My mom went to see the God is Dead movie and was like "it ends with a list of court cases where Christians were being persecuted!" and I was like "Then why did they have to make up a completely fictional strawman version if the results of those cases were so compelling?"
And I'm sure the list of cases is "government tells religious group it can't discriminate"
My mom went to see the God is Dead movie and was like "it ends with a list of court cases where Christians were being persecuted!" and I was like "Then why did they have to make up a completely fictional strawman version if the results of those cases were so compelling?"
And I'm sure the list of cases is "government tells religious group it can't discriminate"
I actually don't doubt that OCCASIONALLY these cases could go in the Christians' favor for good reasons, but the circumstances would have to be different from "Someone doesn't believe in God and didn't let me presume belief in God to the entire student body!"
So, this topic is coming up again, thanks to Jerry's post on Wednesday about the-game-that-shall-not-be-named (it's totally Hatred) getting rejected for Steam Greenlight, and later reinstated.
But have people seriously shifted the goalpost from "Hatred is offensive and shouldn't be on Steam" to "Hatred has one guy working on it who might be a neonazi so it shouldn't be on Steam?"
If so, I have very bad news for you. Racists have tangentially been involved in almost every human endeavour since the dawn of time. It's lamentable that racists still exist, but I do not find their existence a compelling reason to ban everything they might accidentally be involved in. I know it's shocking to have racists pointed out to you. But when most albums, movies and games are made by increasingly large groups of people, odds are good there is at least one hateful fuck on that team.
I'm not sure how I feel about people who no longer think we should separate the artist from the art. I do however know exactly what to think about people who think that one person on a team somehow taints anything that team ever makes.
I've done this dance already too many times in my life. I'll judge Hatred on it's merit when it actually comes out on Steam. Until then, all anybody is doing is trying to skewer one another over things they can only pretend to know.
All these people concerned that an individual's freedom of speech is being infringed upon by being refused a platform...
What about the freedom of the person running that platform? Is theirs not important? Because I can tell you right now that if I ran a digital distribution service as big as Steam and I had a game, made by white supremacists and about killing black people submitted, I would be super fucking nervous about allowing it on my platform.
There's a thing called freedom of association, and a few of you are looking really, really ignorant. Just as nobody can prevent someone from making a game about, I dunno, strangling grandmothers, there is no requirement or obligation for anybody to distribute that game for you. And no reason needs to be given for it, either!
Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. You can't be a total racist goose and have an expectation for people to help you shout your racist goose propaganda from the rooftops, even if they don't share your racist goose beliefs.
If we had to give a platform to anybody who wanted it, wherever they wanted it, we'd have to force people to present things they didn't agree with everywhere, and not just in video games. So some of you don't care about a stupid game or whatever. Think about something you do strongly disagree with, and then imagine you are being forced to not just allow yourself to be associated with it, but to actively assist that viewpoint you do not want to be associated with.
I guess this is where you hit the difference between lawful neutral interpretations of "freedom of speech" and chaotic good interpretations of "freedom of speech".
Personally I'm chaotic good.
But there is a difference between the letter of the law of freedom of speech, and the spirit of it, to many people. You start arguing a lot about trends. Things like "chilling effect" get tossed around a lot. And "slippery slope". I think the 20th century has provided ample examples of why these aren't fallacies when you are talking about free speech, but we can agree to disagree on that.
Yeah, freedom of speech isn't freedom of consequences. But what about when the consequences are insanely disproportionate because the mob gets involved? If you see something you don't like, and you don't want to purchase it, that's a reasonable consequence of speech. If you see something you don't like, and you decide to raise such a fuss that you assassinate that person's entirely livelihood, get all their friends to abandon them, get their employer to fire them, drive their business into the ground, get their wife to divorce them, and get everyone who knows them to publicly repudiate them... well that seems awfully disproportionate.
If there is anything I've learned over the last few months, it's that the style of internet dis-information warfare that is a consequence of free speech these days is utterly insane. It's fucking scary to have an opinion on the internet these days if the wrong sort of mob decides to get pissy about it.
What we've seen with these loud activist minorities getting companies to change policy clearly isn't that extreme. But it's still worrisome to me, when you are concerned about the spirit of free speech and not the letter of the law of it.
What in the hell are you talking about? I'm concerned about both. The letter of the law of free speech is that freedom of association is a thing. I am free to associate with you or not as I choose. Likewise, the spirit of free speech is that I am not obligated to make my personal business a platform for your abhorrent social views should I not wish it.
Show me where in the fuck the letter of the law says that I am obligated to give you a platform or be prosecuted for it. Go on, I will wait!
As for "disproportionate consequences", nobody has advocated getting someone's wife to divorce them. Your argument makes literally no sense.
Everything old is new again. My stance on this issue hasn't changed just because it's a video game designer instead of an actor that's being a total silly goose.
By the way, the guy who is designing this game has white supremacist tattoos, liked a white supremacy group on his Facebook page and shaves his head. I'm not saying he's a white supremacist, I report, you decide.
Please for the love of God let's not turn this into a Gamergate thread or it'll be closed so quickly the rest of the forums will shake from the impact.
AbsalonLands of Always WinterRegistered Userregular
People hiring or voluntarily working with people they know are neo-nazis should not be allowed to sell their wares on marketplaces reserved for members of civilization. If a nazi troglodyte worked on it Hatred must be removed from all commercial channels without explanation or warning.
They can feel free to try to put their stuff on any marketplace they want, but if the guy running a particular marketplace decides he doesn't want to run a business that also helps further Nazi propaganda then that's his right.
This idea that people shouldn't be free to choose what they do and don't sell or advertise is nonsense. Of course people should be allowed to decide. I wonder how many Christian bookstores would stock copies of the Quran if I walked in and asked them to. (Note: I do not really wonder)
+16
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
They can feel free to try to put their stuff on any marketplace they want, but if the guy running a particular marketplace decides he doesn't want to run a business that also helps further Nazi propaganda then that's his right.
This idea that people shouldn't be free to choose what they do and don't sell or advertise is nonsense. Of course people should be allowed to decide. I wonder how many Christian bookstores would stock copies of the Quran if I walked in and asked them to. (Note: I do not really wonder)
I think it's obvious that there is some extent to which 'people' shouldn't be free to choose what they sell and/or advertise or for that matter who they sell to/employ/buy from. The libertarian ideal of absolute freedom of association is clearly problematic, as evidenced by all the laws curtailing it. I would think no one here would agree with a Christian bookstore refusing to employ a gay person, even though that clearly falls in their freedom of association-based wish to not associate with people they dislike. And even if one were to argue that they should be legally allowed to do such a thing, it would be hard to argue that it would be morally permissible.
Clearly the issue with Hatred is different, not selling a work of art and discriminating based on sexual orientation are not the same thing. But to justify a ban solely by appealing to an absolute interpretation of freedom of association is silly. Particularly if you seek to justify it on moral grounds rather than legal ones.
I mean just think of a different game and ask yourself the same questions. Imagine there is a very good feminist game with a solid gender-equality message. Obviously no company can be legally compelled to release or promote it, but does that mean choosing to release it or not is a morally neutral action? Is there no moral obligation to release/promote the game? Does the equation change if it's a commercial company rather than a private person?
They can feel free to try to put their stuff on any marketplace they want, but if the guy running a particular marketplace decides he doesn't want to run a business that also helps further Nazi propaganda then that's his right.
