Games: No sex, please. we're credit card companies(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
Games: No sex, please. we're credit card companies
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2025/07/once-a-relative-haven-for-adult-games-itch-io-begins-removing-explicit-titles/
57 comments
Itch.io: Update on NSFW Content - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44667667 - July 2025 (259 comments)
This isn't a dupe. It's important that this is getting reported in the news, because the last news outlet to report on this caved to pressure themselves and took the story down.
> the last news outlet to report on this caved to pressure themselves and took the story down
Can you share more details about this?
> This isn't a dupe. It's important that this is getting reported in the news
In addition to the earlier discussion about Itch.io, which had over 250 comments, the related story about JanitorAI had major exposure and discussion on HN just four days ago (> 300 upvotes & > 300 comments).
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44629134
Can you share more details about this?
> This isn't a dupe. It's important that this is getting reported in the news
In addition to the earlier discussion about Itch.io, which had over 250 comments, the related story about JanitorAI had major exposure and discussion on HN just four days ago (> 300 upvotes & > 300 comments).
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44629134
> Can you share more details about this?
https://www.notebookcheck.net/After-payment-processors-promp...
https://www.notebookcheck.net/After-payment-processors-promp...
Are you referring to this from Vice? https://archive.ph/x5cGQ
That link seen on https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/itchio-apologise-for-frustr...
That link seen on https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/itchio-apologise-for-frustr...
[deleted]
As mentioned in the article, this is primarily the result of a campaign from Collective Shout: https://www.collectiveshout.org/open-letter-to-payment-proce...
What isn't mentioned is there are some pushbacks against this. If you're opposed to credit card companies being able to effectively deem what is and isn't legal to purchase, consider supporting one of these efforts:
The ACLU has an open letter to Mastercard urging them to reverse this action, with the primary messaging that deplatforming sex workers makes their jobs more dangerous: https://action.aclu.org/petition/mastercard-sex-work-work-en...
There's also the Fair Access to Banking Act. The primary point of the bill is CC providers shouldn't be deciding legality of what can and cannot be paid for. This puts restrictions on any bank/payment provider with over 50b in assets to not be able to restrict payments to legal content: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/401
I'd definitely encourage you to either write to your representatives or sign the open letter if you're opposed to this.
What isn't mentioned is there are some pushbacks against this. If you're opposed to credit card companies being able to effectively deem what is and isn't legal to purchase, consider supporting one of these efforts:
The ACLU has an open letter to Mastercard urging them to reverse this action, with the primary messaging that deplatforming sex workers makes their jobs more dangerous: https://action.aclu.org/petition/mastercard-sex-work-work-en...
There's also the Fair Access to Banking Act. The primary point of the bill is CC providers shouldn't be deciding legality of what can and cannot be paid for. This puts restrictions on any bank/payment provider with over 50b in assets to not be able to restrict payments to legal content: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/401
I'd definitely encourage you to either write to your representatives or sign the open letter if you're opposed to this.
> sign the open letter
> By completing and submitting this form, I agree to receive emails, and, if I have entered a phone number, phone calls and texts (including automated recurring text messages) from the ACLU and its state affiliates at the contacts I provided.
Fuck no. I get enough of that "YOU MUST DONATE IMMEDIATELY OR THE WORLD WILL EXPLODE" shit 24/7 already.
> By completing and submitting this form, I agree to receive emails, and, if I have entered a phone number, phone calls and texts (including automated recurring text messages) from the ACLU and its state affiliates at the contacts I provided.
Fuck no. I get enough of that "YOU MUST DONATE IMMEDIATELY OR THE WORLD WILL EXPLODE" shit 24/7 already.
Agree with that, and fwiw I took the path of writing one of my senators. Here's what I wrote:
The Honorable Maria Cantwell
United States Senate
511 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Cantwell,
I am writing as your constituent to express my concern about recent actions by advocacy groups pressuring payment processors and card networks to restrict access to legal businesses based on content disagreements.
