Please, don't post articles "this/that store ban nsfw content": it's payment system (like Visa/MasterCard) that want to regulate/take control of censorship above your government.

While I agree with the spirit of it, those corporations are still beholden to local governments to not be sued out the ass.
So I'd like to draw everyone's attention to the fascist jackboots censoring the world from Australia, bragging about doing all of this:
https://www.collectiveshout.org/
Fuck your censorship Collective Shout. Get fucked while you're at it, might loosen you up a bit
- Love how the bottom of the page is like
  We are an independent registered charity with no affiliation to religious or political institutions.
  Meanwhile, the founder
  In 2007, she published Defiant Birth: Women Who Resist Medical Eugenics[7], to a conservative journal called The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly before being republished by Spinifex press.
  The journal is periodically published by a conservative think tank called The National Catholic Bioethics Center.
  In 2009, Tankard Reist spoke at a forum called, "Event: Inspiring Christians Series" in the Belconnen Baptist Church on behalf of Sheridan Voysey.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melinda_Tankard_Reist
  She’s all about women. As long as they produce children regardless of how they were impregnated and are wives in Catholic marriages.

Melinda Tankard Reist.
Michael Miebach.
Ryan McInerney.
Humans > branding and corporation names.
When CVS "used racist AI" I didn't see a single goddamn peep about the CEOs in charge while they had that policy.
We should name the board and the whole leadership system but at least mentioning CEOs would be a great start.
- Yes!
  This is exactly correct. Thank you.
- God damn chad... You ain't wrong, naming the perp is first step in any proprr discourse.
  USians are allergic to naming the parasite it seems tho

I mean, it's a nanny organization called Collective Shout that is claiming responsibility for these recent product bans/removals. They just pressured the payment processors instead of the companies who own the stores this time. And it worked.
The nanny group sucks the most here. The payment processors suck for acquiescing to the nanny group, and everyone else sucks for acquiescing to the payment processors.
- The payment processors have the final say and have done this multiple times in the past, i wouldnt be surprised of the "nanny" was secretly paid by them to find this shit for them to censor.

Nothing but hypocrisy from Visa and MasterCard - there are far more NSFW content on Xitter than in games and yet I don't see a peep of them banning payment towards that little blue checkmark.
- Collective Shout seems to aim for X next, according to their site.
  
  biting the hand that seig heils
- Can you directly pay for porn on Twitter?
  
  Do you need to pay to access Steam and play games? The answer is no - there are free games on Steam and also forum features that allow you to post media content too. From that standpoint they're in the same boat. The difference is the platform's intended use.
  I think the real issue isn't about Visa and MasterCard trying to gatekeep/censor this. The talk should be about we as a society haven't matured enough to be willing to talk about our own bodies as humans and human nature with our own kids. If you look at what's shown on mainstream TV around the world, off the top of my head, Europe seems to be a lot more mature about it than many parts elsewhere.

Well if you want to peel the onion another layer, you should really be mad at laywers and our litigious society as a whole, payment processors don't have morality, nothing in capitalism does - they are responding, just like valve, to external pressures.
- It's specifically due to a moral panic group, Collective Shout, pressuring credit card companies to do this. Litigation isn't really part of it, just angry organized people on the Internet.
  
  How do they apply pressure though? (they threaten to sue)
  
  Maybe we can angrily organize against them?
- Bro lawyer is just a hired gun, they will do whatever guy paying says. They have no agency.
  Executives, BoD and shareholders with controlling stakes make these calls.
  Avoid using credit cards as much as possible, deny the parasite profit and network effects.
  
  That was my point, that pressure is always external and they are not making moral decisions.
  Executives, BoD and shareholders with controlling stakes make these calls.
  Yeah with the external driver of the bottom line, no one is making these 'calls' for any sort of purpose other than the profit driver.
  Avoid using credit cards as much as possible
  Sure, and my paper straws are saving the environment too, right? Individual action changes nothing, changes in law/enforcement is the only proven path to change.
- Nope, there are human beings that make decisions and those human beings have beliefs.
  
