of service and each of them can block a transaction by themselves. Additionally, intermediary companies that handle card transactions are mutually and individually bound to the terms of every Card Network, so even if you never do business with Discover or American Express, you must still obey their rules if you want to accept Visa or Mastercard. For online businesses, there are no alternatives: you will do exactly what they want, or you will not do business at all. >If you are banned from processing payments, you will not be informed why or by which point of failure. "Risk management" is considered a trade secret in the industry. You have no right to know, you cannot sue to discover what has happened, and you also have no right to appeal. https://usips.org/blog/2025/07/fair-access-to-banking/ https://usips.org/blog/2025/07/fair-access-to-banking/
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > was Mastercard's rule, but any one of the companies in the payment network could have brought it up to Valve Did Mastercard threaten Valve? Or did Valve precomply?
  - braiamp 1y ago
    They cite a rule about Mastercard brand damage. If Mastercard didn't specify that such content would result in MC brand damage why would they cite it rather than their own rules?
    - detaro 1y ago
      Some options: a) they are worried Mastercard might randomly decide it does and punish them b) it's convenient to be able to blame someone else c) someone somewhere said something and the rest of the orgs isn't aware or over-interpreted a statement Vague rules like this are great to dilute responsibility. It can both be true that Mastercard didn't tell the payment processors to force the issue and that the payment processors strongly thought they had to.

by kmfrk 1y ago

petcat 1y ago

There are definitely a lot of links in this chain. Maybe leafo can chime-in and say exactly what happened with Itch.io. But I suspect that someone downstream of Visa/Mastercard anticipated that the payment card companies would not permit the transactions and relayed that back up to the merchants, and they shut it off preemptively. But it's hard to say. Mastercard is now saying that they never said or did anything. So where did the outrage come from? Someone must have done something.

Shank 1y ago
> But I suspect that someone downstream of Visa/Mastercard anticipated that the payment card companies would not permit the transactions and relayed that back up to the merchants, and they shut it off preemptively. It sure is tragic that benevolent and majestic Mastercard is having their name thrown into the mud over this. Coincidentally, it sure is convenient that they have a number of middleman scapegoats who can take the blame on their behalf.
- eastbound 1y ago
  All Mastercard has to do is say “We ordered payment processors to let Valve sell their games”. It is sure convenient that they stop at “We didn’t say the opposite.”
Mindwipe 1y ago
FWIW Mastercard are simply lying, as anyone who has ever had to touch adult payment processing will tell you. There's even a (non-public) list of keyword banned terms.
- TimorousBestie 1y ago
  Indeed, and the keywords are vague and they refuse to rigorously define them. Adult payment processors just run around in the dark until they trip over one of these landmines. Even the (rare) categories of content that have been legally determined to be non-obscene (e.g., werewolf erotica [1]) can fall under banned keywords (in this case, “bestiality”). It’s a stupid extralegal system and ought to be destroyed. [1] https://time.com/archive/7118599/california-prisoner-fights-for-his-right-to-read-werewolf-erotica/ https://time.com/archive/7118599/california-prisoner-fights-...
leafo 1y ago
Throughout this our only contacts have been representatives at Stripe and PayPal. They indicated that they got a notice and kicked off their own audit. As far as I'm aware, the Collective Shout letter caused a "formal card network inquiry" to originate from both Mastercard and Visa. I did not have access to the actual inquiry, but my assumption is that it wasn't "we see this content, take it down" and more like "we saw this letter, look into whats going on before we do our own investigation and fine you"

weberer 1y ago

It was Mastercard's rule, but any one of the companies in the payment network could have brought it up to Valve. The whole system is set up so one transaction has to go through up to 6 different companies, and they all have to abide by each other's rules. The US Internet Preservation Society explained it recently: >Each of these companies maintains its own terms of service and each of them can block a transaction by themselves. Additionally, intermediary companies that handle card transactions are mutually and individually bound to the terms of every Card Network, so even if you never do business with Discover or American Express, you must still obey their rules if you want to accept Visa or Mastercard. For online businesses, there are no alternatives: you will do exactly what they want, or you will not do business at all. >If you are banned from processing payments, you will not be informed why or by which point of failure. "Risk management" is considered a trade secret in the industry. You have no right to know, you cannot sue to discover what has happened, and you also have no right to appeal. https://usips.org/blog/2025/07/fair-access-to-banking/ https://usips.org/blog/2025/07/fair-access-to-banking/

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> was Mastercard's rule, but any one of the companies in the payment network could have brought it up to Valve Did Mastercard threaten Valve? Or did Valve precomply?
- braiamp 1y ago
  They cite a rule about Mastercard brand damage. If Mastercard didn't specify that such content would result in MC brand damage why would they cite it rather than their own rules?
  - detaro 1y ago
    Some options: a) they are worried Mastercard might randomly decide it does and punish them b) it's convenient to be able to blame someone else c) someone somewhere said something and the rest of the orgs isn't aware or over-interpreted a statement Vague rules like this are great to dilute responsibility. It can both be true that Mastercard didn't tell the payment processors to force the issue and that the payment processors strongly thought they had to.