Mastercard Claims NSFW Game Bans Aren’t From Them, Valve Explains How Mastercard Launders Its Control
from the nice-try dept
This whole attempted censorship of adult games on gaming platforms is becoming a thing. Collective Shout—a group out of Australia that wraps itself in a feminist flag while behaving like the religious right to get anything it doesn’t like out of the video game industry—put on a pressure campaign with payment processors, writing in to demand that processing companies stop working with the likes of itch.io and Steam over games on those platforms the group has decided are unacceptable. Couched in the claim that the group was primarily going after games that focused on horrid things like “rape” and “incest,” the end result was those two platforms delisting or deindexing all kinds of adult games that either don’t include that type of content or—and here’s why free speech is tricky—approach those topics not to promote them, but to grapple with the horrors of them in an artistic manner.
Notably, far from any cries that these platforms be more focused in their approach, Collective Shout merely cheered on the fallout, illuminating what the actual goal is here: to make game platforms more puritanical through bully campaigns. These are, it seems, the same people going on book-banning crusades that ensare such smut as Calvin & Hobbes comics.
Well, pressure campaigns can work in both directions, as it did in this case. Credit card companies began getting flooded with calls and emails from the public complaining about these puritanical attempts to suppress video games. It’s only been a few days of this, but apparently it’s gotten bad enough that Mastercard put out some messaging pushing back on the idea that it had demanded these changes of gaming marketplaces.
Mastercard has broken its silence after being thrust into the middle of a gaming culture war between anti-porn advocates and anti-censorship activists. While Valve previously laid blame for a recent purge of adult sex games from Steam at the feet of “payment processors and their related card networks and banks,” Mastercard released a statement on Friday denying any responsibility for a new wave of censorship that’s recently led some gamers to flood payment company call centers with complaints.
“Mastercard has not evaluated any game or required restrictions of any activity on game creator sites and platforms, contrary to media reports and allegations,” the company wrote in a statement published on its website on August 1. “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.”
Got it? Mastercard is not involved in the evaluation of games or their content and has not instituted any new rules beyond those that have always existed, namely that payment may only be collected and processed for “lawful purchases.” Summarizing that statement in plain language would look something like: “Nothing has changed on our end. If a purchase is legal, it’s fine by us.”
Now, that’s demonstrably false, of course. Mastercard has built a prudish reputation for itself in multiple instances, be it pressuring OnlyFans a couple of years back, banning VPN providers, as well as its crusade against Wikileaks.
But this is slightly different. In this case, according to Valve at least, Mastercard is just playing word games.
“Mastercard did not communicate with Valve directly, despite our request to do so,” Valve’s statement sent over email to Kotaku reads. “Mastercard communicated with payment processors and their acquiring banks. Payment processors communicated this with Valve, and we replied by outlining Steam’s policy since 2018 of attempting to distribute games that are legal for distribution. Payment processors rejected this, and specifically cited Mastercard’s Rule 5.12.7 and risk to the Mastercard brand.”
Rule 5.12.7 states, “A Merchant must not submit to its Acquirer, and a Customer must not submit to the Interchange System, any Transaction that is illegal, or in the sole discretion of the Corporation, may damage the goodwill of the Corporation or reflect negatively on the Marks.”
It goes on, “The sale of a product or service, including an image, which is patently offensive and lacks serious artistic value (such as, by way of example and not limitation, images of nonconsensual sexual behavior, sexual exploitation of a minor, nonconsensual mutilation of a person or body part, and bestiality), or any other material that the Corporation deems unacceptable to sell in connection with a Mark.”
So, two things to say here. The first is that, whatever your moral stances may be and no matter how they align with Mastercard’s rules above, that rule is a far cry from “if it’s lawful, it’s all good.” Instead, it’s more like “If it’s lawful, it’s all good…unless we determine it’s either offensive or isn’t artistic enough for our tastes.”
Now I could carve out examples of how Mastercard doesn’t come close to enforcing its own rule in the video game space all day. After all, I’m pretty sure I’ve “mutilated a person or body part” in roughly a zillion video games and that the NPCs in question didn’t give me consent to do so. That’s called combat and it’s in a ton of games that you can purchase with a Mastercard. But let’s take a more extreme example within the rule: bestiality. It’s one of those things that sounds like an obvious thing to say: you can’t use a Mastercard to buy a good, service, or image that includes bestiality. But I bought Baldur’s Gate 3 with my own Mastercard on Steam and, as is famously known, the game has a mildly explicit scene in which you, to borrow a headline, “Bang The Bear.” This isn’t to say that BG3‘s scene should be labeled “bestiality” (the bear is actually a druid that transforms into a bear), but it certainly could be.
