A puritanical activist group circumvents the law/courts and successfully pressures the handful of companies that control the vast majority of transactions to remove content they find distasteful - content that is 100% legal - but this isn’t an ethics discussion?
But that’s exactly what it is. They are worried about the blowback from the very easy PR advantage groups like this have, all based on weaponizing how it is basically a PR slam dunk to paint these companies as “supporting disgusting pornography” and “exposing harmful content to minors.” As long as you can couch your points in that kind of rhetoric, you are virtually unbeatable in the US when it comes to messaging. No major company is going to stand in defense of pornography outside of Pornhub.
There’s a reason this hasn’t been taken to the courts and regardless of what you attribute the motivation to the outcome is the same. This is top to bottom an ethics discussion, and the banks are a part of it. By capitulating they have made a choice. They decided the public debate would be bad for business.
> They are worried about the blowback from the very easy PR advantage groups like this have, all based on weaponizing how it is basically a PR slam dunk to paint these companies as “supporting disgusting pornography” and “exposing harmful content to minors.”
They may be worried (slightly) but they also most likely simply don't want another headache.
A corporation is in business to make money and that means that they will do what makes the most money in the shortest amount of time as long as it's legal.
Getting entangled in a potential lawsuit that would take years to resolve and cost many millions of $ is a distraction that does not serve their interest. If you are Epic and it is in your interest to challenge Apple and if winning this lawsuit brings you potentially more revenue, then that is a different story entirely.
GP was right when he said this is a business decision. Porn has nothing to do with it. It could have been gambling and harry Potter books, the end result would have been the same.
To give you an example:
I have a small business with a very clear refund policy, yet every 6 months or so, someone will send me a message saying that they forgot that they have an active subscription and could I refund them the money or they will do a charge-back.
Please note before getting the pitchforks out, that my refund policy is very generous and that each customer gets an email before their subscription renews so there is nothing deceptive in my billing practices and also users have the ability to self refund their last payment in the app.
I am faced with the same question that Steam faced, what do I do? Do I fight the refund and eventually fight the charge-back costing me time and money when I could be doing other things or do I roll over and get it over with so that this headache goes away as soon as possible so that I can focus on my other customers?
That's how businesses see things. Opportunity cost. I understand that for some people (including you) this sort of decisions could be seen as some sort of morality judgement but IMHO it is not.
What does Steam have to gain from starting a fight with Visa or Mastercard? A better reputation with gamers? Will that help them increase their revenue in the short term or the long term? Will this make them liable for other things down the line like an angry parent suing them because their son or daughter bought a game with naked people in it and the kid was only 8 at the time?
This is the equation that I am sure many people at Steam ran and the they decided that it just wasn't adding up.
It sucks because from a personal point of view I agree with you, they should have thought harder but from a business point of view they simply followed what made most sense and decided that the risk wasn't worth the reward.
Does it mean Mastercard/Visa are right, absolutely not? This duopoly should be broken up but no politician in the west or elsewhere is going to go after them for the same reason that nobody went after the banks that brought the global economy to it's knees in 2008.
That phrasing makes it sound somehow illegal, but all the activists did was exercise their right to engage in political speech. I don't particularly agree with their cause, but there's nothing untoward about their methods.
The real problem for society isn't the fact that political groups can raise a ruckus about things we personally don't agree with, but rather the fact that payment processors are such a narrow choke point, ideal for putting up gates and thereby giving a small group of people way too much control. The solution is to address the choke point, not to play wack-a-mole trying to slap down activist groups whenever they vie for control of the choke point (which will inevitably continue to happen as long as the choke point exists.)
I didn’t say it was illegal. I said they circumvented the courts, the obvious place for this debate to play out. Their methods are absolutely untoward. Not only that, I can all but guarantee you these same people use “freedom of speech” as a shield whenever their opinions and systems are considered less than popular/challenged.
A puritanical activist group circumvents the law/courts and successfully pressures the handful of companies that control the vast majority of transactions to remove content they find distasteful - content that is 100% legal - but this isn’t an ethics discussion?