this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2025
558 points (98.6% liked)
Games
20390 readers
827 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
They might sort of have to do this or risk being cut off, given the loss of US Net Neutrality and the new pro-business-rights administration.
We really also need payment neutrality. I don't like the content that's being removed, but I really don't like that visa gets to decide that websites are allowed to show, sell, and everything else. I don't give half a damn if someone decides to swipe their card at the heroin and machine gun store, visa shouldn't be the one deciding that they can't make that transaction
Fully agreed. On the service-provider side, we have 'safe harbor' laws: A site isn't liable for copyrighted user-generated content as long as they have mechanisms to take down items when notified.
Liability-wise: The payment processors should have no fucking insight into what is being sold, only that they handle the transactions. Therefore, they should have no liability, similar to "safe harbor".
Reputation-wise: I can almost see a history where Visa, for example, used a statement like "we don't handle transactions for X" as a marketing ploy... but that is way past where we are. There's no chance of reputational damage to a payment processor for the items for which they handled a payment. Combined with the above, if I say I'm giving $20 to Tim, you give $20 to Tim and take it from me. Done. Not your problem.
As another commenter stated, the payment processor should be a dumb pipe, and anything illegal being sold should be a liability for the seller or buyer. The idea of a moral judgement of the processor is as stupid as a water pipe to your house cutting off the flow if your shower runs too long.
The real problem is the politicians, or lobbyists/influencers, who are sending bribes to each other to gain advantage... but visa doesn't have a problem handling a venmo transaction for 'tuition'.
Let me buy horny games until after you block world superpower corruption first. But honestly, don't even do that. Just handle moving the money when someone send it. That's your only job.