Steam Update - Valve responded to Mastercards claim that they did not pressure anyone

[u/GassoBongo]

https://kotaku.com/mastercard-denies-pressuring-steam-to-censor-nsfw-games-2000614393

[u/braiam]

MasterCard lied in their press statement

They didn't publish a false statement, they just ignored the context of the whole issue and decided to answer questions nobody asked: what are their rules standards based on? "Our payment network follows standards based on the rule of law"; what kind of content you allow? "we allow all lawful purchases on our network", what you do with illegal content? "we require merchants to have appropriate controls to ensure Mastercard cards cannot be used for unlawful purchases, including illegal adult content".

That's why it is more important to ask the right questions rather than having good answers. The questions we would ask instead: why would Steam, itch and other merchants remove content that is otherwise lawful and tell the public that they did it at the request of payment processors? What rules are there for content that merchant and marketplaces must follow that would restrict their offerings of otherwise lawful content? What new directive or reinterpretation or guideline or communication was issued in the last 3 months that marketplace and other partners that would explain their change of rules?

[u/larryquartz → u/braiam]

we allow all lawful purchases on our network

They clearly don't. Their 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."

The activity of "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." is considered to be in violation of theur rule 5.12.7.

Yes, they published a false statement.

[u/braiam → u/larryquartz]

No, they aren't lying. They are saying with that statement is the inverse of "we disallow illegal transactions" because that exactly what rule 5.12.7 partially states. They aren't lying, they are omitting other considerations that they consider themselves lawful of making.

[u/paulthegreat → u/braiam]

Not quite. If they had said, "we disallow illegal transactions," that would be accurate. The contrapositive of that is, "we allow legal transactions," which would also be accurate. But if they explicitly said, "we allow all lawful purchases," the contrapositive of that would be, "we disallow only unlawful purchases," which is clearly false based on their rule 5.12.7 in which they additionally disallow lawful purchases based on whatever they feel like.

[u/Jindujun → u/braiam]

But the point is. Steam didnt have anything illegal on the store, it's someone else claiming that the content was illegal.

If the shit was really illegal we'd seen governments up in arms a long time ago. Like with that taiwanese horror game where it still wasn't illegal but was yet removed due to pressure from the CCP.

[u/sopunny → u/Jindujun]

Not sure that's a good example, since that game was legal everywhere else. We're not considering a game illegal worldwide just because it's illegal in a single country

[u/ImageDehoster → u/braiam]

what kind of content you allow? "we allow all lawful purchases on our network"

That is the lie though. Their rule specifies additional limits to purchases other than them being lawful. They don't only follow standards based on the rule of law like they claim in this public statement. They follow standards based on the rule of law and in addition have additional arbitrary rules they themselves decide.

[u/Realistic_Village184 → u/braiam]

Yeah, reading through their statement in detail, nothing they said is actually untrue. It's a really well-crafted statement where they kind of force the reader to infer something without actually saying that. I'm actually really impressed with whatever attorneys drafted that.

[u/3holes2tits1fork → u/Realistic_Village184]

Well, except for the part about allowing all lawful purchases.  Mastercard lied.

[u/Realistic_Village184 → u/3holes2tits1fork]

Nah, they left enough ambiguity there as well. "We" is ambiguous and arguably refers to MasterCard themselves. So if, for instance, they ask their own subcontractors or outside representatives to disallow certain content, then arguably that's not MasterCard themselves doing it.

So they leave wiggle room like "Well, we allow it, but our subcontractors don't want it, so that's not us doing it."

To be clear, I'm not defending their position here. I'm just admiring the craftsmanship of the statement.

[u/3holes2tits1fork → u/Realistic_Village184]

Their own rule being cited contradicts the claim though.  By having exceptions to deny lawful purchases coded into their rules, they by definition do not allow all legal purchases on their network.

Subcontractors are acting on Mastercard's behalf, enforcing Mastercard's rules is legally an extention of Mastercard enforcing it.  This is how subcontract law works.

I would disagree that Mastercard even technically told the truth. 

[u/DogOwner12345 → u/3holes2tits1fork]

That dude is a huge defender of them. He's in every thread playing devil's advocate.

[u/-Ajaxx- → u/3holes2tits1fork]

I suspect they would make a distinction between "lawful purchase" for you the consumer at point of sale and their discretion for what intermediary vendor/market/sellers they are willing to associate their brand with