As a small business owner operating a social news platform, I am facing increasing challenges from organizations like Collective Shout, which are pressuring Visa, Mastercard, and payment providers to deplatform websites hosting legal adult content. While my platform contains less than 1% NSFW content, which I actively moderate to ensure compliance with all applicable laws, I now face the risk of losing payment processing services simply for hosting content that these groups find objectionable.
This creates an untenable situation for small businesses like mine. I diligently remove illegal content and maintain appropriate moderation standards, but being forced to moderate based on the subjective moral standards of third-party advocacy groups—particularly foreign organizations—undermines both business viability and democratic principles of free expression.
The financial infrastructure of our economy should not be weaponized to enforce the moral preferences of activist groups, especially when the targeted content is legal under U.S. law. Small businesses cannot afford to navigate an ever-changing landscape of subjective content standards imposed by unelected organizations operating outside our democratic processes.
I respectfully urge you to consider supporting S.401, the Fair Access to Banking Act, which would help protect small businesses from discriminatory practices by financial service providers. This legislation would ensure that legal businesses are not denied essential financial services based on political pressure campaigns or subjective content judgments.
Thank you for your time and consideration of this important issue affecting small businesses and free expression online.
The Honorable Maria Cantwell
United States Senate
511 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Cantwell,
I am writing as your constituent to express my concern about recent actions by advocacy groups pressuring payment processors and card networks to restrict access to legal businesses based on content disagreements.
As a small business owner operating a social news platform, I am facing increasing challenges from organizations like Collective Shout, which are pressuring Visa, Mastercard, and payment providers to deplatform websites hosting legal adult content. While my platform contains less than 1% NSFW content, which I actively moderate to ensure compliance with all applicable laws, I now face the risk of losing payment processing services simply for hosting content that these groups find objectionable.
This creates an untenable situation for small businesses like mine. I diligently remove illegal content and maintain appropriate moderation standards, but being forced to moderate based on the subjective moral standards of third-party advocacy groups—particularly foreign organizations—undermines both business viability and democratic principles of free expression.
The financial infrastructure of our economy should not be weaponized to enforce the moral preferences of activist groups, especially when the targeted content is legal under U.S. law. Small businesses cannot afford to navigate an ever-changing landscape of subjective content standards imposed by unelected organizations operating outside our democratic processes.
I respectfully urge you to consider supporting S.401, the Fair Access to Banking Act, which would help protect small businesses from discriminatory practices by financial service providers. This legislation would ensure that legal businesses are not denied essential financial services based on political pressure campaigns or subjective content judgments.
Thank you for your time and consideration of this important issue affecting small businesses and free expression online.
I'd like to think it's very easy to unsubscribe from the emails?
Seems like a pretty small price to pay to have your voice heard.
>violations that result in administrative action are permanent with no chance of appeal. Any funds on the account will not be eligible for payout.
This is just theft, no? I'm sure they've got a ToS that lets them do whatever they want, but it's nevertheless ironic to commit an actual immoral act in order to prevent depictions of immoral[1] acts. If they don't want people making money off of this stuff on their platform, they need to stop it before they allow the developer to sell their work to a customer there.
[1] Presumably this includes, eg., consensual BDSM, which I wouldn't consider immoral. But then, I'm not Australian, so what right do I have to determine what other people should be allowed to do?
This is just theft, no? I'm sure they've got a ToS that lets them do whatever they want, but it's nevertheless ironic to commit an actual immoral act in order to prevent depictions of immoral[1] acts. If they don't want people making money off of this stuff on their platform, they need to stop it before they allow the developer to sell their work to a customer there.
[1] Presumably this includes, eg., consensual BDSM, which I wouldn't consider immoral. But then, I'm not Australian, so what right do I have to determine what other people should be allowed to do?
> If they don't want people making money off of this stuff on their platform
They don't care if people make money off anything as long as they get a slice. This is strictly about cutting costs. As said elsewhere, adult content has much higher rates of "fraud" (both actual fraud, and what people lie saying is fraud when the Mrs. sees it on the statement) especially charge-backs. The companies don't want to deal with the charge-backs so they're pressuring platforms to remove the content from sale.
