this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2025
564 points (98.6% liked)
Games
20489 readers
306 users here now
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.
Other communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
On the one hand, oh noz, the incest games. Who will live without the low effort AI goon crap?
On the other hand, why do the payment companies get to dictate what sales are made? It's my fucking money, or my fucking store. It's not the job of the payment processors to determine if I'm buying illegal goods, just that the money goes from me to the store.
I mean isn’t this effectively the problem bitcoin aimed to solve originally? Don’t get me wrong, crypto is fucked and I’m not advocating for it here per se. But a locally processed, secure, digital version of cash bypasses the need for any of this. Granted it bypasses the need for some of the most powerful institutions on the planet too, and so will never happen in a truly egalitarian sense.
Also just cause it’s bugging me, you understand that a credit card, or even a debit card or PayPal/venmo account, does not equate to ‘your money’ the way physical cash does, right?
Im not saying you shouldn’t have the right to privacy when making a purchase. But mandating the processors of that purchase ignore what that money is doing is a fools errand as that’s basically a core mechanism in their operation and generation of profit.
I'm in a similar boat. I actively dislike incest/fauxcest porn and porn games. I don't find it "naughty taboo" but gross and often fetishizing straight-up abuse. I'm not sad to see such games and videos, that I can never quite filter out because they are never consistently tagged, go. I am worried that they will try pulling the same shit as Tumblr and OF.
It's been like this for a while in the porn industry. In an interview a while back, Bree Mills says she gets more limited by payment processors than the government (though that might be switching).
Ever wonder why every faux-incest video goes out of the way to say everyone is a step family? Step father, step daughter, step mother, step brother, all somehow living in the same house, over 18, and no blood relation? The first amendment protects them from the US government, so that's not why. Credit card companies are why. The old Taboo series was distributed differently back in the day. Can't make that anymore.
This also applies to some of the more extreme BDSM stuff, like blood play or scat. Won't find them on kink.com.
Yeah, processors and web hosts both play a huge role in policing content. The beasiality and lolicon websites haven't been disappearing for the last 15 years because moral awakening. It's been the web hosts shutting down websites because they violate some local law and it interfered with there profits.
The payments can become a legal liability for the processors. I believe there are federal laws that have penalties for anyone who facilitates transactions for certain prohibited goods or services. It's the same reason cannabis shops have such a hard time getting payment and banking services.
The payment processors have very little incentive to take risks here. As others have noted, there isn't much competition pressure.
EDIT: I went to find a source, and found the cannabis analogy isn't right. Seems that Visa and MasterCard really are the primary censors of the porn industry. This archived FT article went in depth. https://archive.ph/zXKuD
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.
Not really. In the US, the first amendment protects a lot. Just like with YouTube censorship, capitalism has created a more restrictive regime through financial pressure than the government does. This has affected the porn industry, as well (see another comment in this subthread on that).
They are just testing their power, make you get used to it. Someday they will make pressure for some ideology. Whenever there's a morality argument in place prepare to get fucked.
As a form of protest, we should all start scooping up incest porn games.
Found Jamie Lannister's account.