First they came for the incestuous animal foot job simulators, and I did not speak out

>why should they be forced to process payments that facilitate things against their beliefs? You'll excuse me for thinking this means you think corporate beliefs are more important than the social benefits of neutral financial institutions. To answer your question again without assuming anything about your opinion: they should be forced to process payments because they don't have beliefs, it's better for society if financial institutions only look at the business relevant portions of a business, and a legal obligation is perfectly sufficient to protect their business interests in reputation management. All the same reasons we don't let shipping companies refuse customers for morality reasons.

And literally not a single one of them is useful for the purpose of quick, efficient, and secure transactions. Blockchains are slow and inefficient by design, since they need to build consensus. On any sufficiently popular blockchain, transactions are either fast or secure, never both. The "fix" that the crypto industry has come up with is to re-invent banks, except with even more crime and virtually no regulations. Now you're just entrusting FTX with your coins to enjoy "immediate" transfers, how could that possibly go wrong?

It's porn. We can focus on more important things billionaires are ruining.

The problem is that they are a cartel, so we get in a place where a group of private businesses can dictate who can make money. I think it's a great idea in theory that as a payment processor you can have influence on social changes. I think businesses should have clear ethics so that I can support those that match my own. If there were 50 processors to choose from that all had niches and different ethics, fine. But we have in reality one processor with finger puppets on asking us which puppet we like best.

Still waiting for NANO to become widespread

Here's what i think is likely. For one reason or another, they get excessive refund/chargeback requests regarding these types of titles and decided to act as they don't think it's profitable. I don't think they care what so ever what you buy, as long as it's profitable for them.

The central bank facilitating electronic cash flow makes so much more sense than letting random foreign corporations siphon billions in profit they clearly don't deserve in the slightest from your economy. Good on Brazil for breaking free. There's finally been some push here in the EU for EPI/Wero, but progress has been frigid and online payment processing remains extremely fragmented to the point that if I buy something online outside the Benelux with a small vendor, chances are very high I will have to fall back to an American payment processor, which is insane.


It's not about porn, It's about corporations dictating what type of content can be sold. You may not care about porn but what if they were to start going after LGBT stuff or something like that?

Payment processors and financial institutions sure do seem to hold disproportionate amounts of power.

As a form of protest, we should all start scooping up incest porn games.

This is why I've been buying games on GOG that I have on Steam. Backups in case Gabe or a successor goes off the deep end

Naw. That's a rights issue, however they are available on GOG.

Or maybe using the payment processor's TOS allows them to remove pervy Ai horseshit without having to mod their own TOS. Slam dunk, frankly:

financial institutions are just like any other company, the only issue the feds try to protect them

Or maybe using the payment processor's TOS allows them to remove pervy Ai horseshit without having to mod their own TOS. Slam dunk, frankly.

how does that sound like a good idea?

What if these payment processors have decided it's bad business for them to process payments for incest porn games?

why shouldn't people be allowed to make artistic choices when drawing pornography?