Australian anti-porn group claims responsibility for Steams new censorship rules
154 comments
·July 21, 2025perihelions
bitwize
[flagged]
reactordev
One would argue, are there any "news" organizations left? Or are they all operating from a content farm operated by financebros position? Can you name me one news organization that isn't owned by a parent company that has vested interests in specific stories and outcomes?
i_am_proteus
Christian Science Monitor (nonprofit run, the religion really is siloed to the "Christian Science Perspective" section and the reporting is good and as independent as it comes)
ascorbic
The Guardian is owned by an independent trust: https://www.theguardian.com/about
larodi
Wondering the same for a while. And does paying for news provide any guarantees…?
bitwize
Al Jazeera?
miltonlost
ProPublica generally.
mvdtnz
There are lots of news organisations not owned by parent companies with vested interests. RNZ in New Zealand, ABC in Australia, CBC in Canada and BBC in UK to name just a handful.
mastercheph
*or state owned media organizations.
speeder
An interesting article I saw today in Portuguese language, is speculating that the real reason USA is threatening to tariff Brazil in 50% is because the invention of "Pix Parcelado" that is supposed to go online soon, will reduce the popularity of Mastercard and Visa, and thus remove an important tool of censorship from US government hands.
Lula also himself accused the USA of putting tariffs because of credit card companies.
miyuru
Ironically, incidents like these further underscore the necessity of independence from Mastercard and Visa, as it seems anyone can influence these companies to serve their own interests.
coliveira
It's not speculation, Mr. Trump started an investigation against Brazil and one of the items is the Pix system which he considers it's going against US interests.
woodpanel
given how the Brazilian state itself is notorious for censorship and turning into a judge-aucracy i guess not really about censorship bit rather who censors?
some_random
This is usually how it seems to go, the nations that are first and most interested in home-shoring (nationalizing? I don't recall what the right term here is) are those most interested in performing their own censorship activities.
YurgenJurgensen
Really, it kind-of is. Governments are supposed to answer to their electorate, while corporations answer to their shareholders. While I’d prefer no censorship, one of these is less likely to turn into a tyrant than the other.
NewsaHackO
Is there anything that can be done with the weaponization of the payment system? Cryptocurrency as obviously failed, but is there really no possible recourse when every traditional payment method seemingly colludes to not take the business for whatever reason?
some_random
I tend to be extremely critical of government regulation, but I think it really could be a tool here. It's important to preserve the ability of payment processors to block fraudulent purchases and they are legally required to block illegal purchases, but surely there is some way to write "you can't block purchases based on perceived reputational risks" into law, right?
terminalshort
It would be very easy to write a law that banned payment processors from refusing service without showing financial justification (e.g. high chargeback rate). But why would the government do that? They like to have power to lean on companies to hurt people where they can't do it directly due to the constitution.
some_random
In principle they absolutely could, but are they though? I don't know of any examples of this actually happening.
gs17
> e.g. high chargeback rate
Even this is sort of bullshit. Chargeback fees are paid by merchants and there are already high-risk merchant accounts with higher fees and cash reserve requirements as a solution.
jazzyjackson
I think a 'purchase' ie a bank transfer like Zelle or even a paypal non-refundable 'gift' isn't likely to be blocked, it's just Visa and Mastercard that don't want to deal with offering fraud protection for vendors that see an extremely high number of chargebacks. So if you want to pay, pay by some method that doesn't offer money back in case of fraud.
I've also been prevented from sending money by e-check because my bank was concerned the form of payment was too suspicious, so I ETF'd money from another account instead. I don't think the law can force a 3rd party to facilitate a purchase.
ijk
In the USA, some things that come to mind:
* Legal changes. Web platforms have section 230 protection to host user content. For payment processing this might be something like the proposed Credit Card Competition Act (CCCA) that requires banks to offer additional (non-Visa/Mastercard) payment providers. Or a more explicit payment neutrality law the requires credit card companies to be more even-handed in non-financial issues. Or anti-debanking laws that ensure everyone has some minimal access to sending and receiving payments.