This idea that people shouldn't be free to choose what they do and don't sell or advertise is nonsense. Of course people should be allowed to decide. I wonder how many Christian bookstores would stock copies of the Quran if I walked in and asked them to. (Note: I do not really wonder)
I think it's obvious that there is some extent to which 'people' shouldn't be free to choose what they sell and/or advertise or for that matter who they sell to/employ/buy from. The libertarian ideal of absolute freedom of association is clearly problematic, as evidenced by all the laws curtailing it. I would think no one here would agree with a Christian bookstore refusing to employ a gay person, even though that clearly falls in their freedom of association-based wish to not associate with people they dislike. And even if one were to argue that they should be legally allowed to do such a thing, it would be hard to argue that it would be morally permissible.
Clearly the issue with Hatred is different, not selling a work of art and discriminating based on sexual orientation are not the same thing. But to justify a ban solely by appealing to an absolute interpretation of freedom of association is silly. Particularly if you seek to justify it on moral grounds rather than legal ones.
I mean just think of a different game and ask yourself the same questions. Imagine there is a very good feminist game with a solid gender-equality message. Obviously no company can be legally compelled to release or promote it, but does that mean choosing to release it or not is a morally neutral action? Is there no moral obligation to release/promote the game? Does the equation change if it's a commercial company rather than a private person?
No one that I know of has claimed that the action would be morally neutral. What I know myself, josh, and others have disagreed with is that a company opting to not sell someone's work isn't censorship. If Steam decided to not sell a game because it espoused feminist values I would be incredibly disappointed with Steam and very probably use a different service. But I wouldn't call it censorship. Cause it ain't.
Quid on
+14
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
They can feel free to try to put their stuff on any marketplace they want, but if the guy running a particular marketplace decides he doesn't want to run a business that also helps further Nazi propaganda then that's his right.
This idea that people shouldn't be free to choose what they do and don't sell or advertise is nonsense. Of course people should be allowed to decide. I wonder how many Christian bookstores would stock copies of the Quran if I walked in and asked them to. (Note: I do not really wonder)
I think it's obvious that there is some extent to which 'people' shouldn't be free to choose what they sell and/or advertise or for that matter who they sell to/employ/buy from. The libertarian ideal of absolute freedom of association is clearly problematic, as evidenced by all the laws curtailing it. I would think no one here would agree with a Christian bookstore refusing to employ a gay person, even though that clearly falls in their freedom of association-based wish to not associate with people they dislike. And even if one were to argue that they should be legally allowed to do such a thing, it would be hard to argue that it would be morally permissible.
Clearly the issue with Hatred is different, not selling a work of art and discriminating based on sexual orientation are not the same thing. But to justify a ban solely by appealing to an absolute interpretation of freedom of association is silly. Particularly if you seek to justify it on moral grounds rather than legal ones.
I mean just think of a different game and ask yourself the same questions. Imagine there is a very good feminist game with a solid gender-equality message. Obviously no company can be legally compelled to release or promote it, but does that mean choosing to release it or not is a morally neutral action? Is there no moral obligation to release/promote the game? Does the equation change if it's a commercial company rather than a private person?
This ignores the reason protected classes exist. It's because someone being gay does not affect their ability to perform a job. It is irrelevant. But the content of the media a retailer sells is, by nature of consumption, content that the retailer is promoting by selling it. So while it would be illegal for a Christian owned bookstore to refuse to hire a gay person because they are gay, it is not illegal for a Christian bookstore to refuse to stock gay literature. These two things are not the same.
They can feel free to try to put their stuff on any marketplace they want, but if the guy running a particular marketplace decides he doesn't want to run a business that also helps further Nazi propaganda then that's his right.
This idea that people shouldn't be free to choose what they do and don't sell or advertise is nonsense. Of course people should be allowed to decide. I wonder how many Christian bookstores would stock copies of the Quran if I walked in and asked them to. (Note: I do not really wonder)
I think it's obvious that there is some extent to which 'people' shouldn't be free to choose what they sell and/or advertise or for that matter who they sell to/employ/buy from. The libertarian ideal of absolute freedom of association is clearly problematic, as evidenced by all the laws curtailing it. I would think no one here would agree with a Christian bookstore refusing to employ a gay person, even though that clearly falls in their freedom of association-based wish to not associate with people they dislike. And even if one were to argue that they should be legally allowed to do such a thing, it would be hard to argue that it would be morally permissible.
Clearly the issue with Hatred is different, not selling a work of art and discriminating based on sexual orientation are not the same thing. But to justify a ban solely by appealing to an absolute interpretation of freedom of association is silly. Particularly if you seek to justify it on moral grounds rather than legal ones.
I mean just think of a different game and ask yourself the same questions. Imagine there is a very good feminist game with a solid gender-equality message. Obviously no company can be legally compelled to release or promote it, but does that mean choosing to release it or not is a morally neutral action? Is there no moral obligation to release/promote the game? Does the equation change if it's a commercial company rather than a private person?
No one that I know of has claimed that the action would be morally neutral. What I know myself, josh, and others have disagreed with is that a company opting to not sell someone's work isn't censorship. If Steam decided to not sell a game because it espoused feminist values I would be incredibly disappointed with Steam and very probably use a different service. But I wouldn't call it censorship. Cause it ain't.
Now if Valve said "We're not stocking Feminist Game because it's basically Bad Rats 3: Feminist Edition." I couldn't really fault them.
Also, there is such a thing as BFOQs (bona fide occupational qualifications), where an employer can legally discriminate in certain job applications based on things that would otherwise be a protected class. I would argue that in a bookstore job it should not matter what sexual orientation you are, as long as the work gets done. There are some jobs where an employer wants something specific because that is the entire appeal of the establishment. The original example is Hooters, who argued that the reason people go to Hooters is to see pretty girls in skimpy outfits, and so for waiting jobs that's who they exclusively hire. Thus, being a woman is a BFOQ for working as a waiter at Hooters.
I don't like Hooters, I think their food is awful and the gimmick is tacky, tasteless and maybe two steps removed from a strip club atmosphere, but that's the business they want to run and so they should be allowed to run it that way. I would never think of mandating that a gay strip club that caters to men hire female dancers for their establishment.
To make this actually relevant, if the people who run Steam want to avoid being directly responsible for their business giving money to a known white supremacist, then that ought to be their call to make. It's not quite the same as directly employing a member of the KKK or something, but if the type of games they want to provide to customers does not include things like Hatred, then I see no reason to force them to make it available on their service.
joshofalltrades on
+1
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
They can feel free to try to put their stuff on any marketplace they want, but if the guy running a particular marketplace decides he doesn't want to run a business that also helps further Nazi propaganda then that's his right.
This idea that people shouldn't be free to choose what they do and don't sell or advertise is nonsense. Of course people should be allowed to decide. I wonder how many Christian bookstores would stock copies of the Quran if I walked in and asked them to. (Note: I do not really wonder)
I think it's obvious that there is some extent to which 'people' shouldn't be free to choose what they sell and/or advertise or for that matter who they sell to/employ/buy from. The libertarian ideal of absolute freedom of association is clearly problematic, as evidenced by all the laws curtailing it. I would think no one here would agree with a Christian bookstore refusing to employ a gay person, even though that clearly falls in their freedom of association-based wish to not associate with people they dislike. And even if one were to argue that they should be legally allowed to do such a thing, it would be hard to argue that it would be morally permissible.
