What they’re saying is: “we haven’t called out any specific games, but we told steam if they can’t prove a game is “lawful” well cut them off”.
This effectively has a chilling effect because it means anything that could be illegal becomes toxic and risky for steam.
Its a way for Mastercard to dictate what can be sold without actually dictating what can be sold. Now the real issue is that at the end of the Mastercard is in a position where this matters and they can influence things. Should work just like cash and leave the government to decide what items are legal/illegal.
What they’re saying is: “we haven’t called out any specific games, but we told steam if they can’t prove a game is “lawful” well cut them off”.
That interpretation is inviable because Mastercard is claiming to allow “all” lawful purchases on its network. And, given a purchase is lawful unless proved contrariwise (as a consequence of innocence unless proved guilt), it would need evidence that a purchase is unlawful, in order to prevent it.
So it’s more than just dictating what can be sold without actually stating it - people there are lying.
Now the real issue is that at the end of the Mastercard is in a position where this matters and they can influence things. Should work just like cash and leave the government to decide what items are legal/illegal.
I don’t disagree with you on the first point. I put “unlawful” in quotes to imply that lawful/unlawful is ambiguous and gives Mastercard the cover they need to not really be lying in their statement, even if effectively they are.
I get that you weren’t disagreeing on the main point. And I think we agree that Mastercard is trying to have the cake and eat it too - it wants to be a censor without being acknowledged as such.
What they’re saying is: “we haven’t called out any specific games, but we told steam if they can’t prove a game is “lawful” well cut them off”.
This effectively has a chilling effect because it means anything that could be illegal becomes toxic and risky for steam.
Its a way for Mastercard to dictate what can be sold without actually dictating what can be sold. Now the real issue is that at the end of the Mastercard is in a position where this matters and they can influence things. Should work just like cash and leave the government to decide what items are legal/illegal.
That interpretation is inviable because Mastercard is claiming to allow “all” lawful purchases on its network. And, given a purchase is lawful unless proved contrariwise (as a consequence of innocence unless proved guilt), it would need evidence that a purchase is unlawful, in order to prevent it.
So it’s more than just dictating what can be sold without actually stating it - people there are lying.
Full agree.
I don’t disagree with you on the first point. I put “unlawful” in quotes to imply that lawful/unlawful is ambiguous and gives Mastercard the cover they need to not really be lying in their statement, even if effectively they are.
Its corporate doublespeak to a T.
I get that you weren’t disagreeing on the main point. And I think we agree that Mastercard is trying to have the cake and eat it too - it wants to be a censor without being acknowledged as such.