But the second point is more fun to make compared with highlighting Mastercard’s lies and hypocrisy. Mastercard claimed innocence over the adult games purge by stating it didn’t directly talk to game marketplaces about any of this. But, while that is likely true in a technical sense, all it’s doing is pointing out that the company isn’t even secure enough in its own rules to enforce them directly and publicly and instead are laundering its morality stances through its network of partner processing companies.
The end result is the same: run afoul of these rules from Mastercard and enforced by Mastercard through its processor network and a game marketplace can lose its payment processing partnerships with Mastercard’s network. It’s a complete non-denial and, honestly, of no material use. The outcome is the outcome and it’s clear that Mastercard’s network is in fact doing all of this at Mastercard’s request.
And all for some Aussie puritans that want to foist their morality on everyone else? C’mon, credit card companies. What’s the point of amassing hundreds of billions of dollars in market cap if you can’t tell some zealots to fuck all the way off once in a while?
Filed Under: control, gatekeepers, payment processors, video games
Companies: collective shout, itch.io, mastercard, valve




Comments on “Mastercard Claims NSFW Game Bans Aren’t From Them, Valve Explains How Mastercard Launders Its Control”
So mastercard. Did you block epstein or his friends from using your services?
I notice that both Stripe and Mastercard try to blame someone else. Without naming who this other entity is.
That tells me that they are willing to protect whichever company is behind these censorship decisions. With at least one of them lying about it being someone else’s fault and not willing to risk the slander/libel lawsuit if they give names.
That means they deserve whatever blame comes their way.
Or maybe the payment systems are structured in a way that they really don’t know who is giving orders. That would be worse.
Re: 'The company is run by my girlfriend from canada, you haven't met her.'
Or a potential third option, the ‘other’ they’re referring to doesn’t exist and they’re trying to pin the blame on a fictional entity so they don’t have to accept the blame themselves.
Re: Re:
Or, as is always proper procedure in cases like this, you follow the money: Credit card companies and payment processors both work with major banking organizations like Wells Fargo.
Re: Re:
Something already addressed by Bilateralrope in the first two sentences of their comment, if you read carefully.
The difference is money. If Mastercard stopped people from buying Baldur’s Gate 3, they’d lose out on a LOT of business. It is, after all, a massively successful title. Likewise, imagine the hit to their bottom line if they cut off violent games like Fortnite or GTA V.
Banishing itch.io to the shadow realm just doesn’t sting enough.
Re: Gaming is a tiny business to MasterCard
Not sure if Mastercard cares. Gaming is small potatoes to MC. Like all the BG3 sales is a drop in the bucket, the entire segment is only $455 Billion last year or perhaps a few billion in revenue to the banking sector (split up 10 ways from Sunday between points, banks, MC, Other Cards like AMX)
Heck, AMX lost a Costco, with $255 Billion in annual sales a while back, since Costco is so big it could get a sweetheart deal with Visa that AMX would not match.
For us the numbers are mindboggling, for MC its a Tuesday.
Re:
Hitting BG3 means going after a AAA dev. They might have enough money to sue over this if there is a tortious interference claim.
With the effects the payment processing companies find undesirable starting once discovery reveals who is actually responsible.
'We had nothing to do with the rules we created!'
‘I didn’t tell them they had to remove all those games, I just casually pointed to the rules I created and noted that it sure would be a shame if any games of a particular type were determined to be in violation of them…’
That it took them several days to come up with a response and word-play like that is the best they could come up with paints a pretty damning picture. They were absolutely involved, they’re just too gutless to admit that pressure from a single group was enough to get them to fold and pass that pressure on to others.
Re:
It was not the pressure of a single group. The group just gave them the best excuse to enforce these bigoted rules they created themselves.
Re: Re:
[Citation needed]
Re: Re: Re:
It would explain why they are holding firm on the censorship and refusing to even identify who made the decision.