Clearly the issue with Hatred is different, not selling a work of art and discriminating based on sexual orientation are not the same thing. But to justify a ban solely by appealing to an absolute interpretation of freedom of association is silly. Particularly if you seek to justify it on moral grounds rather than legal ones.
I mean just think of a different game and ask yourself the same questions. Imagine there is a very good feminist game with a solid gender-equality message. Obviously no company can be legally compelled to release or promote it, but does that mean choosing to release it or not is a morally neutral action? Is there no moral obligation to release/promote the game? Does the equation change if it's a commercial company rather than a private person?
No one that I know of has claimed that the action would be morally neutral. What I know myself, josh, and others have disagreed with is that a company opting to not sell someone's work isn't censorship. If Steam decided to not sell a game because it espoused feminist values I would be incredibly disappointed with Steam and very probably use a different service. But I wouldn't call it censorship. Cause it ain't.
I feel any discussion over whether or not this constitutes censorship is an exceptionally pointless discussion as people like to use their own definition of it without informing anyone else. Definitions being what they are there is no way to be right or wrong about this and it seems to be a proxy for 'bad' anyway. We tend to be okay with some censorship so settling if it is doesn't solve much.
Of course, josh didn't use the word 'censorship' or quote someone using the word 'censorship' so I assumed he wasn't talking about whether or not this is censorship.
The Hollywood blacklists were just a bunch of production companies deciding who's scripts to make into movies, and who to hire to play roles etc. It wouldn't be wrong to call the net effect of that as censorship.
As the number of content providers keep getting merged into each other I don't think censorship need be limited to government actions. When DirectWarnerDishCast stops reselling MSNBC because it airs a pro-net neutrality piece, that will be censorship.
As an aside:
I find this 'companies rights' argument very interesting given the forums consensus vis a vi hobby lobby and other ACA related cases. I guess a company can only refuses to help fund something when that thing is something other than murdering the unborn.
Other people in the thread were discussing whether or not this was censorship, before the Newell decided to allow the game on their service after all. I obviously can't quote the entire thread, but the discussion makes more sense in here than about a comic that has nothing to do with that game or the decisions around it.
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
They can feel free to try to put their stuff on any marketplace they want, but if the guy running a particular marketplace decides he doesn't want to run a business that also helps further Nazi propaganda then that's his right.
This idea that people shouldn't be free to choose what they do and don't sell or advertise is nonsense. Of course people should be allowed to decide. I wonder how many Christian bookstores would stock copies of the Quran if I walked in and asked them to. (Note: I do not really wonder)
I think it's obvious that there is some extent to which 'people' shouldn't be free to choose what they sell and/or advertise or for that matter who they sell to/employ/buy from. The libertarian ideal of absolute freedom of association is clearly problematic, as evidenced by all the laws curtailing it. I would think no one here would agree with a Christian bookstore refusing to employ a gay person, even though that clearly falls in their freedom of association-based wish to not associate with people they dislike. And even if one were to argue that they should be legally allowed to do such a thing, it would be hard to argue that it would be morally permissible.
Clearly the issue with Hatred is different, not selling a work of art and discriminating based on sexual orientation are not the same thing. But to justify a ban solely by appealing to an absolute interpretation of freedom of association is silly. Particularly if you seek to justify it on moral grounds rather than legal ones.
I mean just think of a different game and ask yourself the same questions. Imagine there is a very good feminist game with a solid gender-equality message. Obviously no company can be legally compelled to release or promote it, but does that mean choosing to release it or not is a morally neutral action? Is there no moral obligation to release/promote the game? Does the equation change if it's a commercial company rather than a private person?
No one that I know of has claimed that the action would be morally neutral. What I know myself, josh, and others have disagreed with is that a company opting to not sell someone's work isn't censorship. If Steam decided to not sell a game because it espoused feminist values I would be incredibly disappointed with Steam and very probably use a different service. But I wouldn't call it censorship. Cause it ain't.
I feel any discussion over whether or not this constitutes censorship is an exceptionally pointless discussion as people like to use their own definition of it without informing anyone else. Definitions being what they are there is no way to be right or wrong about this and it seems to be a proxy for 'bad' anyway. We tend to be okay with some censorship so settling if it is doesn't solve much.
Of course, josh didn't use the word 'censorship' or quote someone using the word 'censorship' so I assumed he wasn't talking about whether or not this is censorship.
This is a very strange post.
"When we talk, we use the same words but all think they mean different things, so there's no point in talking."
I don't think that the argument that a business is obligated to distribute anyone's materials should it be asked of them, and if they don't they're engaging in censorship holds any water at all. It's ignorance and entitlement. It is the ranting of the self-obsessed and arrogant that freedom is reserved solely for them.
The Hollywood blacklists were just a bunch of production companies deciding who's scripts to make into movies, and who to hire to play roles etc. It wouldn't be wrong to call the net effect of that as censorship.
As the number of content providers keep getting merged into each other I don't think censorship need be limited to government actions. When DirectWarnerDishCast stops reselling MSNBC because it airs a pro-net neutrality piece, that will be censorship.
As an aside:
I find this 'companies rights' argument very interesting given the forums consensus vis a vi hobby lobby and other ACA related cases. I guess a company can only refuses to help fund something when that thing is something other than murdering the unborn.
Please don't make me explain the difference between providing compensation to employees and putting a game on a digital distribution service.
The Hollywood blacklists were just a bunch of production companies deciding who's scripts to make into movies, and who to hire to play roles etc. It wouldn't be wrong to call the net effect of that as censorship.
As the number of content providers keep getting merged into each other I don't think censorship need be limited to government actions. When DirectWarnerDishCast stops reselling MSNBC because it airs a pro-net neutrality piece, that will be censorship.
As an aside:
I find this 'companies rights' argument very interesting given the forums consensus vis a vi hobby lobby and other ACA related cases. I guess a company can only refuses to help fund something when that thing is something other than murdering the unborn.
I don't expect Hobby Lobby to donate to Planned Parenthood. I'm honestly extremely sympathetic to their stance.
I do expect them to comply with that law and provide medical coverage that meets the bare minimum standards even if it goes against what they or I personally believe.
I don't see a conflict here.
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
I find this 'companies rights' argument very interesting given the forums consensus vis a vi hobby lobby and other ACA related cases. I guess a company can only refuses to help fund something when that thing is something other than murdering the unborn.
Is this seriously the level of discourse you're going to bring to this thread?
+1
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
They can feel free to try to put their stuff on any marketplace they want, but if the guy running a particular marketplace decides he doesn't want to run a business that also helps further Nazi propaganda then that's his right.
This idea that people shouldn't be free to choose what they do and don't sell or advertise is nonsense. Of course people should be allowed to decide. I wonder how many Christian bookstores would stock copies of the Quran if I walked in and asked them to. (Note: I do not really wonder)
I think it's obvious that there is some extent to which 'people' shouldn't be free to choose what they sell and/or advertise or for that matter who they sell to/employ/buy from. The libertarian ideal of absolute freedom of association is clearly problematic, as evidenced by all the laws curtailing it. I would think no one here would agree with a Christian bookstore refusing to employ a gay person, even though that clearly falls in their freedom of association-based wish to not associate with people they dislike. And even if one were to argue that they should be legally allowed to do such a thing, it would be hard to argue that it would be morally permissible.