  Yes, totally agreed that the people making decisions have beliefs. Hard disagree if you think the head of Visa is consulting his/her/their 'beliefs' when voting on multi-billion dollar decisions.
- I don't buy that, why would they have to care what these people think? Credit card companies have a history of being hostile to adult content, I think it's because the people who own them have an interest in controlling others.

I don't think we should be giving corporations a pass for caving to challenges from authority whether it's hard or not.
Whether it's valve pulling NSFW content, universities expelling students, or CBS firing people over political speech it's all anti-consumer behavior driven by a financial incentive to cater to a bully with too much power. They're all just rolling over and showing their belly rather than deal with a problem in the short term.
If Valve or Itch had paired that statement with a statement about what other payment processing options they were pursuing that might someday lead them back to a pro-consumer position I'd be on board for granting them some grace on the issue, but to the best of my knowledge from the articles I've seen, their position has been "tell me what to do Daddy". If I'm wrong about that I apologize and I'll start reading different sources.
There's just too much capitulation to anti-free-speech behavior and I'm not ready to give anyone a pass at this point.

They could have implented this solution:
If you use payment service X you can only buy games A, B, C
If you use payment service Y you can buy all the games
- My understanding is part of it is that payment processor says stop doing it or we drop you all together. Not a we won't be involved but lose them as an avenue.
  Their way or highway, no real middle ground posible
  
  The short term strategy would probably be to introduce Y payment processor and make it the preferred method of payment. Encourage it's use industry wide and encourage consumers to adopt that method as widely as possible.
  If that takes off... Then they can tell the other processors to get fucked.
- Part of the problem is that there are very few payment services and they all seem to be doing the same thing.

And this/that do nothing to defend their customer despite having magnitudes more possibilities. All are guilty. Just the degree of guilt differs.

If Valve told the card companies to go fuck themselves then they would have never pulled support.
It was always a bluff, Visa and MC would never let go of that money over something so petty.
So yeah, I also blame the billion dollar corporations that rival the card companies bending to their demands.

People always say crypto has no value and is a scam but i don't see how a stablecoin like usdc isn't a much simpler solution vs trying to break the duopoly
- What happens when anti-porn organisations like Collective Shout go after the currency exchanges?
  
  Presumably they do what Visa/Mastercard should have done, and tell them to shove it. It’s just a bunch of uppity idiots from Australia, no one HAS to listen to them…
  
  You don't need exchanges.
  
  What exactly would they demand from them? A cryptocurrency exchange is not like a credit card company which has a direct relationship with every customer and vendor and is in direct control of transactions, instead they just handle buying and selling of decentralized currencies which are transacted permissionlessly on their own networks.
  It's a lot more like cash, especially the ones designed for privacy.
  That said, stablecoins might also be a target, since they have freeze functions, I could see that becoming a problem.

I get your point, but the stores are still caving. They are still playing ball and banning things. That needs to be remembered too.
- Unfortunately, the alternative is that they cease to exist almost instantly. This is what happens when we allow monopolies and trusts.

Payment Providers have been doing this for a longer time.
In 2010 for example they blocked donations towards WikiLeaks.

Look, I don't know how the average Lemme user feels about crypto, but if NSFW game creators created a platform where purchases happen only in crypto then MasterCard/Visa/Paypal would be irrelevant
- And they'd lose a huge number of potential sales.
- If only the Internet hadn't spent the last decade collectively shitting on crypto instead of maybe learning a bit about how it works and what it could be used for.
  
  If only crypto hadn't turned out to be the 21st-century version of fine art for money laundering and/or a Ponzi scheme designed to separate fools from their money...
  
  Yeah it wasn't the internet's fault that it became a ponzi scheme for techbros. Bitcoin got co-opted from its original use first, then became a laughingstock.