None of this is about morality, sex workers, sex work or any of the other THINK OF THE CHILDWEN nonsense. It's just cheap fuck corpos trying to weasel out of as many of the expenses of their businesses as they can fucking manage, because fuck knows VISA is really hurting for money these days.
This shit is exhausting.
They don't care if people make money off anything as long as they get a slice. This is strictly about cutting costs. As said elsewhere, adult content has much higher rates of "fraud" (both actual fraud, and what people lie saying is fraud when the Mrs. sees it on the statement) especially charge-backs. The companies don't want to deal with the charge-backs so they're pressuring platforms to remove the content from sale.
None of this is about morality, sex workers, sex work or any of the other THINK OF THE CHILDWEN nonsense. It's just cheap fuck corpos trying to weasel out of as many of the expenses of their businesses as they can fucking manage, because fuck knows VISA is really hurting for money these days.
This shit is exhausting.
I don't see prima facie how this reason holds up for Valve which also faced similar pressure. Valve has robust internal refund processes, that I suppose many people use instead of chargebacks because it is more convenient. Perhaps it also suffers from the same problem as adult content and service operators with respect to just its adult content, but I would need more proof of that.
It keeps getting side-tracked in get-rich-quick-schemes and sandbagged by UX horrors, but in theory this is a great use-case for crypto: the freedom to pay whoever you want for whatever you want, like cash, but online.
It isn't getting side-tracked, the schemes are the main point. If memory serves well, a recent study showed that roughly 85% of all shitcoins that shot up showed clear signs of manipulation. That said, I agree with you, private companies should have no business saying who I can transact with.
You're saying that a big number of shitcoins with a tiny market cap is somehow representative. Many coins, especially the big ones, have actual proper main points.
Maybe this is an example of getting side-tracked.
Maybe this is an example of getting side-tracked.
> During the Epic v. Apple lawsuit, Apple lawyers even cited itch.io as the kind of adult-friendly gaming platform that it wouldn't be comfortable allowing via its more family-friendly App Store.
Serious question: why is censorship of sexual content by Apple largely ignored, but it becomes a huge deal when other large companies do it?
Serious question: why is censorship of sexual content by Apple largely ignored, but it becomes a huge deal when other large companies do it?
The difference here is that itch.io and steam's hands were forced by their payment processors. This isn't like Apple deciding what Apple will and won't sell. This is Mastercard decided what Steam and Itch.io will and won't sell.
I think it's a fair question.
While I disagree with Apple's stance, I think there's a valid argument that Apple is running a platform that you can choose to utilize or engage with or not - similar to how Apple could refuse to serve or trespass someone from one of their physical stores, the platform is self contained and clearly owned by a single entity.
The fundamental difference with a payment processor is that they control financial transactions between entities that have no relation to Visa/MC. They facilitate money being moved quickly and efficiently between accounts for goods or services, and they have no business inserting themselves into the content of the transaction.
I think it's also worth pointing out that the main reason I think that it's inappropriate for payment processors to decide on what content can be paid for with their systems is that it's a closed ecosystem - you can't just set up your own payment processor (though some governments are attempting to do so already), so there's a real risk of a small number of companies controlling what can and can't be bought digitally - that includes not just content related to sex, but also potentially content that is violent, or political.
If we're going to have a very limited group of payment processors, then they need to be completely neutral - or we need to make it possible (or at least easier) for alternative payment processors to spin up operations and work within the global financial network. Considering the technical and regulatory difficulty of that second option I think the former is the better path.
While I disagree with Apple's stance, I think there's a valid argument that Apple is running a platform that you can choose to utilize or engage with or not - similar to how Apple could refuse to serve or trespass someone from one of their physical stores, the platform is self contained and clearly owned by a single entity.
The fundamental difference with a payment processor is that they control financial transactions between entities that have no relation to Visa/MC. They facilitate money being moved quickly and efficiently between accounts for goods or services, and they have no business inserting themselves into the content of the transaction.