Clearly the issue with Hatred is different, not selling a work of art and discriminating based on sexual orientation are not the same thing. But to justify a ban solely by appealing to an absolute interpretation of freedom of association is silly. Particularly if you seek to justify it on moral grounds rather than legal ones.
I mean just think of a different game and ask yourself the same questions. Imagine there is a very good feminist game with a solid gender-equality message. Obviously no company can be legally compelled to release or promote it, but does that mean choosing to release it or not is a morally neutral action? Is there no moral obligation to release/promote the game? Does the equation change if it's a commercial company rather than a private person?
No one that I know of has claimed that the action would be morally neutral. What I know myself, josh, and others have disagreed with is that a company opting to not sell someone's work isn't censorship. If Steam decided to not sell a game because it espoused feminist values I would be incredibly disappointed with Steam and very probably use a different service. But I wouldn't call it censorship. Cause it ain't.
I feel any discussion over whether or not this constitutes censorship is an exceptionally pointless discussion as people like to use their own definition of it without informing anyone else. Definitions being what they are there is no way to be right or wrong about this and it seems to be a proxy for 'bad' anyway. We tend to be okay with some censorship so settling if it is doesn't solve much.
Of course, josh didn't use the word 'censorship' or quote someone using the word 'censorship' so I assumed he wasn't talking about whether or not this is censorship.
This is a very strange post.
"When we talk, we use the same words but all think they mean different things, so there's no point in talking."
There is absolutely a point in talking, there is just no point in quibbling over whether or not this is really censorship. There is no central authority that establishes the correct meaning of 'censorship' so arguing over it instead of the far more useful question of "is this bad or good?" is pointless.
I don't think that the argument that a business is obligated to distribute anyone's materials should it be asked of them, and if they don't they're engaging in censorship holds any water at all. It's ignorance and entitlement. It is the ranting of the self-obsessed and arrogant that freedom is reserved solely for them.
Well that's not much of an argument anyway. You're not giving a reason as to why a business is obligated to do such a thing.
They can feel free to try to put their stuff on any marketplace they want, but if the guy running a particular marketplace decides he doesn't want to run a business that also helps further Nazi propaganda then that's his right.
This idea that people shouldn't be free to choose what they do and don't sell or advertise is nonsense. Of course people should be allowed to decide. I wonder how many Christian bookstores would stock copies of the Quran if I walked in and asked them to. (Note: I do not really wonder)
I think it's obvious that there is some extent to which 'people' shouldn't be free to choose what they sell and/or advertise or for that matter who they sell to/employ/buy from. The libertarian ideal of absolute freedom of association is clearly problematic, as evidenced by all the laws curtailing it. I would think no one here would agree with a Christian bookstore refusing to employ a gay person, even though that clearly falls in their freedom of association-based wish to not associate with people they dislike. And even if one were to argue that they should be legally allowed to do such a thing, it would be hard to argue that it would be morally permissible.
Clearly the issue with Hatred is different, not selling a work of art and discriminating based on sexual orientation are not the same thing. But to justify a ban solely by appealing to an absolute interpretation of freedom of association is silly. Particularly if you seek to justify it on moral grounds rather than legal ones.
I mean just think of a different game and ask yourself the same questions. Imagine there is a very good feminist game with a solid gender-equality message. Obviously no company can be legally compelled to release or promote it, but does that mean choosing to release it or not is a morally neutral action? Is there no moral obligation to release/promote the game? Does the equation change if it's a commercial company rather than a private person?
No one that I know of has claimed that the action would be morally neutral. What I know myself, josh, and others have disagreed with is that a company opting to not sell someone's work isn't censorship. If Steam decided to not sell a game because it espoused feminist values I would be incredibly disappointed with Steam and very probably use a different service. But I wouldn't call it censorship. Cause it ain't.
I feel any discussion over whether or not this constitutes censorship is an exceptionally pointless discussion as people like to use their own definition of it without informing anyone else. Definitions being what they are there is no way to be right or wrong about this and it seems to be a proxy for 'bad' anyway. We tend to be okay with some censorship so settling if it is doesn't solve much.
Of course, josh didn't use the word 'censorship' or quote someone using the word 'censorship' so I assumed he wasn't talking about whether or not this is censorship.
This is a very strange post.
"When we talk, we use the same words but all think they mean different things, so there's no point in talking."
I don't think that the argument that a business is obligated to distribute anyone's materials should it be asked of them, and if they don't they're engaging in censorship holds any water at all. It's ignorance and entitlement. It is the ranting of the self-obsessed and arrogant that freedom is reserved solely for them.
I disagree. There is a general benefit to everyone that all ideas can be accessed and judged on their merit. The same arguments against censorship by the government can be applied to censorship by content distributors. This is especially true on the internet, where there is next to no marginal cost to the distributor if the item proves unpopular and worthless. There is no shelf space taken up or inventory written off. Not distributing deny's the populace the benefits of the free exchange of ideas and saves them nothing.
Additionally censorship tends to fall almost exclusively on the marginal groups. While in this case the group is marginal by it's own making, and I guess you could say rightly marginalized, that isn't really the historic norm. Go look at the ALA most challenged book lists and it's pretty much non-christian(lol harry potter), gay(Daddy's roommate), women(Alice series) or minority(I know why the caged bird sings) books from 1 to 100.
While the internet has helped greatly in this regard, accounts of the isolation of living in rural small towns are not uncommon in the LGBT community. The idea that there will always be another source of something if XYZ doesn't carry it is kinda privileged.
+1
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
edited December 2014
Valve cannot prevent the makers of Hatred from distributing their game. Steam is not a monopoly. Not even close.
Bittorrent itself stands in testament to the inability of content distributors to prevent distribution of anything.
Nova_C on
+2
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
They can feel free to try to put their stuff on any marketplace they want, but if the guy running a particular marketplace decides he doesn't want to run a business that also helps further Nazi propaganda then that's his right.
This idea that people shouldn't be free to choose what they do and don't sell or advertise is nonsense. Of course people should be allowed to decide. I wonder how many Christian bookstores would stock copies of the Quran if I walked in and asked them to. (Note: I do not really wonder)
I think it's obvious that there is some extent to which 'people' shouldn't be free to choose what they sell and/or advertise or for that matter who they sell to/employ/buy from. The libertarian ideal of absolute freedom of association is clearly problematic, as evidenced by all the laws curtailing it. I would think no one here would agree with a Christian bookstore refusing to employ a gay person, even though that clearly falls in their freedom of association-based wish to not associate with people they dislike. And even if one were to argue that they should be legally allowed to do such a thing, it would be hard to argue that it would be morally permissible.
Clearly the issue with Hatred is different, not selling a work of art and discriminating based on sexual orientation are not the same thing. But to justify a ban solely by appealing to an absolute interpretation of freedom of association is silly. Particularly if you seek to justify it on moral grounds rather than legal ones.
I mean just think of a different game and ask yourself the same questions. Imagine there is a very good feminist game with a solid gender-equality message. Obviously no company can be legally compelled to release or promote it, but does that mean choosing to release it or not is a morally neutral action? Is there no moral obligation to release/promote the game? Does the equation change if it's a commercial company rather than a private person?
