You’re not great at risk assessment, are you?

They have a risky move, which in 1/10000 cases leads to an illegal game being paid for through their payment platform.

And they have a safe move, where this never happens. Literally.

If the expected risk is positive in case 1, they will opt for case 2.

You must at least be able to understand this simple logic, right? If not, then I’m afraid this conversation is over because you’re not even remotely trying to understand their logic, and you’re just looking for a reason to be mad. Your irrationality makes me nauseous.

I’m not saying there is illegal content. Read my comment.

I’m saying the possibility of there being illegal content only exists if they allow the reintroduction of those titles. They’d need trust in the store moderation, in the lack of bad faith actors, in a lot of things.

And it would be an absolutely stupid business decision for them.

I am NOT condoning what they did, nor what they are doing. I am explaining, from their business perspective, why allowing potentially illegal content back on the platform is a non-argument and you cannot convince them otherwise.

They’re the ones at risk of losing money if they get sued by reintroducing said content. You’re not going to stop using the payment processors because there’s literally no other option. This is performative.

I’m not saying it from the perspective of collective shout, not even that they would be the ones suing.

I’m saying if a payment processor allows in illegal content, they are in the wrong legally.

While if they rescind some legal content’s availability because of potential risks, they’re not wrong legally speaking.

That’s what my comment was about, in replying to the one above it.

Collective Shout themselves did not need to sue anyone, the threat of outside legal action was enough to make the payment processors cold sweat. That’s why they did it. And that’s why petitions and counter-campaigns don’t have the weight of what collective shout convinced them of…

Because there’s always the hypothetical scenario, what if one of the removed games was actually illegal in some form, and by reinstating it in a new decision the payment processor opens itself up to being sued?

That what if is on execs’ minds.

I’m not saying it from the perspective of collective shout, not even that they would be the ones suing.

I’m saying if a payment processor allows in illegal content, they are in the wrong legally.

While if they rescind some legal content’s availability because of potential risks, they’re not wrong legally speaking.

That’s what my comment was about, in replying to the one above it.

Collective Shout themselves did not need to sue anyone, the threat of outside legal action was enough to make the payment processors cold sweat. That’s why they did it. And that’s why petitions and counter-campaigns don’t have the weight of what collective shout convinced them of…

Because there’s always the hypothetical scenario, what if one of the removed games was actually illegal in some form, and by reinstating it in a new decision the payment processor opens itself up to being sued?

That what if is on execs’ minds.

My dude I am not your enemy I am just stating a fact. Downvoting me is brain dead.

Because of a risk of suing. There is no such risk when removing content, but adding content can lead to that risk…

The post I sent is real, isn’t it? I despise misandrists.

I even removed my original reply to you because I misinterpreted your comment.

I would appreciate if you edited yours too. I get it. I agree.

Wow wow, hang on, I think I misunderstood your comment.

I agree with you. Fuck feminists. Someone just posted a picture calling for the death of all men due to catcalling and it was getting upvoted.

FUCK THAT.

https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/49718552

This bullshit needs to stop.

👍

It’s not your economy that is worth appeasing Trump. It’s your military. How are you so daft 🤦‍♂️