hazeleyesvioletskies

[hazeleyesvioletskies]

[hazeleyesvioletskies]

Goodluck Pikachu

[hazeleyesvioletskies]

Get cozy here 🍂 Source

[hazeleyesvioletskies]

[hazeleyesvioletskies]

Pay attention to the particulars of Mastercard's responses, because this a textbook example of how to create plausible deniability.

"Mastercard has not barred any legal transaction" is, technically, a true statement – because Mastercard is not the one processing the transactions in the first place. Mastercard does not deal directly with any merchant, and in fact typically refuses to communicate with merchants at all; there's always a payment processing service sitting in between Mastercard and the merchant, whether that's Stripe or Paypal or any of dozens of other service providers.

Consequently, there are two layers of service agreements in place: the agreement between Mastercard and the payment processing service, and the agreement between the payment processing service and the merchant. That second layer of service agreements, between the payment processing service and the merchant, is where all of these content restrictions are being imposed. Mastercard can thus truthfully claim that they aren't barring legal transactions.

Now, if you've been paying attention, you've probably already spotted the issue: if the content restrictions are being imposed upon the merchants by individual payment processing services and not by Mastercard, why do all of those payment processing services seem to have exactly the same content restrictions?

That's where the critical sleight of hand comes in: while Mastercard's own terms of service do not require payment processing services to bar transactions of particular types, their ToS does require payment processors to bar transactions which could be damaging to the Mastercard brand. What constitutes damage to the Mastercard brand is not defined; it means whatever Mastercard wants it to mean. The payment processing services are thus in a position where they can be held in breach of Mastercard's terms of service for basically any reason, which gives them a strong incentive not to test any boundaries.

And that's why Mastercard can truthfully say they have never barred any legal transaction: they're never the ones doing the blocking. The layer of payment processing services that sits between Mastercard and the merchants are enforcing those content restrictions, based on a series of unwritten handshake agreements between the payment processors and Mastercard regarding what does and does not constitute acceptable content – and because the particulars of those handshake agreements aren't in writing, Mastercard can assert that their terms of service do not compel payment processing services to bar any legal transaction and technically be telling the truth.

[hazeleyesvioletskies]

Twilight to Sunrise. 5:20 to 6:00 a.m. 60° F. August 2, 2025. Cove Island Park, Stamford, CT (@dkct25)

[hazeleyesvioletskies]

should be able to leave kudos on scientific studies. i liked your paper dude keep at it

[hazeleyesvioletskies]

saw a car dragging a labubu facedown through the street

[hazeleyesvioletskies]

Winter colors

Volcán Osorno, Ensenada, Los Lagos, Chile.

[hazeleyesvioletskies]

you could pick the first template you see on canva (free account) and write two things on it and your 55 year old coworker will treat you like you are jesus christ reborn

[hazeleyesvioletskies]

best typo ive ever made i think

reblog if you feep stupid

[hazeleyesvioletskies]

My five year plan is to just see what happens

[hazeleyesvioletskies]

Anemone

[hazeleyesvioletskies]

[hazeleyesvioletskies]

they are barring wikipedia. they are barring spotify. they are barring important news - both national news and world news. they are barring mental health forums and LGBTQ related things and so much more. this is not about protecting children, it has never been about protecting children.

the online safety act is an insane privacy breach, and if that does not scare you then you need to think harder about it. it is going to end up in a massive data leak - all the information is getting collected by random third party systems. can we trust them? no. can we even hold them accountable? no. because the government couldn’t even make their own system to do these age checks.

and i hear you - it is important that kids don’t see porn. but even if all this was about protecting kids, it’s sloppy and useless. it’s easy (for now) to get around with a vpn and the only thing the act doing is censoring things that it shouldnt. if the government wanted to protect kids, they would do something concrete about it - they would be putting more funding into education, for example.

of course the policy isnt called “national surveillance”. they’re not going to call it that. everything will be hidden behind things that people want.

so email your MP, and tell other people that this is WAY more than blocking porn from children - this is the first step towards national surveillance.

[hazeleyesvioletskies]

“Walk like the knife in your pocket is in your hands, like you were born with it there, because weren’t you?”

— Caitlyn Siehl (via allievonfaust)

[hazeleyesvioletskies]

“i wanna do this with you” A LOVE LANGUAGE