This ignores the reason protected classes exist. It's because someone being gay does not affect their ability to perform a job. It is irrelevant. But the content of the media a retailer sells is, by nature of consumption, content that the retailer is promoting by selling it. So while it would be illegal for a Christian owned bookstore to refuse to hire a gay person because they are gay, it is not illegal for a Christian bookstore to refuse to stock gay literature. These two things are not the same.
I boldly bolded the relevant bit.
It's still a limit on freedom of association. I don't disagree that they are different, I am just pointing out that we can and do limit freedom of association.
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
I mean, if Valve choosing not to stock a game is engaging in censorship, then by refusing to pay for and play that game, I too am engaging in censorship as if the game financially fails, then the makers' voices cannot be heard further.
They can feel free to try to put their stuff on any marketplace they want, but if the guy running a particular marketplace decides he doesn't want to run a business that also helps further Nazi propaganda then that's his right.
This idea that people shouldn't be free to choose what they do and don't sell or advertise is nonsense. Of course people should be allowed to decide. I wonder how many Christian bookstores would stock copies of the Quran if I walked in and asked them to. (Note: I do not really wonder)
I think it's obvious that there is some extent to which 'people' shouldn't be free to choose what they sell and/or advertise or for that matter who they sell to/employ/buy from. The libertarian ideal of absolute freedom of association is clearly problematic, as evidenced by all the laws curtailing it. I would think no one here would agree with a Christian bookstore refusing to employ a gay person, even though that clearly falls in their freedom of association-based wish to not associate with people they dislike. And even if one were to argue that they should be legally allowed to do such a thing, it would be hard to argue that it would be morally permissible.
Clearly the issue with Hatred is different, not selling a work of art and discriminating based on sexual orientation are not the same thing. But to justify a ban solely by appealing to an absolute interpretation of freedom of association is silly. Particularly if you seek to justify it on moral grounds rather than legal ones.
I mean just think of a different game and ask yourself the same questions. Imagine there is a very good feminist game with a solid gender-equality message. Obviously no company can be legally compelled to release or promote it, but does that mean choosing to release it or not is a morally neutral action? Is there no moral obligation to release/promote the game? Does the equation change if it's a commercial company rather than a private person?
No one that I know of has claimed that the action would be morally neutral. What I know myself, josh, and others have disagreed with is that a company opting to not sell someone's work isn't censorship. If Steam decided to not sell a game because it espoused feminist values I would be incredibly disappointed with Steam and very probably use a different service. But I wouldn't call it censorship. Cause it ain't.
What I find particularly interesting about this case is how large steam is. Your argument could just as easily be applied to comcast/time warner/quest. They don't like your tasteless penny-arcade website, and as a private business why should they have to provide access to it?
At some point businesses can cross over from being one of many to being the only game in town. Then it's not so clear cut to me that just because they are a business and not the government, it's impossible for them to be censoring people.
Jebus314 on
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
People really need to get a better grasp on what freedom of speech and freedom of association mean.
Yes, people have free speech, that does not mean:
-They are entitled to a platform. Shitty, racist, nazi, homophobic, misogynistic, theocratic asshole dude writes a shitty play that endorse all his vile shit. No one can stop that asshole from writing the play, distributing it to his fellow like-minded assholes or them making and recording the shitty play. All that said, youtube has ever right to yank off their site, every time the video goes up. The local theater can kindly tell them to fuck off. Warner Brothers Studio can flat out refuse to make a movie of it. Wal-Mart can refuse to carry copies of the play. The reason can all do so, is that they aren't required to provide a platform and they have freedom of association, since it's their platform, they are free to make sure it's not associated with such vile people. If the shitheads don't like it, they can create they're own goddamn separate website, build their own goddamn separate theater, start up their own goddamn separate movie studio and open their own goddamn separate store.
-They aren't free from the consequences. Write something that is morally vile, then expect one of the consequences being that certain distributors refuse to carry and distribute that content. They have freedom of association and distributing something is associating with others. Ergo, if they feel the act of distribution, will get them associated with someone that the public views negatively, they are free to refuse be the agent distribution and association that comes with that.
-They aren't allowed to shout down opposition. Playing the whole "if you refuse to sell my shitty product, that's censorship" card, is an attempt to shout down opposition because it's trying to claim that people have to listen to you and the company has to give you platform to be really load.
-Also the whole employment things is BS here. Steam isn't refusing someone employment being a vile shithead, they are refusing to carry a game and to be associated with the shit in the game. As for employment, well that's trickier. If someone spouts vitriol in the workplace, then a company is free to shitcan them for creating a hostile work environment that their fellow employees find harassing. If the person is the CEO, public spokesperson or other huge PR facet of the company, I do think companies can make an argument for ditching people that are very vocal about their shitty views because of freedom of association and the fact that the person is being publicly associated with the company by many individuals. Now when we get to position that aren't really public, I don't think businesses can make a compelling argument to shitcan people who have fuck awful views, if those people are smart enough to keep their mouths shut about such fuck awful views, while on the job.
If Valve puts a game produced by a neo nazi on their steam service they'll get killed by the media for "supporting" such a game. That's what their loss is, loss to reputation for indirectly benefiting a horrid person.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
They can feel free to try to put their stuff on any marketplace they want, but if the guy running a particular marketplace decides he doesn't want to run a business that also helps further Nazi propaganda then that's his right.
This idea that people shouldn't be free to choose what they do and don't sell or advertise is nonsense. Of course people should be allowed to decide. I wonder how many Christian bookstores would stock copies of the Quran if I walked in and asked them to. (Note: I do not really wonder)
I think it's obvious that there is some extent to which 'people' shouldn't be free to choose what they sell and/or advertise or for that matter who they sell to/employ/buy from. The libertarian ideal of absolute freedom of association is clearly problematic, as evidenced by all the laws curtailing it. I would think no one here would agree with a Christian bookstore refusing to employ a gay person, even though that clearly falls in their freedom of association-based wish to not associate with people they dislike. And even if one were to argue that they should be legally allowed to do such a thing, it would be hard to argue that it would be morally permissible.
Clearly the issue with Hatred is different, not selling a work of art and discriminating based on sexual orientation are not the same thing. But to justify a ban solely by appealing to an absolute interpretation of freedom of association is silly. Particularly if you seek to justify it on moral grounds rather than legal ones.
I mean just think of a different game and ask yourself the same questions. Imagine there is a very good feminist game with a solid gender-equality message. Obviously no company can be legally compelled to release or promote it, but does that mean choosing to release it or not is a morally neutral action? Is there no moral obligation to release/promote the game? Does the equation change if it's a commercial company rather than a private person?
No one that I know of has claimed that the action would be morally neutral. What I know myself, josh, and others have disagreed with is that a company opting to not sell someone's work isn't censorship. If Steam decided to not sell a game because it espoused feminist values I would be incredibly disappointed with Steam and very probably use a different service. But I wouldn't call it censorship. Cause it ain't.
What I find particularly interesting about this case is how large steam is. Your argument could just as easily be applied to comcast/time warner/quest. They don't like your tasteless penny-arcade website, and as a private business why should they have to provide access to it?
At some point businesses can cross over from being one of many to being the only game in town. Then it's not so clear cut to me that just because they are a business and not the government, it's impossible for them to be censoring people.
If you consider video games to be the equivalent of internet service sure.
What I find particularly interesting about this case is how large steam is. Your argument could just as easily be applied to comcast/time warner/quest. They don't like your tasteless penny-arcade website, and as a private business why should they have to provide access to it?