* Lawsuit results. Part of the issue with Visa was that they got dragged into lawsuits against sites that were using them to process payments; the lawsuits and appeals around that are still unresolved but if Visa's lack of legal liability goes away then it will be harder for random outside groups to harass them, for good or ill.
* Introducing an independent payment processor. While JCB in Japan has had some similar pressure applied to them, when there were national sovereignty concerns over Visa being able to dictate that American laws and norms should apply to their country Japan had many other payment processors to fall back on. Similarly, PIX in Brazil makes it much harder for non-government private actors to dictate what people can and cannot buy.
miyuru
> Cryptocurrency as obviously failed
I don't think cryptocurrency has failed. Yesterday I successfully payed with crypto when the payment with multiple credit cards failed.
NewsaHackO
The problem more so is capturing customers on the other end. Every time a site that relies on online payment tries to switch to crypto they say that the majority of potential customers are not willing to use it.
Lerc
I think it's worse than that. I think they face a backlash for even deigning to support it. Usually the backlash comes from the same people who use the lack of utility of crypto as part of their argument to justify their behaviour.
It's like salting the earth of your garden because nothing will grow in it.
qingcharles
The biggest issue, for me, is that it is really annoying and hard work to use. The easiest way to use it is through something like MetaMask, but imagine trying to get grandma to buy something that way. It's tiring, and she'll probably get her wallet drained at some point.
johnisgood
You can blame the Government for that.
zeld4
Cryptocurrency is on the way being managed by govt. So it's correct to say cryptocurrency did not fail, but certainly the original libertarian vision behind it is dead.
Lerc
The libertarian vision was not behind it. It was projected onto it by adopters who thought it was something that it never could be.
Any currency that has any political ideology would require some form coercion to be used by those who do not share that ideology. Fiat currencies carry that coercion implicitly, people who don't like the government generally still use their money because they have little choice.
The underlying principle of Bitcoin was consensus. Agreeing to operate on whatever principles the majority of miners are using. Forks are an integral part of that, people choosing a different path and those who agree with them going that way. The perceived value coming from those who accept whichever fork they chose and what they think it should be worth.
The only real "Stick it to the man" kind of philosophy that came with it was as a rejection of unilateral monetary control. That is the antithesis of consensus.
In an ideal crypto world governments would be the majority of the miners. They would negotiate amongst each other to decide on monetary policy by consensus. That's a long way from happening, with no clear path towards that end in sight.
In a sense that too, is an ideology, the distinction is that the ideology doesn't want to do the thing that it can't. It presents an option, instead of forcing people to use it.
Cantinflas
Is the govt going to manage your private keys any time soon? How would that work?
rs186
Need some hard evidence of "cryptocurrency failed". Two counterexamples that I can think of, as someone who doesn't even pay close attention to it:
* PornHub has been only taking cryptocurrency for payment for a while, and they seem to be doing ok
* The US just passed GENIUS Act with somewhat bipartisan support -- probably not even imaginable one year ago
WhyNotHugo
Removing the middlemen is the most obvious solution, but they’re also amongst the most powerful players in the world, so it’s going to be challenging (to put it mildly).
masklinn
In some places it’s already more than viable. In Europe it’s baked into the banking system, SCT (SEPA Credit Transfer) lets you move money between any two European accounts with only as much hassle as your bank wants in your way. And EPC QR lets you initiate transfers from QR codes.
The biggest annoyance with it is that uptake is quite variable from country to country.
WhyNotHugo
In the Netherlands we have bank cards and IDeal for offline and online payments respectively. Those answer to local legislation, and do direct bank-to-bank transfers.
