Because I'm not a right-libertarian who ignores how corporations setup coercive structures all their own in a perversion of free association.

They shouldn’t be allowed to do that. They should be required to process any legal payment. Even the icky ones.

It's not even legal risk. It's *brand* risk. There's a difference with cannabis shops because that's actually still federally illegal. As such, the required business accounts and tax documents required to use a national payment processor are often not forthcoming. It's a low level regulation that you can't generally tell a federal bank you'd like an account to store the proceeds of a federal crime. With porn, the legal standards and protections are pretty well established. As long as the company is in possession of the required tax documents and business accounts, there's no legal risk beyond the standard due diligence they need to do for every customer. Visa isn't generally liable if a tire shop is discovered to be breaking a non-financial law. What processors don't want is to have their brand attached to something that they worry could make them look bad.

Because they're a financial institution, not an individual. They don't have beliefs. Arguing that corporate "beliefs" (image management) and interests take priority over societal order is ridiculous. We regulate banks and financial institutions all the time. We regulate *businesses* all the time. They should suck it up and treat businesses with legal activities and proper tax documents as just another business. Kinda like how we have laws that say that public shipping companies need to generally treat all customers the same. It's why they don't typically ask what's in the box aside from questions related to operational characteristics. Porn doesn't spontaneously ignite and threaten an aircraft, but lithium batteries can.

Well then stuff your puritanical BS. Stop making your discomfort towards something that causes no harm into someone else’s problem.

> Imagine you can't use visa or mastercard. What other fucking payment card acceptance system are you going to use for payment processing in under 30 seconds? This is one of the few places where I think cryptocurrency could be useful. It ain't much, but there it is.

> Arguing that corporate "beliefs" (image management) and interests take priority over societal order is ridiculous. Good thing I'm not arguing that.

Incorrect! Bitcoin transactions take 10 FUCKING MINUTES.

How many fingering minutes is that?

i agree. However, they'll continue to get away with it because it aligns with republican psuedo-christian ideals of oppression.

In a world without regulation etc... maybe. Bottom line we've given payment processors power. Bottom line we need to buy things in the digital world, unless crypto can actually be stabilized or designed in a way that doesn't require an unsustainable massive energy waste and polution to use. There either needs to be a universal good as cash payment processor that anyone can easily use... or we need to force ones that exist to transfer payments without bias.

Bitcoin has [lightning](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_Network) or you could use a chain with faster blocks.

Well I think bottom line is that's the rub, the burden to become a payment provider is high... which it should be, but that's because we need pretty damn good regulations on them (as obviously if their security goes to crap, the consiquences are insanely high). In addition it kind of is a small group by design because, we can't have it as a large group. If we have a nice even spread across 50 payment processors, then either everyone needs 50 credit cards, or every service that needs to be paid needs contracts with 50 payment services.

There are countless other cryptocurrencies than Bitcoin

Yes, Valve and Visa/MasterCard differ massively in their service. Valve operates a store within a specific industry, Visa/MasterCard process payments across our whole society. It should be clear to anyone that payment providers must be held to a much stricter standard and have certain requirements of neutrality imposed on them. If not then in the best case you risk destroying the "free market" part of free market capitalism, worst case you're weakening democracy by letting unelected, unaccountable people decide what is and what isn't legal.

After looking at the game list, I fully support this and urge anyone who doesn't to look at the banned games.

Gamers on Lemmy think Steam is THEIR corporation and Gabe is THEIR billionaire. You get downvoted for criticizing steam for anything, or even pointing out that they’re a corporation run by a billionaire and they don’t actually care about you.

Eh, it *sounds* like a good idea that incest games are getting removed.

The costs are much worse than the time imo.

Well I find it a bit ironic to invoke the "free market" while simultaneously asserting they should be free to choose who they go to market with. Isn't the point of the "free market" that if Visa or Mastercard won't facilitate the needs of the market, someone else will?