At some point businesses can cross over from being one of many to being the only game in town. Then it's not so clear cut to me that just because they are a business and not the government, it's impossible for them to be censoring people.
Morally, a major difference is that the telecoms operate with government protection and approval. Bandwidth is sold by the government to organizations. Cable networks are partially built by the government, which allows major telecoms to hook into their hubs. Your average Joe can't just start digging up the ground in New York City to start laying cable. I can't just plug into TAT-14 whenever I want. And you certainly don't have access to the core Internet DNS routers that hold the damn thing together.
Legally, the major difference is that the telecoms are regulated by the FCC. We might say, hey, the telecoms should be allowed to do whatever the fuck they want, but that's not how it is legally, and to say it shouldn't be like that is different than saying that it isn't like that for Steam.
What I find particularly interesting about this case is how large steam is. Your argument could just as easily be applied to comcast/time warner/quest. They don't like your tasteless penny-arcade website, and as a private business why should they have to provide access to it?
At some point businesses can cross over from being one of many to being the only game in town. Then it's not so clear cut to me that just because they are a business and not the government, it's impossible for them to be censoring people.
Morally, a major difference is that the telecoms operate with government protection and approval. Bandwidth is sold by the government to organizations. Cable networks are partially built by the government, which allows major telecoms to hook into their hubs. Your average Joe can't just start digging up the ground in New York City to start laying cable. I can't just plug into TAT-14 whenever I want. And you certainly don't have access to the core Internet DNS routers that hold the damn thing together.
Legally, the major difference is that the telecoms are regulated by the FCC. We might say, hey, the telecoms should be allowed to do whatever the fuck they want, but that's not how it is legally, and to say it shouldn't be like that is different than saying that it isn't like that for Steam.
My understanding of the telecoms is different then yours. let me just go through a few points where I disagree with you.
1) Airwaves are certainly divided up by the government (to prevent companies from overcrowding), but cable/dsl lines are not. I'm not sure how this qualifies as government protection/approval.
2) What parts of the cable networks are built by the government? You need permits to do construction work anywhere in cities. This includes in your own house. That doesn't mean the government wouldn't give me a permit to dig cable lines if I had plans that met regulations and had the money to do it.
3) I'm not sure why core DNS routers being treated like wholesale distributors matters. I can't buy my iphone straight from the factory either. That doesn't seem to cause any issues.
I think there is a legitimate question to ask about censorship when it comes to major distribution centers without any rival service. Cable companies almost certainly fall under that umbrella for me, steam is on the fence since you could still host your own server for direct downloads.
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
What I find particularly interesting about this case is how large steam is. Your argument could just as easily be applied to comcast/time warner/quest. They don't like your tasteless penny-arcade website, and as a private business why should they have to provide access to it?
At some point businesses can cross over from being one of many to being the only game in town. Then it's not so clear cut to me that just because they are a business and not the government, it's impossible for them to be censoring people.
Morally, a major difference is that the telecoms operate with government protection and approval. Bandwidth is sold by the government to organizations. Cable networks are partially built by the government, which allows major telecoms to hook into their hubs. Your average Joe can't just start digging up the ground in New York City to start laying cable. I can't just plug into TAT-14 whenever I want. And you certainly don't have access to the core Internet DNS routers that hold the damn thing together.
Legally, the major difference is that the telecoms are regulated by the FCC. We might say, hey, the telecoms should be allowed to do whatever the fuck they want, but that's not how it is legally, and to say it shouldn't be like that is different than saying that it isn't like that for Steam.
My understanding of the telecoms is different then yours. let me just go through a few points where I disagree with you.
1) Airwaves are certainly divided up by the government (to prevent companies from overcrowding), but cable/dsl lines are not. I'm not sure how this qualifies as government protection/approval.
2) What parts of the cable networks are built by the government? You need permits to do construction work anywhere in cities. This includes in your own house. That doesn't mean the government wouldn't give me a permit to dig cable lines if I had plans that met regulations and had the money to do it.
3) I'm not sure why core DNS routers being treated like wholesale distributors matters. I can't buy my iphone straight from the factory either. That doesn't seem to cause any issues.
I think there is a legitimate question to ask about censorship when it comes to major distribution centers without any rival service. Cable companies almost certainly fall under that umbrella for me, steam is on the fence since you could still host your own server for direct downloads.
Steam has nowhere close to the monopoly cable providers have. Steam also does not provide the same service cable providers do.
They can feel free to try to put their stuff on any marketplace they want, but if the guy running a particular marketplace decides he doesn't want to run a business that also helps further Nazi propaganda then that's his right.
This idea that people shouldn't be free to choose what they do and don't sell or advertise is nonsense. Of course people should be allowed to decide. I wonder how many Christian bookstores would stock copies of the Quran if I walked in and asked them to. (Note: I do not really wonder)
I think it's obvious that there is some extent to which 'people' shouldn't be free to choose what they sell and/or advertise or for that matter who they sell to/employ/buy from. The libertarian ideal of absolute freedom of association is clearly problematic, as evidenced by all the laws curtailing it. I would think no one here would agree with a Christian bookstore refusing to employ a gay person, even though that clearly falls in their freedom of association-based wish to not associate with people they dislike. And even if one were to argue that they should be legally allowed to do such a thing, it would be hard to argue that it would be morally permissible.
Clearly the issue with Hatred is different, not selling a work of art and discriminating based on sexual orientation are not the same thing. But to justify a ban solely by appealing to an absolute interpretation of freedom of association is silly. Particularly if you seek to justify it on moral grounds rather than legal ones.
I mean just think of a different game and ask yourself the same questions. Imagine there is a very good feminist game with a solid gender-equality message. Obviously no company can be legally compelled to release or promote it, but does that mean choosing to release it or not is a morally neutral action? Is there no moral obligation to release/promote the game? Does the equation change if it's a commercial company rather than a private person?
No one that I know of has claimed that the action would be morally neutral. What I know myself, josh, and others have disagreed with is that a company opting to not sell someone's work isn't censorship. If Steam decided to not sell a game because it espoused feminist values I would be incredibly disappointed with Steam and very probably use a different service. But I wouldn't call it censorship. Cause it ain't.
What I find particularly interesting about this case is how large steam is. Your argument could just as easily be applied to comcast/time warner/quest. They don't like your tasteless penny-arcade website, and as a private business why should they have to provide access to it?
At some point businesses can cross over from being one of many to being the only game in town. Then it's not so clear cut to me that just because they are a business and not the government, it's impossible for them to be censoring people.
If you consider video games to be the equivalent of internet service sure.
That'd be a hella weird stance to take but sure.
Wait so net neutrality is only important on things that pass a certain importance test? If there is only one provider of video games (which there isn't but assuming for a moment that was the case) then I think it would be exactly the same. Now given that you can still distribute games without steam it's not 100% equal, but I do wonder where we should draw the line. Is steam big enough (without reasonable alternatives) that they should be able to exercise freedom of association, or should they be regulated?
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
Wait so net neutrality is only important on things that pass a certain importance test? If there is only one provider of video games (which there isn't but assuming for a moment that was the case) then I think it would be exactly the same. Now given that you can still distribute games without steam it's not 100% equal, but I do wonder where we should draw the line. Is steam big enough (without reasonable alternatives) that they should be able to exercise freedom of association, or should they be regulated?
