Valve, I already am a fanboy, no need to drive the point home.

I love that MasterCard is pushing this shit under the guise of "brand damaging" products. Yet this whole fiasco is the most brand damage they could ask for.

If MasterCard doesn't have control over the NSFW bans, there is an easy way to solve this: Announce that they are explicitly allowing NSFW purchases. If they won't do that, then one of two things are true: - MasterCard doesn't have control over its process, to which point investors should question what value they provide - MasterCard is lying and they do have control over its processes, to which point merchants and consumers should question how much they can trust a company that will ban certain categories of purchases


Yep and yet they won't because it's incredibly convenient for them to be able to maintain that kind of control while disavowing it at the same time.

Is there any other payment method that works? Use them instead. If no, then just boycott MasterCard and whoever else, it's not like you're going to be able to buy your games anyway.

Surely there are categories you think should be banned. MasterCard won't buy you heroin on the street corner. This has already been a thing, the only difference is now they came for our porn I guess.

Buying illegal drugs is, well, illegal. Buying porn with money is fully legal. Buying a porn magazine at a brick and mortar store is fully legal. Buying fucking sex toys online and at a brick and mortar store is fully legal. MasterCard banning a specific category of goods because a small, yet vocal, group of people think they shouldn't exist is not only absolutely stupid but anticompetitive.

Okay, but If the sex toy store was named "use these toys on fake dolls of children", then MasterCard likely wouldnt do business there either. You are aware of what type of content was being targeted here right?

The article addresses the topic of how quickly the banning of this kind of material can get out of hand: > These are, it seems, the same people going on book-banning crusades that ensare such smut as Calvin & Hobbes comics. > > > *Magic Tree House author **Mary Pope Osborne**, children’s poet **Shel Silverstein** and Calvin and Hobbes cartoonist **Bill Watterson **have joined **Judy Blume, Sarah J. Maas, Eric Carle** and **Kurt Vonnegut** on a mind-boggling list of hundreds of books purged from some Tennessee school libraries.* > > > > *The removals are the result of a growing political movement to control information through book banning. In 2024, the state legislature amended the “Age-Appropriate Materials Act of 2022” to specify that any materials that “in whole or in part” contain any “nudity, or descriptions or depictions of sexual excitement, sexual conduct, excess violence, or sadomasochistic abuse” are inappropriate for all students and do not belong in a school library. This change means books are not evaluated as a whole, and excerpts can be considered without context, if they have any content that is deemed to cross these lines. This leaves no room for educators and librarians to curate collections that reflect the real world and serve the educational needs of today’s students.* > > > > https://www.techdirt.com/2025/07/02/tn-govt-saves-school-children-from-smut-like-magic-tree-house-calvin-hobbes-a-light-in-the-attic/

Themes like “incest” and “rape” were pulled from Steam. While distasteful to most, these are not _illegal_ in pornography (local laws may differ). Hell, even snuff films are legal as long as they’re simulated (and not real video of actual murder). However, because of payment processors mainstream porn sites won’t host them.

Which would contradict their statement: > Our payment network follows standards based on the rule of law. Put simply, we allow all lawful purchases on our network. At the same time, we require merchants to have appropriate controls to ensure Mastercard cards cannot be used for unlawful purchases, including illegal adult content. A store named "use these toys on fake dolls of children" is horribly distasteful but not illegal. I can agree that maybe that type of content shouldn't be sold, but I also understand that's my personal opinion and not necessarily the law. Me, you or Visa or Mastercard should not be in a position to dictate whether it's acceptable to sell such content.

MasterCard will revoke your payment processing for that.

For the most part films of illegal stuff happening are very much legal (no matter whether "simulated" or real), and it might even be legal selling them provided you have the correct rights to them.

I haven't heard Amex mentioned in any of this so, I guess they're ok?

*EVEN IF* a store was named "use these toys on fake dolls of children" (because this name would likely not even pass local laws but let's put that aside), the store can sell cookies and take MasterCard. I'm going to play devil's advocate since the OOP is doing a terrible job of arguing their point. If my brick and mortar store sold incest books, MasterCard could say, "We don't like how you sell this one book or category of books." Like...fine. In which case they are being anticompetitive. The books aren't illegal. Distasteful, perhaps, but you don't see me complaining to MasterCard for processing bakery transactions, just because I hate gluten.

The point is that this would force them to show their hand. Either they will exercise control in this situation or they won't. If they don't, problem solved; and, if they do then we know who the problem is.

Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?

I wouldn't know, I don't buy games ever since I found out I didn't buy games, merely licensed them. Which is kind of ironic as I would assume most of the censored games are available on the high seas.