Instead of just looking at how small Collective Shout is and telling them to f off.
Are you telling mastercard that their payment method and choice of how to get laid is not accepted?
What games were illegal, though?
Re:
The ones Collective Shout were highlighting were titles like “No Mercy”, claiming it included things like CSAM. (They also claimed it had things like incest/nonconsensual rape. Those would be legal in the U.S. but potentially not other countries. Collective Shout seems to be using mainly Australian law, maybe Canada/UK as well)
Re: Re:
Given how the Ofcom guidance for enforcing the OSA lets Ofcom tell paypros “hey, stop working with these people” if “these people” (e.g., Steam and Itch) make available for sale content like No Mercy, I’d wager they’re counting on the credit card companies and paypros complying with censorship demands so they don’t come under fire from the government like Steam and Itch came under fire from the financial covenant that basically allows them to sell games online.
Violence is cool though, right?
I mean, as long as it’s murder that’s being portrayed, then it’s cool, but if it’s some other illegal thing, then full stop…
Re:
Portrayal of murder is illegal? Someone should tell the 1st Amendment.
Re: Re:
I think that was kind of the point of the above comment. If I draw a picture of Trump being murdered, or allow it to happen in a video game, that’s protected speech (not that the distinction matters to Mastercard). But if I try to guess at what Trump looks like topless, maybe not—’cause that’s so much worse, right?
Re: Re: Re:
Drawing a fictional image of Trump being killed, letting people use a videogame to “kill” a fictional depiction of Trump, or illustrating a fictional image of Trump topless are all instances of legally protected speech. It’s when credit card companies and paypros (and maybe banks) act like the third one is illegal and pressure companies to prevent people from buying a copy of that illustration, then try to justify that move by talking about “illegal content”, that we’ve got a big fucking problem.
Re: Re: Re:2
Just wait until the Trump administration finds out about this.
I don’t know what pressure Collective Shout put on the payment companies. I suspect that part of it is that they agreed with Collective Shout’s demands and just wanted an excuse.
But I know the kind of pressure Trump will bring to try and squash and games he dislikes. Or anything else, once he learns he can do that worldwide.
Re: Re: Re:3
And he’ll be met with a whole hell of a lot of people from both sides of the political aisle saying “get your fucking hands off my games, you son of a bitch”. A fair number of people are willing to stick up for indie sex games, but the number of people who would go berserk if he tried to pull this Collective Shouth bullshit with GTA6 or the next Call of Duty or whatever—especially the number of people who would otherwise support him!—can and will be far larger.
Re: Re: Re:2
That depends how realistic it is, how courts rule on the “TAKE IT DOWN Act”, and whether courts are willing to uphold “equal protection” regardless of sex.
Re: Re: Re:3
Until and unless such images are ruled to be unprotected by the First Amendment, they are legal to produce right now. Why anyone would make them, I have no idea, but it’s their goddamned right to do so and I’ll defend that right even as I vomit at the idea of seeing any part of Trump’s body that’s below the neck.
Re: Re: Re:4
Unfortunately, that’s not how it works. If someone makes such images now, and they’re found to be illegal, that person could end up in prison. The excuse that it wasn’t yet proven to be illegal only works for cops.
Re: Re: Re:5
And they can then make the (solid as hell) argument that their speech was perfectly legal until the government decided to ignore the First Amendment and two centuries of related jurisprudence to declare an illustration of a topless Donald Trump “illegal” on the basis of “Trump doesn’t like it”.
Re: Re: Re:6
You all are right up to a point, but, I suspect legally protected speech or not they would consider it a threat against the President and let the Secret Service act accordingly to make an example of them.
There SHOULD be more games of this, mind, there is only one way to deal with Nazis after all and it has nothing to do with the merits of anyone’s arguments. But I would at least be in the country of an ally that he pissed off and relatively anonymous, if not outright in China, Russia, Southeast Asia, India, Pakistan or certain parts of the Middle East, and have no plans to travel within the next 20 years, before trying it as a non-celebrity, and a celebrity in any country should think twice before depictions of the murder of a living President or ex-President of any country anyway.
But yes, aside from whether it’s a good idea or not, the precedent that should apply is being openly ignored with the actual punishment being quiet deportation of U.S. citizens (Democrats and minorities) for depicting it, regardless of the laws on the books. You don’t stop that by winning an election, unless Alexei Navalny is your definition of successful resistance, but rather by being impossible to control and too costly to bomb or invade.