I think it's also worth pointing out that the main reason I think that it's inappropriate for payment processors to decide on what content can be paid for with their systems is that it's a closed ecosystem - you can't just set up your own payment processor (though some governments are attempting to do so already), so there's a real risk of a small number of companies controlling what can and can't be bought digitally - that includes not just content related to sex, but also potentially content that is violent, or political.
If we're going to have a very limited group of payment processors, then they need to be completely neutral - or we need to make it possible (or at least easier) for alternative payment processors to spin up operations and work within the global financial network. Considering the technical and regulatory difficulty of that second option I think the former is the better path.
It's a lot more disruptive, and psychologically much more annoying, to lose something, than to never have it at all.
I do think it's a shame that Apple controls the App Store so tightly -- it's not just NSFW stuff that's banned, it's all kinds of stuff for all sorts of reasons, e.g.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/aug/30/apple-blo...
If the web were invented today, it'd be strangled in the crib, since Apple would never approve the browser app.
I do think it's a shame that Apple controls the App Store so tightly -- it's not just NSFW stuff that's banned, it's all kinds of stuff for all sorts of reasons, e.g.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/aug/30/apple-blo...
If the web were invented today, it'd be strangled in the crib, since Apple would never approve the browser app.
> why is censorship of sexual content by Apple largely ignored,
It shouldn't be ignored, and perhaps Apple should revise this position in light of all the attacks already on the Apple app store. Except that perhaps instead this is actually earning them some points among some of these attackers, who knows?
I would say the reason is Apple app store was irrelevant initially - from a market share point of view. And they had this policy from the start. Now Apple is very relevant in market share and should change that policy to reflect that.
It shouldn't be ignored, and perhaps Apple should revise this position in light of all the attacks already on the Apple app store. Except that perhaps instead this is actually earning them some points among some of these attackers, who knows?
I would say the reason is Apple app store was irrelevant initially - from a market share point of view. And they had this policy from the start. Now Apple is very relevant in market share and should change that policy to reflect that.
My best guess on this is that it's as simple as 1) most people are not Apple users (harder to reach critical mass online), 2) and most Apple users are aware of other ways to access things if that's what they want, while the ones who don't want that buy Apple in part because of the more walled garden aspects. This is purely speculative though, so it would be interesting to see surveys or other perspectives.
Not sure if this is part of their reasoning but I can think of a few scenarios that seem plausible to me at least:
- being blamed for facilitating, and/or having to monitor for, illegal content like reverge porn and CSAM
- reputation damage from being associated with content they (and others) morally object to
- history of increased risk of chargebacks and fraud from adult sites
- adult actors have explicitly petitioned sites and processors to ban unverified content uploads, and they would rather ban everything than play police
- being blamed for facilitating, and/or having to monitor for, illegal content like reverge porn and CSAM
- reputation damage from being associated with content they (and others) morally object to
- history of increased risk of chargebacks and fraud from adult sites
- adult actors have explicitly petitioned sites and processors to ban unverified content uploads, and they would rather ban everything than play police
Serious question - why do credit card companies care? What harm does it do to them if people buy adult oriented games?
There's an unwritten compact between American politicians and American payment providers.
The payment providers get to charge a 2% fee on all transactions, without any pesky questions about antitrust law.
In exchange, when politicians ask nicely, the payment provider cuts folks Wikileaks, out of the financial system without any pesky questions about the first amendment.
The payment providers get to charge a 2% fee on all transactions, without any pesky questions about antitrust law.
In exchange, when politicians ask nicely, the payment provider cuts folks Wikileaks, out of the financial system without any pesky questions about the first amendment.
[deleted]
I think the root of the problem is that it's just extremely unpleasant to moderate user-generated adult content. It's already difficult to moderate content on a somewhat serious online forum like Hacker News. Facebook moderators have been in the news and on South Park due to the emotional drain of the task. Who's going to sign up to pore over everyone else's weirdest thoughts given form? Certainly not me.