No see this is bad, this is when you make up something to justify your argument and that's not a good argument.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
What I find particularly interesting about this case is how large steam is. Your argument could just as easily be applied to comcast/time warner/quest. They don't like your tasteless penny-arcade website, and as a private business why should they have to provide access to it?
At some point businesses can cross over from being one of many to being the only game in town. Then it's not so clear cut to me that just because they are a business and not the government, it's impossible for them to be censoring people.
Morally, a major difference is that the telecoms operate with government protection and approval. Bandwidth is sold by the government to organizations. Cable networks are partially built by the government, which allows major telecoms to hook into their hubs. Your average Joe can't just start digging up the ground in New York City to start laying cable. I can't just plug into TAT-14 whenever I want. And you certainly don't have access to the core Internet DNS routers that hold the damn thing together.
Legally, the major difference is that the telecoms are regulated by the FCC. We might say, hey, the telecoms should be allowed to do whatever the fuck they want, but that's not how it is legally, and to say it shouldn't be like that is different than saying that it isn't like that for Steam.
My understanding of the telecoms is different then yours. let me just go through a few points where I disagree with you.
1) Airwaves are certainly divided up by the government (to prevent companies from overcrowding), but cable/dsl lines are not. I'm not sure how this qualifies as government protection/approval.
2) What parts of the cable networks are built by the government? You need permits to do construction work anywhere in cities. This includes in your own house. That doesn't mean the government wouldn't give me a permit to dig cable lines if I had plans that met regulations and had the money to do it.
3) I'm not sure why core DNS routers being treated like wholesale distributors matters. I can't buy my iphone straight from the factory either. That doesn't seem to cause any issues.
I think there is a legitimate question to ask about censorship when it comes to major distribution centers without any rival service. Cable companies almost certainly fall under that umbrella for me, steam is on the fence since you could still host your own server for direct downloads.
Steam has nowhere close to the monopoly cable providers have. Steam also does not provide the same service cable providers do.
The first part is certainly true, but I'm not sold that they aren't enough of a monopoly to warrant extra scrutiny. I'm not sure why the second part is even relevant.
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
A monopoly would imply Steam is the only place to get games online, its not at all period. Its a popular service people like, but its not the only one to get games. You can't call something a monopoly because its popular. That's like saying Iphones are monopolies or Youtube is a monopoly. It ruins the word and its meaning.
Soon enough there will be song called Monopolies about things that aren't.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Wait so net neutrality is only important on things that pass a certain importance test? If there is only one provider of video games (which there isn't but assuming for a moment that was the case) then I think it would be exactly the same. Now given that you can still distribute games without steam it's not 100% equal, but I do wonder where we should draw the line. Is steam big enough (without reasonable alternatives) that they should be able to exercise freedom of association, or should they be regulated?
No see this is bad, this is when you make up something to justify your argument and that's not a good argument.
If you want to disagree with that part then we can certainly discuss whether or not they are enough of a monopoly to warrant regulations, but in an effort to elucidate quids position I wanted to know if he agrees that a monopoly on video game distribution warrants regulation in the first place. Hypotheticals are perfectly valid to discuss different aspects of a situation.
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
Hypotheticals where the hypothetical is god damn near impossible is not a good hypothetical. It would like me floating a hypothetical about having a threesome with Scarlet Johanssen and Kate Upton to ask if cheating is ok. There is no way steam could become a monopoly in game distribution enough in the modern age to ever warrant government regulation. Period. End of hypothetical.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Posts
And I'm sure the list of cases is "government tells religious group it can't discriminate"
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
I actually don't doubt that OCCASIONALLY these cases could go in the Christians' favor for good reasons, but the circumstances would have to be different from "Someone doesn't believe in God and didn't let me presume belief in God to the entire student body!"
Everything old is new again. My stance on this issue hasn't changed just because it's a video game designer instead of an actor that's being a total silly goose.
By the way, the guy who is designing this game has white supremacist tattoos, liked a white supremacy group on his Facebook page and shaves his head. I'm not saying he's a white supremacist, I report, you decide.
Please for the love of God let's not turn this into a Gamergate thread or it'll be closed so quickly the rest of the forums will shake from the impact.
pleasepaypreacher.net
This idea that people shouldn't be free to choose what they do and don't sell or advertise is nonsense. Of course people should be allowed to decide. I wonder how many Christian bookstores would stock copies of the Quran if I walked in and asked them to. (Note: I do not really wonder)
I think it's obvious that there is some extent to which 'people' shouldn't be free to choose what they sell and/or advertise or for that matter who they sell to/employ/buy from. The libertarian ideal of absolute freedom of association is clearly problematic, as evidenced by all the laws curtailing it. I would think no one here would agree with a Christian bookstore refusing to employ a gay person, even though that clearly falls in their freedom of association-based wish to not associate with people they dislike. And even if one were to argue that they should be legally allowed to do such a thing, it would be hard to argue that it would be morally permissible.
Clearly the issue with Hatred is different, not selling a work of art and discriminating based on sexual orientation are not the same thing. But to justify a ban solely by appealing to an absolute interpretation of freedom of association is silly. Particularly if you seek to justify it on moral grounds rather than legal ones.
I mean just think of a different game and ask yourself the same questions. Imagine there is a very good feminist game with a solid gender-equality message. Obviously no company can be legally compelled to release or promote it, but does that mean choosing to release it or not is a morally neutral action? Is there no moral obligation to release/promote the game? Does the equation change if it's a commercial company rather than a private person?
No one that I know of has claimed that the action would be morally neutral. What I know myself, josh, and others have disagreed with is that a company opting to not sell someone's work isn't censorship. If Steam decided to not sell a game because it espoused feminist values I would be incredibly disappointed with Steam and very probably use a different service. But I wouldn't call it censorship. Cause it ain't.
This ignores the reason protected classes exist. It's because someone being gay does not affect their ability to perform a job. It is irrelevant. But the content of the media a retailer sells is, by nature of consumption, content that the retailer is promoting by selling it. So while it would be illegal for a Christian owned bookstore to refuse to hire a gay person because they are gay, it is not illegal for a Christian bookstore to refuse to stock gay literature. These two things are not the same.
Sexual orientation isn't actually a protected class in a lot of states >>
I don't like Hooters, I think their food is awful and the gimmick is tacky, tasteless and maybe two steps removed from a strip club atmosphere, but that's the business they want to run and so they should be allowed to run it that way. I would never think of mandating that a gay strip club that caters to men hire female dancers for their establishment.
To make this actually relevant, if the people who run Steam want to avoid being directly responsible for their business giving money to a known white supremacist, then that ought to be their call to make. It's not quite the same as directly employing a member of the KKK or something, but if the type of games they want to provide to customers does not include things like Hatred, then I see no reason to force them to make it available on their service.
It is in Canada.
As usual, Canada is leading the way!
I feel any discussion over whether or not this constitutes censorship is an exceptionally pointless discussion as people like to use their own definition of it without informing anyone else. Definitions being what they are there is no way to be right or wrong about this and it seems to be a proxy for 'bad' anyway. We tend to be okay with some censorship so settling if it is doesn't solve much.
Of course, josh didn't use the word 'censorship' or quote someone using the word 'censorship' so I assumed he wasn't talking about whether or not this is censorship.