But if I want to buy online from Germany or some other EU country, I need to use American payment method. Also if I want to buy from China, I need to use an American payment method.
gs17
Part of the problem is that you have to make a clean break from these middlemen. Steam can't say "for these games, we only take this form of payment", it's either only sell games Visa and MasterCard say you can, or no one can pay with their credit cards.
tonyhart7
-removing middleman
-also introduce new middleman
I don't think that works honestly, its just move a new money into new player everyone want to take a cut
xandrius
In what way failed? Because it's like saying P2P failed because the big corps don't like it and try their best to stop it, while still existing for quite a while.
lrvick
You can say cryptocurrency is failed, but adult entertainers heavily rely on it because they have been censored by payment processors basically forever.
Censorship has a way of pushing people to learn inconvenient technology, just like how most Chinese citizens know how to use VPNs.
null
whatshisface
One of the reasons that credit card companies have an incentive to keep this stuff off people's statements is that they sell your credit card histories on the data market, and would not want you to have a strong reason to want to stop them.
some_random
That's an interesting effect but I really don't think that's a significant driver here. It really seems to me like they're just being threatened by activists, journalists, and activist investors.
chimeracoder
> That's an interesting effect but I really don't think that's a significant driver here. It really seems to me like they're just being threatened by activists, journalists, and activist investors.
Right-wing groups like Exodus Cry and Morality in Media (the groups behind the shutdown of Xtube, and the all-but-shutdown of Pornhub[0], as well as the short-lived ban of pornography on OnlyFans) are definitely the driving force behind these bans, but fundamentally the card networks are ambivalent at best when it comes to anything that could be remotely considered pornographic.
[0] Pornhub still operates, but they removed all "non-verified" content, so it mostly serves as an marketing outlet for studios and OnlyFans creators, and all of the older content that was never verified was removed entirely.
some_random
Visa/Mastercard are, like you said, ambivalent at best when it comes to pornography in general but there's more nuance to it. Content widely accepted to be immoral and/or illegal such as non-consensual pornography (that is explicit content posted without the consent of those filmed) and child sexual abuse material is forbidden. This is what the pornhub thing was about, allegedly, and why verified content is still allowed. Furthermore, material considered a brand risk is also not allowed but payment processors a step down are the ones who make the guidelines on what that means in practice. Depending on the processor this can include "extreme pornography" that is not in any way illegal and is only distasteful to most. A good example is that many payment processors do not porn featuring blood which is a big problem for women who menstruate.
arprocter
I just checked and my statement says 'Steam', not what specific game was purchased
dlivingston
@grok is this true?
just kidding. this is the first i've heard of that, though.
i don't think it totally makes sense. your card transaction will still say "STEAMGAMES.COM 7264823" or similar, regardless of the content purchased. on top of that, all sorts of shady porn & dating websites that you would NOT want leaked use the credit card companies.
lrvick
Data enrichment brokers cross index purchase times with other data from legal factory installed spyware found in cash registers, analytics tools in proprietary software you already have on your computer, etc etc.
Every time you buy an over the counter medication at the pharmacy with a credit card, the data brokers know by combining information sources, and sell it to insurance companies.
gs17
But it still doesn't apply here. At most they could cross-reference it with a public Steam profile that has the game listed as owned after the purchase (actually, I doubt they would have the account ID to prove it for sure, but with enough purchases they could likely figure it out), but by then you've already sort of revealed to the world you bought whatever embarrassing title yourself.
dlivingston
is there somewhere i can read more about this? this is very troubling information depending on the depth and scale of implementation.
chaosbolt
And this is really bad, like I forgot the number of times I give in to get that pack of candy near the register at a shop then after a couple days exactly as the pack is empty I get shown a commercial of the same brand of the same pack/size etc.
thaumasiotes
Where are you? In the United States, there are displays of candy at every cash register, but they're individual servings that you're expected to eat in full immediately after leaving the store. A big bag with several days' worth of candy would have to come from the candy aisle.