So this results in websites that allow people to upload pornography having lapses of moderation where something bad gets through every now and then. One day some creepy clip goes viral among some social conservatives and they try to make legal threats against the site and anyone they consider "affiliated". This creates problems, credit card companies are very protective of their reputations, and they usually decide the conservatives seem less bad.
Then someone sets up a new site that allows user-generated adult content and the cycle repeats.
So this results in websites that allow people to upload pornography having lapses of moderation where something bad gets through every now and then. One day some creepy clip goes viral among some social conservatives and they try to make legal threats against the site and anyone they consider "affiliated". This creates problems, credit card companies are very protective of their reputations, and they usually decide the conservatives seem less bad.
Then someone sets up a new site that allows user-generated adult content and the cycle repeats.
I suspect they really couldn't give a shit either way but porn is not a remotely significant proportion of their profit and it's just easier to cave to the "think of the children" busy bodies. They'd like to keep their sweet gig out of the news as much as possible and standing up to that noise attracts attention for little gain.
benkel(1)
The same reason they make it difficult to use credit cards for gambling.
Merchants that sell porn, gambling, and other vice have higher rates of fraud. If they allow them to accept credit cards at all, they charge them much higher merchant’s fees to do so.
Merchants that sell porn, gambling, and other vice have higher rates of fraud. If they allow them to accept credit cards at all, they charge them much higher merchant’s fees to do so.
Ah, gotcha. That rationale does make some sense then.
Well, until you realize that the merchants affected in this specific incidence, itch.io and steam, have had 12 and 21 years respectively of operation without causing issue for online payment systems, indicating that this is a BS excuse.
If the payment systems find that 90% of the fraud/chargebacks through these platforms is from 0.1% of the games, of course they would push for those 0.1% to be banned.
Why should that be the case?
Do the credit card companies go to Wal-Mart, find all the fraud is people buying cigarettes, spirits and razor blades, and tell Wal-Mart to stop stocking those?
Of course they don't.
Do the credit card companies go to Wal-Mart, find all the fraud is people buying cigarettes, spirits and razor blades, and tell Wal-Mart to stop stocking those?
Of course they don't.
The payment networks don’t pay for the cost of chargebacks - that’s borne by the merchant or the card issuer, the network makes money either way.
This is one of those situations where the optimal level of fraud isn’t zero.
This is one of those situations where the optimal level of fraud isn’t zero.
Is there any evidence that this is the case, though?
Who does chargebacks on Steam? They'd lose their whole account.
Payment processors will refuse to service payments for fictional harm, but will happily help people support a fascist[1]. If we're going to censor things, we should at least censor the actual, out-and-out, self-admitted fascists. Icky games with fictionalized harm do not seem to result in real harm, yet we have a very recent history showing the harm of real-life fascism. What a strange standard!
[1] https://www.givesendgo.com/rift-connor-emergency-fund
[1] https://www.givesendgo.com/rift-connor-emergency-fund
I miss the good old days when the credit card companies had no issues with Playboy or Hustler.
The payments space looks like it is going to be very competitive in the next few years. I don't see how something like this can last, without a competitor swooping in to process the payments. They are just giving up market share, seems crazy.
And eventually the friction of using cryptocurrency will be low enough that it is also a viable option. There are stable coins available on all the major ledgers. That means no need additional currency risk. You can get paid in USD.
And eventually the friction of using cryptocurrency will be low enough that it is also a viable option. There are stable coins available on all the major ledgers. That means no need additional currency risk. You can get paid in USD.
That any of these outlets are bending over for payment companies rather than just using Internet native money in 2025 is a real head scratcher. It's really not that hard to just accept Lightning payments. Heck, you can do it with Square EPOS terminals these days.
But a lot of industries are just in a D/s relationship with credit cards and I probably should stop kink shaming them.
But a lot of industries are just in a D/s relationship with credit cards and I probably should stop kink shaming them.
[deleted]
No Sex Please, We're British.