As the number of content providers keep getting merged into each other I don't think censorship need be limited to government actions. When DirectWarnerDishCast stops reselling MSNBC because it airs a pro-net neutrality piece, that will be censorship.
As an aside:
I find this 'companies rights' argument very interesting given the forums consensus vis a vi hobby lobby and other ACA related cases. I guess a company can only refuses to help fund something when that thing is something other than murdering the unborn.
This is a very strange post.
"When we talk, we use the same words but all think they mean different things, so there's no point in talking."
I don't think that the argument that a business is obligated to distribute anyone's materials should it be asked of them, and if they don't they're engaging in censorship holds any water at all. It's ignorance and entitlement. It is the ranting of the self-obsessed and arrogant that freedom is reserved solely for them.
Please don't make me explain the difference between providing compensation to employees and putting a game on a digital distribution service.
I don't expect Hobby Lobby to donate to Planned Parenthood. I'm honestly extremely sympathetic to their stance.
I do expect them to comply with that law and provide medical coverage that meets the bare minimum standards even if it goes against what they or I personally believe.
I don't see a conflict here.
Is this seriously the level of discourse you're going to bring to this thread?
Well that's not much of an argument anyway. You're not giving a reason as to why a business is obligated to do such a thing.
I disagree. There is a general benefit to everyone that all ideas can be accessed and judged on their merit. The same arguments against censorship by the government can be applied to censorship by content distributors. This is especially true on the internet, where there is next to no marginal cost to the distributor if the item proves unpopular and worthless. There is no shelf space taken up or inventory written off. Not distributing deny's the populace the benefits of the free exchange of ideas and saves them nothing.
Additionally censorship tends to fall almost exclusively on the marginal groups. While in this case the group is marginal by it's own making, and I guess you could say rightly marginalized, that isn't really the historic norm. Go look at the ALA most challenged book lists and it's pretty much non-christian(lol harry potter), gay(Daddy's roommate), women(Alice series) or minority(I know why the caged bird sings) books from 1 to 100.
While the internet has helped greatly in this regard, accounts of the isolation of living in rural small towns are not uncommon in the LGBT community. The idea that there will always be another source of something if XYZ doesn't carry it is kinda privileged.
Bittorrent itself stands in testament to the inability of content distributors to prevent distribution of anything.
I boldly bolded the relevant bit.
It's still a limit on freedom of association. I don't disagree that they are different, I am just pointing out that we can and do limit freedom of association.
What I find particularly interesting about this case is how large steam is. Your argument could just as easily be applied to comcast/time warner/quest. They don't like your tasteless penny-arcade website, and as a private business why should they have to provide access to it?
At some point businesses can cross over from being one of many to being the only game in town. Then it's not so clear cut to me that just because they are a business and not the government, it's impossible for them to be censoring people.
Yes, people have free speech, that does not mean:
-They are entitled to a platform. Shitty, racist, nazi, homophobic, misogynistic, theocratic asshole dude writes a shitty play that endorse all his vile shit. No one can stop that asshole from writing the play, distributing it to his fellow like-minded assholes or them making and recording the shitty play. All that said, youtube has ever right to yank off their site, every time the video goes up. The local theater can kindly tell them to fuck off. Warner Brothers Studio can flat out refuse to make a movie of it. Wal-Mart can refuse to carry copies of the play. The reason can all do so, is that they aren't required to provide a platform and they have freedom of association, since it's their platform, they are free to make sure it's not associated with such vile people. If the shitheads don't like it, they can create they're own goddamn separate website, build their own goddamn separate theater, start up their own goddamn separate movie studio and open their own goddamn separate store.
-They aren't free from the consequences. Write something that is morally vile, then expect one of the consequences being that certain distributors refuse to carry and distribute that content. They have freedom of association and distributing something is associating with others. Ergo, if they feel the act of distribution, will get them associated with someone that the public views negatively, they are free to refuse be the agent distribution and association that comes with that.
-They aren't allowed to shout down opposition. Playing the whole "if you refuse to sell my shitty product, that's censorship" card, is an attempt to shout down opposition because it's trying to claim that people have to listen to you and the company has to give you platform to be really load.
-Also the whole employment things is BS here. Steam isn't refusing someone employment being a vile shithead, they are refusing to carry a game and to be associated with the shit in the game. As for employment, well that's trickier. If someone spouts vitriol in the workplace, then a company is free to shitcan them for creating a hostile work environment that their fellow employees find harassing. If the person is the CEO, public spokesperson or other huge PR facet of the company, I do think companies can make an argument for ditching people that are very vocal about their shitty views because of freedom of association and the fact that the person is being publicly associated with the company by many individuals. Now when we get to position that aren't really public, I don't think businesses can make a compelling argument to shitcan people who have fuck awful views, if those people are smart enough to keep their mouths shut about such fuck awful views, while on the job.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
pleasepaypreacher.net
If you consider video games to be the equivalent of internet service sure.
That'd be a hella weird stance to take but sure.
Morally, a major difference is that the telecoms operate with government protection and approval. Bandwidth is sold by the government to organizations. Cable networks are partially built by the government, which allows major telecoms to hook into their hubs. Your average Joe can't just start digging up the ground in New York City to start laying cable. I can't just plug into TAT-14 whenever I want. And you certainly don't have access to the core Internet DNS routers that hold the damn thing together.
Legally, the major difference is that the telecoms are regulated by the FCC. We might say, hey, the telecoms should be allowed to do whatever the fuck they want, but that's not how it is legally, and to say it shouldn't be like that is different than saying that it isn't like that for Steam.
My understanding of the telecoms is different then yours. let me just go through a few points where I disagree with you.
1) Airwaves are certainly divided up by the government (to prevent companies from overcrowding), but cable/dsl lines are not. I'm not sure how this qualifies as government protection/approval.
2) What parts of the cable networks are built by the government? You need permits to do construction work anywhere in cities. This includes in your own house. That doesn't mean the government wouldn't give me a permit to dig cable lines if I had plans that met regulations and had the money to do it.
3) I'm not sure why core DNS routers being treated like wholesale distributors matters. I can't buy my iphone straight from the factory either. That doesn't seem to cause any issues.
I think there is a legitimate question to ask about censorship when it comes to major distribution centers without any rival service. Cable companies almost certainly fall under that umbrella for me, steam is on the fence since you could still host your own server for direct downloads.
Steam has nowhere close to the monopoly cable providers have. Steam also does not provide the same service cable providers do.
Wait so net neutrality is only important on things that pass a certain importance test? If there is only one provider of video games (which there isn't but assuming for a moment that was the case) then I think it would be exactly the same. Now given that you can still distribute games without steam it's not 100% equal, but I do wonder where we should draw the line. Is steam big enough (without reasonable alternatives) that they should be able to exercise freedom of association, or should they be regulated?
No see this is bad, this is when you make up something to justify your argument and that's not a good argument.
pleasepaypreacher.net
The first part is certainly true, but I'm not sold that they aren't enough of a monopoly to warrant extra scrutiny. I'm not sure why the second part is even relevant.
Soon enough there will be song called Monopolies about things that aren't.
pleasepaypreacher.net
If you want to disagree with that part then we can certainly discuss whether or not they are enough of a monopoly to warrant regulations, but in an effort to elucidate quids position I wanted to know if he agrees that a monopoly on video game distribution warrants regulation in the first place. Hypotheticals are perfectly valid to discuss different aspects of a situation.
pleasepaypreacher.net