And... are you really being served internet ads for candy?
mvdtnz
Nonsense. The title of the game you purchased on Steam does not end up on your statement.
baobabKoodaa
[flagged]
fkyoureadthedoc
They certainly say they don't sell any PII data, but definitely do, at a minimum, sell de-identified aggregate transaction data. I wouldn't be surprised if there's some data broker that can buy and deanonymize data from them.
freedomben
Hey that's a pretty interesting thought actually. I hadn't considered that, but "follow the incentives and assume rationality" is generally (in my experience) the best way to try and understand why people do what they do. This theory definitely makes a lot of sense from that lens.
j-bos
How does these types of Australian anti-vice groups have so much global sway, and yet Australia leads the world in gambling addiction and accessibility? Presumably they'd be interested in both vices, but seem to only wield power over one. *edited for clarity of question
jimbob45
They don't. Valve got their profit from the incest/ageplay/noncon crowd and now they want to revert to their family-friendly image with that money drying up. This is just a convenient excuse to do so.
tmaly
It seems like we need two things. First, some type of universal standard to id the country of legal residence of a user. Second, some type of way to know what laws a company needs to comply with to operate in a jurisdiction.
There are too many laws across different jurisdictions that makes it really challenging for companies to offer goods and services.
welshwelsh
We need exactly the opposite: it should be impossible to determine the location of an Internet user. The fact that a user's IP address generally reveals their country is a massive flaw in the design of the Internet.
The only way to circumvent jurisdiction-specific laws is to make them impossible to enforce.
nemomarx
I'm not sure if this solves it exactly? If MasterCard says they'll cut you off unless you adopt their requirements it doesn't really help to say you'll apply that policy in X country and keep selling the stuff in another country, they could still cut you off unless you do it globally.
Sharlin
The entire point is that this has nothing about complying with laws. It’s an entirely arbitrary, extrajudicial power.
gs17
How would that apply to this? It's not about a law. They aren't even demanding better age verification, they want to be able to force arbitrary things to be removed entirely (starting with more objectionable topics, but I'm sure it will expand).
Spivak
Are you sure you want an internet where it's not possible to go escape legal censorship? Because that's what you're proposing with an id standard.
freedomben
> This is likely far from over: Collective Shout is no doubt feeling emboldened by a second public success in its efforts to police content on Steam specifically. The games I saw removed from Steam in this wave all featured risible content and suspect quality, but Collective Shout has a broader anti-pornography, even anti-expression remit that it has demonstrated in the past.
Yes indeed, a huge success like this will give them a big boost in motivation and funding for many, many years to come. IMHO we need to regulate away the credit card processing companies ability to discriminate like this, and while we're at it we should stop letting them heavily tax the entire economy
Insanity
Man, having “GTA 5” and “No Mercy” as targets in the same conversation is strange. GTA5 is IMO really mild for a game, while I do think No Mercy probably crossed the line.
But I haven’t played a GTA game in a decade so maybe I’m misremembering..
lupusreal
GTA was a lot more controversial in the past than it is today. It used to be the subject of moderate to heavy moral panic, since it's a game about committing crimes; stealing cars and running over cops / hookers. Hearing people whine about GTA today feels like a blast from the past.
perihelions
There's actually a statue of Hillary Clinton in GTA IV (2008), in commemoration of her many battles against the series.
FirmwareBurner
[flagged]
Insanity
Totally fair point, the first one I played was GTA III in the early 2000s, and I definitely remember some of these conversations. Similar to how DOOM and Mortal Kombat had a lot of controversy, but like you, I had assumed that this was mostly in the past.
ted_bunny
[flagged]
veeti
Kids these days probably never heard of Jack Thompson's crusades.
iamtedd
"Today" being 10 years ago. Collective Shout's campaign was in 2015.
ta1243
GTA5 shows everything wrong with puritan morality. No problem with drugs, guns, shooting innocent people, etc, but have sex with a hooker and the camera pans away. At least under after when you then go and kill them and steal their money.
