Payment Processor Monopoly as Insult to the Sovereignty of the People; Responding to the Strongarming of Video Game marketplaces
Introduction
This essay is a response to the degenerate and subversive position occupied by private sector “payment processors”1 generally.
The root of this particular saga pertains to the delisting of a number pornographic video games by online video game marketplace Steam, in response to pressure by payment processors2, who themselves are acting in response to an open letter by nonprofit Collective Shout. A list of the banned games can be found on SteamDB, although it’s gated behind a login and not easily searchable.
The catalyst for my writing this is an announcement by video game marketplace itch.io.
Things that don’t matter
The games are vile
Before we can tackle the matter of oppression, we must first tackle the oppressor’s eternal trap head on: at any point in time, those visibly chosen to be victims will always be those least palatable to defend. We can be frank: looking at the list of things that got banned, it looks like a bunch of shovelware. None of it looks like it has any artistic merit, nor do I think anyone is better off interacting with the stuff.
Focusing on this, though, inverts and subverts the fundamental principle of justice and rule of law: one’s freedom and sovereignty extend all the way up to where another’s begins. It is the limitation of one’s freedom which must justify itself. To fixate on whether this stuff is worth defending presupposes the aggressor’s right to attack it, and confuses the issue upon whom the authority rests to legitimately decide what is permissible.
If I were in charge of Steam I wouldn’t have allowed this slop onto my marketplace, just as if I were Jeff Bezos I wouldn’t have accepted the fourth-rate junk one can find on Amazon Marketplace. This is utterly irrelevant to the matter at hand. It should also be said not allowing something in the first place differs from pulling something like refusing to award a building permit differs from taking a wrecking ball to someone’s house.
I don’t agree with Open Shout
Open Shout’s mandate seems to be the usual “violent porn causes people to rape” — yes, the usual “violent videogames” bit. Their open letter doesn’t even actually go as far as saying this, but you can find it in their other writings on the matter. Is there even anything to say? The “violent videogames” bit is decades old. My personal stance is that I suspect that if all rape games were banned tomorrow, no scientist would be able to distinguish the effect on sexual abuse rates from zero. They’re entitled to their views and this is in no way a polemic against Open Shout — this essay doesn’t concern itself with whether these games should be banned; it is about who should be the judge on that — spoiler: I don’t think it’s MasterCard.