Funny. Because you literally did say, in this thread, its "right" because its the law.
Someone says its not right that you can stone a gay to death in the ME, and the law needs challenging, and you say "no it IS right because its the law, doesnt matter what you THINK is right, its 100% to do with what is legal"
laws change, bub. Payment processors should not be involved in legal transactions. Period
They are a SERVICE, they also benefit from the lack of accountability, if I pay for ** using their SERVICE, they arent held accountable. And yet they want their cake and eat it too because they also want to be able to dictate what I can and cannot pay for by using their service as a weapon. They dont want accountability for the consequences of being hands on, but they want the benefits of being hands on. Cant have it both ways
The insidious thing of this duopoly is "if you use an alternative payment partner, we will pull our service" This blatantly violates EU anti trust trading laws. You cannot, for example, cut someones power because they used a competitor, thats how you get monopolies.
But let me guess, you will either ignore this entirely, cherry pick responses and ignore arguments you cant fight, or just deflect with a bad faith take because all you can do is suck the cock of the corporations.
You cannot even understand the simple concept of the canary that just died in the coal mine and why we all think this is bad.
Please point to me saying what you claim. Because you quoted me out of context. Go back and read. it has nothing to do with what you thought it did.
If everything I said is factually correct, it does make me right.
I did NOT say what is being done is right. I never said that. I said what is being done is legal.
Know the difference.
So your first paragraph's example is void because it was set up on a false premise. If it was legal to stone someone to death - I would not say it is right. I would say it was legal - no matter my personal view. Know the difference.
They do NOT lack accountability - interstate commerce is one of, if not the most highly regulated industry in the world, outside of maybe weapons manufacturing. They are accountable to laws - state, national, international - on all scopes of commerce. They are also accountable to their stockholders.
Speaking of accountability - several governments are in the process of holding visa, master card, etc accountable for possible antitrust violations. However, unless I missed something, those tactics are not being used with Steam, Itch, etc - not affecting the topic of this thread. If I missed it, I again, would say that appears illegal and they should be held accountable (and it appears governments are moving forward).
This is not a canary in the coal mine --- what this is a perfect example of is "the sky is falling."
Steam fucked up and should have had these rules in their TOS from day one. They are at fault with that.
Itch has had the rules on their site for at least a decade. It's their fault they didn't enforce their rules.
While all these actions are coming all at the same time, remember that Gumroad, Patreon, Pixiv, etc have all had to do the same enforcement months and many years ago. The payment processors and the platforms haven't changed what is being removed --- just that they are actually being removed. Games that shouldn't have been on their sites in the first place, based upon their own TOS and agreement with payment processors.
And again, developers who have been flying under the radar this whole time is at fault for trying to pull a fast one. developers who didn't read the rules to begin with is at fault for not making sure they knew they were in compliance from the start. This is not a new conversation - it's one that has been had for years on this site and many others about "how to get away with it" instead of "how to change it."