lupusreal
People like to give America shit for anti-porn activism and laws but it really seems like America is just trailing behind the rest of the anglosphere. This case for instance, of Australians imposing their prudish values on American companies that were content to tolerate these naughty games. And those porn ID laws that Texas/etc get flack for are just on the path already trail blazed by the UK.
autoexec
I remember having to download the Australian version of Fahrenheit because the US release (renamed as Indigo Prophecy) was censored. In my experience the US loves violence while the rest of the world is more likely to censor it, but the US hates sex, alcohol, and anything else that might possibly offend Christians (including religious references and iconography like how Final Fantasy was censored to rename the spell "Holy" and the Tower of Prayers). Germans censor anything nazi related in the same way, banning swastikas like the US removes crosses. Japan seems the least likely to censor artistic works, and when they do it's often for violence.
Mistletoe
Not surprising, that’s where they came from!
>The Puritans were a group of English Protestants who originated in England during the 16th and 17th centuries. They sought to purify the Church of England by removing Catholic practices and beliefs. Driven by their religious convictions and facing persecution, they eventually migrated to North America in the 17th century, establishing colonies in New England.
gjsman-1000
[flagged]
ted_bunny
It's also an ideologically motivated misframing. It ignores any arguments about the actual harms of this sort of media and pretends it's all about pearl-clutching.
js8
What are the harms of pornographic media? To me it seems pretty clear that they help reduce sexual violence (why risk jail if I can safely indulge in a fantasy), and I wouldn't be surprised that countries with pornographic bans are more misogynistic.
nemomarx
I don't think that's ignoring so much as most people do consider that pearl clutching censorship. You should at least cite some studies on the harms for discussion, but I've not been convinced by it in the past when I looked.
jakupovic
Without reading anything I feel empowered to say: "If you don't want to see something don't look at it"
kbelder
At least you're practicing what you preach.
null
Acrobatic_Road
If only we had some kind of purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash that would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution.
Diti
How do you get that electronic cash in the first place without going through a financial institution?
Possibly by trading with someone who already has electronic cash, I guess – but how do I know I’m not laundering the other person’s money, and/or financing terrorism or CSAM with my fiat money?
welshwelsh
Ideally your employer would support paying your salary using electronic cash. Or you can offer goods and services in exchange for electronic cash.
ranguna
If only there was a peer to peer electronic cash system that was instant and you didn't have to pay for fees for each transaction.
Jokes and cryptocurrencies aside. The digital euro is being built and will be deployed in the coming years, enabling offline digital money transfers. I'll have to see it to belive it.
doctorpangloss
it really depends if you sincerely believe that some no name "anti-porn" group or payment processors have anything to do with any of this whatsoever
NoMoreNicksLeft
>If only we had some kind of purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash that would allow online payments
Unfortunately, all such systems are quickly co-opted for the purpose of speculative price schemery. Bitcoin will soon reach a point of no-return, when the smallest fractional has an exchange rate so high that it will be impossible to purchase small goods at all (except in bulk), though in reality that point was reached many years ago. The entire concept of cryptocurrencies might actually be irrevocably poisoned, because even a new system would have to deal with the public perception baggage of the last decade's many Ponzi-type scams and various joke/meme coins. If only Satoshi had been a social genius instead of a technical genius.
> "This was first reported by Waypoint, which has since pulled its two articles on the subject without explanation. The articles' author, Ana Valens, has alleged that Vice's parent company, Savage Ventures, removed the articles due to concerns over their controversial content rather than any error in the reporting."
"Vice" shut down last year[0]; its brand was recently purchased and is now run by a hedge fund based in Nashville. I think this incident very clearly sums up the difference between what's news journalism, and what's a vapid content farm operated by financebros.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39476074 ("Vice website is shutting down (writing.exchange)"—459 comments)