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.