Re: Re: Re:7
True. Richard Spencer got clocked in the face and ran away crying, and he basically disappeared from public life in general after that. Watching that video always makes me feel warm’n’fuzzy inside.
Re: Re: Re:6
Sure; prison’s full of people arguing they were wrongly convicted. Sometimes those people are right, and after years of reading law in the prison library, they manage to prove it. But very few sane people would want to be the test case for a law, even if they think it’s clearly illegal.
Re: Re:
No, but murder is …
Meanwhile.. the Trump and the MAGA cult is so worked up about being allegedly “debanked” that the Cheeto faced shitgibbon is about to drop an EO on the matter.
I wonder if the payment processors are now about to find that they can’t actually block “illegal transactions”, unless they are in fact.. illegal..
“My business partners and I are merely a public interest advocacy group, extolling the virtues of footwear containing minimal quantities of cement, we would certainly never make any provable form of actionable threats to any persons within the communities we service…”
Oh please, they are blocking tons of LGBT+ games in the process. As the article states it’s hypocrisy from all sides. The end goal is to censor what an annoying and dangerous subset of the population believes to be wrong. And in the process deny the expression and even the existence of those this loud portion of bigots don’t like.
And let’s be honest: the owners of these companies are among these bigots. That’s another reason why billionaires and the extremely rich should be taxed to hell. Capitalism failed, fails and will fail.
Re:
Oh please, they are blocking tons of LGBT+ games in the process. As the article states it’s hypocrisy from all sides.
In this case that’s not hypocrisy that’s giving away the game, namely that to the people involved the existence of LGBTQ+ people is inherently pornographic and should be illegal as a result.
Wouldn’t it be nice if there were actually a payment processor that specifically allowed legal but controversial purchases.
Oh, by the way, do the current payment processors allow purchases of Nazi material???
All credit to Ana Valens, who’s been keeping good track of this situation.
Well, here’s a fun little tidbit to chew on:
So yeah, asking Visa and Mastercard (as well as PayPal, Stripe, and any banking companies those four prior entities may be working with) about this “government policy” might be a smart idea—especially if it’s about U.S. government policy, which would be one hell of a lead to follow.
Re:
I note that Ana Valens had to guess at where the policy came from. Visa didn’t reveal it.
Just like all the others, they are protecting whoever forced their hand. That shows that they agree with the move and do not want it reversed.
Re:
Bet it’s Comstock.
Where’s the class action lawsuit we all need? MasterCard v. The World (sounds like a good video game title)
Tim did you mean to use merely or merrily
I thought collective shout was the initial push for Mastercard to block the content not just a bystander to the situation.
Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?
I remember when Steam was a brand new thing, and we were all infatuated with this brand new amazing thing Gaben had given us. The man was legit exalted in gaming circles across the interweb.
Over 20 years later, here’s Valve, still calling out the bullshit. And where’s Epic in all this?
Re:
THEY’RE AT HOME, WASHING THEIR TIGHTS!
Re:
I remember myself and all my friends being frustrated as hell that Valve had stuck one of the most frustrating DRM systems of all time into Half Life 2, where you could be waiting 45 minutes every single time for the overloaded servers to verify your login just to be able to play, even though the disc was right there in the drive, because offline mode would not come along for a while yet and they weren’t yet the behemoth with the money to finance the necessary server capacity to handle that many connections from people trying to play what was then the most anticipated game of all time.
Ah yes Wells Fargo the bastion of upstanding moral behavior.
Payment processors and people like MasterCard are why it’s basically impossible to legally purchase porn from countries like Japan. Just gets pirated instead from people who would gladly give them money while the Japanese try to DMCA the pirates. I can’t blame them considering it’s not their fault these prude fucks prevent them from selling their wares lol.
Mastercard Back Pedal Censorship
Since VPNs are legal and Mastercard declines purchases of this legal product, I do not need a Master Card(MC). Amex and Visa are not as discriminatory.
I don;t need MC, they need us the card holders. Contact the finasncisl issuers and demand another card issuer than Master Card. We must fight back against the LIE. Make our voices heard with the loss of our money to MC
No worries. Trump fixed it with an EO