this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2025
467 points (98.5% liked)

Technology

73534 readers
2477 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Collective shout seems to have expanded its scope: games like cult classic Fear And Hunger have been removed from Itch.io, while horror game VILE: Exhumed has been delisted from Steam just a week after launch.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MagicShel@lemmy.zip 106 points 4 days ago (14 children)

First, I don't understand why processors give a fuck. Do they imagine people are going to just stop using credit in protest of how other people spend their money? Tell me another fucking joke.

Second, I'm not a game developer, but I suddenly want to make a horror game that includes graphic, exploitive, gratuitous depictions of everything they complain about. And name the game Collective Shriek.

[–] Mirshe@lemmy.world 80 points 4 days ago (4 children)

The worm that keeps getting put into payment processor's brains is that they might somehow be held criminally liable for games people purchase. It's like telling a bus driver that they might be liable because they gave a ride to someone who robbed a store.

[–] Bronzebeard@lemmy.zip 60 points 3 days ago (2 children)

NOW that they've started curating, that has become way more likely to actually happen. They could have claimed to be a neutral carrier before. Actively filtering means they've decided to take on that responsibility, and the consequences for missing stuff.

They're morons

[–] pupbiru@aussie.zone 8 points 3 days ago

i assume you’re allowed to buy guns with them in the US? that’s WAY more directly attributable

[–] BreakerSwitch@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Time to sue my credit card company for preventing my purchases, but failing to prevent a purchase that was detrimental to me

[–] Bronzebeard@lemmy.zip 0 points 3 days ago

That's one way to not understand what I meant, I guess.

[–] prex@aussie.zone 26 points 4 days ago

That what I just dont get about this.
If payment processors think they are liable because these games cause harm then where does it stop? Supermarkets sell cigarettes and so on...

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 12 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I've heard this reasoning a few times. I don't buy it. Illegal content is already illegal. You aren't allowed to sell it. Policing particular content beyond that doesn't cover your ass. In fact, it implicates you if you do process payments for illegal content.

I've never seen any argument from them that this is the reasoning. The only rule they need is that you aren't allowed to sell illegal content on your platform. That covers everything. Going beyond that implies there's a different reason. They're being influenced by something else other than the law.

[–] Ulrich@feddit.org 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

I've never seen any argument from them that this is the reasoning.

What argument have you seen from them that is their reasoning?

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

We don't know their reasoning. However, we do know their requirement, which is not "no illegal content." It's "no content involving rape or incest" or something like that. They have also stated publicly they do not want to be involved in regulating legal content, but, again, that isn't what they required. If they only cared about illegal content then that's what their requirement would say, but it isn't.

[–] Ulrich@feddit.org 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)
[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

And also none from the person above, but the logic doesn't check out. Using basic inference, we know it isn't about legal content. That already wasn't allowed, so no changes needed to be made. There must be another reason. What is it? I don't know. I'm not making a claim to knowledge of what it is. I'm only proving that it isn't what the other person claimed. Burden of proof is on the person making a claim, not the one disputing it.

[–] Ulrich@feddit.org 2 points 3 days ago

The point is "I haven't heard them say this" is not a legitimate argument, because you haven't heard them say anything about anything, because they haven't said anything, and speculation is all we have.

[–] ArchmageAzor@lemmy.world 12 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I hate corpos as much as the next guy, but I don't think that's a good rule to have.

[–] Saleh@feddit.org 7 points 4 days ago

It should also be bullshit in most if not all countries.

load more comments (9 replies)