discussion Guaranteeing fair banking for all Americans EO may affect adult games

[HTYYHRK]

Yesterday an EO was signed called "GUARANTEEING FAIR BANKING FOR ALL AMERICANS"

You must be registered to see links

The language looks really similar to the proposed Senate and House bills, although it uses other existing laws as justification. It remains to be seen if the administration realized that it could be used to defend adult smol games from debanking, and if they didn't if they amend or clarify it later against them. I'm also not a lawyer so I can't tell you how this can be used by creators against the payment processors. But hope springs eternal.

You must be registered to see attachments

 

[ApocalypseSurvivor]

 

[jkj34]

Yesterday an EO was signed called "GUARANTEEING FAIR BANKING FOR ALL AMERICANS"

You must be registered to see links

The language looks really similar to the proposed Senate and House bills, although it uses other existing laws as justification. It remains to be seen if the administration realized that it could be used to defend adult smol games from debanking, and if they didn't if they amend or clarify it later against them. I'm also not a lawyer so I can't tell you how this can be used by creators against the payment processors. But hope springs eternal.

Well we will see what happens these orders can be undone when he leaves or may not go though but its a great start.

( iam not calling us ****s)

 

[jacky76]

hope exists

 

[AlBetGam]

From a cursory read the two problems I see:

1. The EO says "no American should be denied access to financial services because of their constitutionally or statutorily protected beliefs, affiliations, or political views". I'm not really sure access to or sale of specific porn tags falls under that banner (and more importantly, not sure these companies' legal teams and/or the relevant judges if it comes down to that would think so).

2. In terms of general functionality, 4(a) says they have to remove "any other considerations that could be used to engage in such debanking" which is so broad it could apply to anything, and I have no idea what that means for its ability to hold up in court.

 

[HTYYHRK]

From a cursory read the two problems I see:

1. The EO says "no American should be denied access to financial services because of their constitutionally or statutorily protected beliefs, affiliations, or political views". I'm not really sure access to or sale of specific porn tags falls under that banner (and more importantly, not sure these companies' legal teams and/or the relevant judges if it comes down to that would think so).

2. In terms of general functionality, 4(a) says they have to remove "any other considerations that could be used to engage in such debanking" which is so broad it could apply to anything, and I have no idea what that means for its ability to hold up in court.

The first is just a general policy statement that isn't the effective language I think, it defines what it's covering as

Sec. 3. Definitions. (a) The term “politicized or unlawful debanking” refers to an act by a bank, savings association, credit union, or other financial services provider to directly or indirectly adversely restrict access to, or adversely modify the conditions of, accounts, loans, or other banking products or financial services of any customer or potential customer on the basis of the customer’s or potential customer’s political or religious beliefs, or on the basis of the customer’s or potential customer’s lawful business activities that the financial service provider disagrees with or disfavors for political reasons.

Reading it again, it could be argued the problem with porn is moral rather than political, but that could be equally argued for anything else this might attempt to cover (e.g. firearms sales) so the administration probably wouldn't accept the argument, maybe the courts would and the EO needs to be clarified. I can't speak to 2 since I'm not a lawyer, it's possible other law or precedent more narrowly defines "considerations" in this context or it could be overbroad.

 

[BeowulfKnight]

Hey guys this thread was reported a bunch of time for being political and against the rules.
However this is an important issue that deserves debate so if we can keep the discussion on the Bill and its ramifications and not any political figures or party we can keep this thread up <3
I have edited a few of the previous posts and the title of this article to bring it back to being okay.

 

[Mr. Tearson]

Alright. I'm pitching in with BeowulfKnight.

Seems some of us misunderstands why we edited the comments.

So, I decided to let this thread stay. HOWEVER... if this thread keeps falling into a political debate, I told Moderators to simply lock this thread and remove all comments involving political disputes. That mean, do NOT throw in insults to a politician, some people will take offense for them. Do NOT talk names, either as others will pitch in with political opinion. We are not here to validate your feelings on politic. We do not care if you're team Republican or Democrats. Here, we are all equal. We can respect your political opinions but keep it elsewhere.

This thread can stay here because it does give this community as a whole, "Hope". It is related to Developers rights to keep working on the games and make money in the process. If you have more information involving this, feel free to share. No one's in trouble, either, but if the drama keeps going on, I'm not willing to stress my team out to because someone had a hissy fit.

Please help us keep the peace.

 

[HTYYHRK]

Hey guys this thread was reported a bunch of time for being political and against the rules.
However this is an important issue that deserves debate so if we can keep the discussion on the Bill and its ramifications and not any political figures or party we can keep this thread up <3
I have edited a few of the previous posts and the title of this article to bring it back to being okay.

Fair enough, I just thought the title was funny.