here is additional information on my peers post

Page 3 of 4 - ZOOM + Two-Sided Appeal Counterargument I "Payment processors are only trying to stop offensive or immoral content." Rebuttal Most of the games flagged weren't actually objectionable or inappropriate at all. Some of them were artistic, or experimental, or a anced terms. The payment processing firms didn't make those distinctions. Putting all of the non-mainstream content in the same basket in all senses, they actually ended up censoring pioneering and legal content in the gaming community Counterargument 2 "The payment processors are business firms; they are free to decide for what they wish to sponsor." Rebuttal Yes, they do have discretion as a company, but the issue arises when all the major financial processors merge, thereby becoming a moral monopoly. Without appeals and without competition, the creators and the consumers are helpless. Counterargument 3 'Censorship of offending games protects children and makes the platforms safe." Rebuttal The games and'or platforms already come with parental control, content ratings, and filters. The censorship of payment companies is not only unnecessary, but it also removes the tools that allow people to make choices. It removes access entirely rather than allowing the user to make he decision. Conclusion Internal Summary: Overall, payment processors should not have the power to determine what we are legally able to purchase. This limits freedom, harms artists, and is not a desirable precedent to establish, regardless of the argument ented that such control is needed or justified Closing Device: With niche games. But sooner or later, if we're not careful, that will encompass