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.
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.
🙄 On what grounds would doing so operationally impair the platform? Is it illegal? Does it prevent them from servicing other businesses in a timely fashion? Does it cost more money in a way that can’t be reflected in the service fee structure?
Explain to me what reason they would have for objecting that isn’t just a different way of phrasing “morality judgment” or “image management”.
Do you also think that a shipping company should be able to refuse to ship products from businesses they don’t approve of, even if it’s functionally identical to something else they would ship?
What about either of those companies refusing service to someone because of their sexual orientation or gender identity?
People used to say it’s bad business to service gays, blacks, Jews, Catholics, Hispanics and the Irish. At some point we decided that businesses need to shut the fuck up and just do business without judging, or else their service has no place in society.
The free market that businesses love so much exists entirely through the grace and in the service of society at large. If they fail to at least not harm society, why should society extend that courtesy to them?
shipping company should be able to refuse to ship products from businesses they don’t approve of
Sure, I don’t have a problem with that. I would use another shipping company.
What about either of those companies refusing service to someone because of their sexual orientation or gender identity?
That is not remotely the same thing and a gross false equivalence.
We’re talking about platforming incest hentai games and you’re making a comparison to serving Black and queer people. I don’t think we’re going to see eye to eye on this, have a good one.
If you seriously don’t understand how often queer content is falsely linked to sexual depravity in order to censor it, please take a closer look at the rhetoric of the far-right in the United States and U.K. It is absolutely not a false equivalence, it is a very serious threat that other queer game developers are now very concerned about.
No, it’s similar because it’s a business making a value judgement instead of a business judgement. It would be different if your exact argument hadn’t been used against those groups in the past.
I doubt we’ll see eye to eye as well. I’m not okay with discrimination and I don’t think the beliefs of corporations matter, even when they’re being judgey about sex stuff I don’t understand.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
No humor/memes etc…
No affiliate links
No advertising.
No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
No self promotion.
No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
No politics.
Comments.
No personal attacks.
Obey instance rules.
No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc…)
Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
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.
Good thing I’m not arguing that.
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.
financial institutions are just like any other company, the only issue the feds try to protect them
What if these payment processors have decided it’s bad business for them to process payments for incest porn games?
🙄 On what grounds would doing so operationally impair the platform? Is it illegal? Does it prevent them from servicing other businesses in a timely fashion? Does it cost more money in a way that can’t be reflected in the service fee structure?
Explain to me what reason they would have for objecting that isn’t just a different way of phrasing “morality judgment” or “image management”.
Do you also think that a shipping company should be able to refuse to ship products from businesses they don’t approve of, even if it’s functionally identical to something else they would ship?
What about either of those companies refusing service to someone because of their sexual orientation or gender identity?
People used to say it’s bad business to service gays, blacks, Jews, Catholics, Hispanics and the Irish. At some point we decided that businesses need to shut the fuck up and just do business without judging, or else their service has no place in society.
The free market that businesses love so much exists entirely through the grace and in the service of society at large. If they fail to at least not harm society, why should society extend that courtesy to them?
Sure, I don’t have a problem with that. I would use another shipping company.
That is not remotely the same thing and a gross false equivalence.
We’re talking about platforming incest hentai games and you’re making a comparison to serving Black and queer people. I don’t think we’re going to see eye to eye on this, have a good one.
If you seriously don’t understand how often queer content is falsely linked to sexual depravity in order to censor it, please take a closer look at the rhetoric of the far-right in the United States and U.K. It is absolutely not a false equivalence, it is a very serious threat that other queer game developers are now very concerned about.
No, it’s similar because it’s a business making a value judgement instead of a business judgement. It would be different if your exact argument hadn’t been used against those groups in the past.
I doubt we’ll see eye to eye as well. I’m not okay with discrimination and I don’t think the beliefs of corporations matter, even when they’re being judgey about sex stuff I don’t understand.