4 ms·

Valve's payment processors told Valve they would withdraw payment processing unless Valve banned specific categories of game from their online store. The payme

Valve's payment processors told Valve they would withdraw payment processing unless Valve banned specific categories of game from their online store. The payment processors did not cite any law; Valve selling those games was not illegal. Instead they cited Mastercard's rules, which say that they cannot submit transactions that Mastercard believe might damage Mastercard's goodwill or reflect negatively on its brand. Those rules also say Mastercard has sole discretion as to what it considers breach these rules, and Mastercard gives a list of what it deems unacceptable: https://www.mastercard.us/content/dam/public/mastercardcom/na/global-site/documents/mastercard-rules.pdf https://www.mastercard.us/content/dam/public/mastercardcom/n... > 5.12.7 Illegal or Brand-damaging Transactions > A Merchant must not submit to its Acquirer, and a Customer must not submit to the Interchange System, any Transaction that is illegal, or in the sole discretion of the Corporation, may damage the goodwill of the Corporation or reflect negatively on the Marks. > The Corporation considers any of the following activities to be in violation of this Rule: > 2. The sale of a product or service, including an image, which is patently offensive and lacks serious artistic value (such as, by way of example and not limitation, images of nonconsensual sexual behavior, sexual exploitation of a minor, nonconsensual mutilation of a person or body part, and bestiality), or any other material that the Corporation deems unacceptable to sell in connection with a Mark. The payment processors threatened Valve first. Mastercard doesn't need to threaten Valve or even contact them at all to force its will on them: it just needs to threaten its payment processors, the same outcome is achieved. Valve did not remove games from sale until threatened. If they did not do that, and instead initiated some kind of fightback, they would most likely find themselves completely removed from all payment processors, with no recourse. If you want to call that "precompliance", so be it.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> Valve's payment processors told Valve they would withdraw payment processing unless Valve banned specific categories of game from their online store Do we have a statement from Valve saying as much?
- amiga386 1y ago
  Click on the article link at the top of this page and find out. Let me quote the article for you: > In a statement provided to PC Gamer, Valve said that it had tried to work things out with Mastercard directly prior to removing the games, and suggested that Mastercard did have at least an indirect influence on the outcome. > "Mastercard did not communicate with Valve directly, despite our request to do so," a Valve representative said. "Mastercard communicated with payment processors and their acquiring banks. Payment processors communicated this with Valve, and we replied by outlining Steam’s policy since 2018 of attempting to distribute games that are legal for distribution. > "Payment processors rejected this, and specifically cited Mastercard’s Rule 5.12.7 and risk to the Mastercard brand."
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    This text is also consistent with Valve making a determination, checking with payment processors and not being told no. (Versus the payment processors reaching out to Valve first.) Like yes, there is a problem with Mastercard. But I want to know this isn’t Valve having complied with some activists trying to cover their tracks.
    - nemomarx 1y ago
      As far as it goes, collective shout claimed Valve didn't respond to them and that's why they complained to MC visa about it. They even mention how many calls they made to them to get the complaint heard. So everyone would have to be pretty invested in this show for it to have originated from Valve?
      - Maken 1y ago
        Which means Collective Shout didn't have any legal weight behind their demands.
        nemomarx 1y ago
        Of course - they've never invoked a legal justification. What they seem to be leaning on is basically "we can create bad press about you supporting payments for X", promising headlines like "MasterCard is paying for women to be beaten and raped!" or other sensational nonsense.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago

> Valve's payment processors told Valve they would withdraw payment processing unless Valve banned specific categories of game from their online store Do we have a statement from Valve saying as much?

amiga386 1y ago
Click on the article link at the top of this page and find out. Let me quote the article for you: > In a statement provided to PC Gamer, Valve said that it had tried to work things out with Mastercard directly prior to removing the games, and suggested that Mastercard did have at least an indirect influence on the outcome. > "Mastercard did not communicate with Valve directly, despite our request to do so," a Valve representative said. "Mastercard communicated with payment processors and their acquiring banks. Payment processors communicated this with Valve, and we replied by outlining Steam’s policy since 2018 of attempting to distribute games that are legal for distribution. > "Payment processors rejected this, and specifically cited Mastercard’s Rule 5.12.7 and risk to the Mastercard brand."
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  This text is also consistent with Valve making a determination, checking with payment processors and not being told no. (Versus the payment processors reaching out to Valve first.) Like yes, there is a problem with Mastercard. But I want to know this isn’t Valve having complied with some activists trying to cover their tracks.
  - nemomarx 1y ago
    As far as it goes, collective shout claimed Valve didn't respond to them and that's why they complained to MC visa about it. They even mention how many calls they made to them to get the complaint heard. So everyone would have to be pretty invested in this show for it to have originated from Valve?
    - Maken 1y ago
      Which means Collective Shout didn't have any legal weight behind their demands.
      - nemomarx 1y ago
        Of course - they've never invoked a legal justification. What they seem to be leaning on is basically "we can create bad press about you supporting payments for X", promising headlines like "MasterCard is paying for women to be beaten and raped!" or other sensational nonsense.