Like, if I own a movie theater that refuses to show porn films, I am engaging in censorship.
I know you're trying to be snarky here, but this point over abuse of ratings by the MPAA and movie theaters and how it does actually curtail free speech (especially when it comes to sex and minority views) is the entire point of This Film Is Not Yet Rated, which is a movie worth watching. There's a similar issue with the ESRB and the AO rating - no major retailer will carry AO rated games, and the console manufacturers won't certify them.
Due to collusion between multiple businesses enforced by a trade organization that oversees those businesses... not to mention gentlemans' agreements to grant time-limited exclusivity rights to those businesses.
Which is not at all analogous to a single large business choosing not to carry a product.
The closest analogy here in the theatrical realm would be if Regal alone decided not to carry a film. But even that wouldn't be a good analogy, because movie theaters are by definition local while digital distribution by definition is not. So really a better analogy would be if Netflix decided not to carry a film.
ITT: Netflix is censorship because they don't show porn films.
Netflix is censoring Numb3rs because they are removing it on Jan 2.
Also, "Network effects are real" is a glib way of saying "Sure, the makers of Hatred could distribute through their own website or GoG or Desura, but they won't make as much money!"
Allow me to play the world's smallest violin.
I have a suspicion that this motivates a lot of the arguments as well
I kind of think that the game is likely to have only niche appeal on any distribution platform, since the era of hyper violence being shocking, and notoreity as marketing, has kind of passed
You realise valve refusing to carry this game doesn't meet any of those definitions, right?
fucking substantiate your claim motherfucker.
The developers speech hasn't been suppressed, nobody has imposed their personal or political moral values on anyone else, and there has been no exercise of control over the information circulating in society.
Unless you want to argue that steam is literally the only forum in which the developers could have made their statement (which was the origin of the monopoly discussion, whether steam was a de facto gatekeeper on access to PC games).
see above suppression.
What suppression?
Valve refusing to put the game on steam isn't preventing the developers from publishing the game, or preventing anyone from buying it.
I meant my other post. Anyway, I'd love to keep this going but I got to run for the holidays. Good arguing, y'all, and I still think you are wrong.
I mean
You apparently think a lot of things
+8
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Also, "Network effects are real" is a glib way of saying "Sure, the makers of Hatred could distribute through their own website or GoG or Desura, but they won't make as much money!"
Allow me to play the world's smallest violin.
Well they won't make as much money but I think the point is rather that not as many people will be aware of a game regardless of the content of the game.
And while Hatred doesn't have much merit the same network effect would also apply to games with a lot of merit. I don't care about the network effect in this case because Hatred looks to be a pretty terrible game, but that is not the same as saying the network effect is of no concern ever.
Surely the whole thing depends on Valve's motives?
Valve deciding that Hatred is not going to be commercially viable due to any boycotts/bad press etc in response to releasing it wouldn't be censorship on Valve's behalf (the people arranging the boycotts would be attempting to censor Hatred's developers though).
Valve deciding that Hatred is offensive and not something that should be distributed, so removing it from Steam, is censorship.
I wonder what Steam's market share really is in the video game market, because there's no way steam sells more than all consoles combined.
So their market share is more accurately going to be low double digit percent. Like, 20%, max.
Why would you compare it to the market as a whole though? Market share can be local.
Steam isn't local. The claim that Steam is a near monopoly on games is spurious at best.
The only distribution platform for XBox is Live. The only distribution platform for Playstation is PSN. The only distribution platform for iOS is the appstore. Nobody is bitching about Hatred not appearing on any of those platforms and if you can claim that a single platform counts as an entire market, then they really are true monopolies.
Steam competes against Origin, GOG, Ubi's online store and whatever other platforms I'm not remembering right now. The PSN doesn't. Live doesn't. The Appstore doesn't.
It is so far from a monopoly under any definition.
You are so completely missing the point. Saying "Steam is only 20% of total video game sales" is comparing it against a market of a size that is irrelevant to the point. One can be less then a percent of the total worldwide cable market and still be a monopoly by having control over a specific market with clearly defined barriers. Location is the obvious one here. Monopolies can be local. Total market share is a terrible metric you should not be using.
You compare Steam's marketshare to PC gaming as a wholef not video gaming as whole. Because that's the market it operates in, with clear and obvious barriers between that market and the rest of the video game market. And because of that their actual relevant market share is quite a bit higher then you are suggesting.
Yeesh.
EDIT:
Also though I'd point out that Steam pricing is totally location based so it's also local in that sense.
This only works if developers cannot develop on more than one platform. A developer does not get extra special points by just developing on PC and then claiming they're being censored because one retailer for that one platform won't stock their product.
No, it doesn't. That comment doesn't even make sense in this context.
That you can develop for more then one platform just means you can sell your product in two different markets.
And censorship is because ... well, it's up there in the thread title. It's where this conversation started. I'm the one who has said things about it, so I've no clue why you keep... taking it down?
Because it's not when anyone you are actually replying to is claiming. (someone was earlier, but they were not me so bringing it up to me makes no sense) The thread title talks about Duck Dynasty too, but that's not what anyone is talking about in here anymore.
Also, "Network effects are real" is a glib way of saying "Sure, the makers of Hatred could distribute through their own website or GoG or Desura, but they won't make as much money!"
Allow me to play the world's smallest violin.
Well they won't make as much money but I think the point is rather that not as many people will be aware of a game regardless of the content of the game.
And while Hatred doesn't have much merit the same network effect would also apply to games with a lot of merit. I don't care about the network effect in this case because Hatred looks to be a pretty terrible game, but that is not the same as saying the network effect is of no concern ever.
And still not censorship at all.
As I said before. If Steam decided to not allow a game because it espoused feminist themes I would indeed be upset with Steam. I wouldn't call it censorship or anything beyond a terrible decision and I'd probably just go use some other service.
Surely the whole thing depends on Valve's motives?
Valve deciding that Hatred is not going to be commercially viable due to any boycotts/bad press etc in response to releasing it wouldn't be censorship on Valve's behalf (the people arranging the boycotts would be attempting to censor Hatred's developers though).
Valve deciding that Hatred is offensive and not something that should be distributed, so removing it from Steam, is censorship.
Nope. Neither are censorship. Valve is not obligated to sell someone's game and they explicitly state they won't if contains offensive material.
Also, "Network effects are real" is a glib way of saying "Sure, the makers of Hatred could distribute through their own website or GoG or Desura, but they won't make as much money!"
Allow me to play the world's smallest violin.
Which might be a bigger violin if it is something you want. a 500 sq. foot retail location has to pick winners and losers because of strict necessity of having only 500 sq. feet, but I don't really want international corporations with incredible industry pull picking winners and losers based on purely political views.
Really, this is the argument for free speech in general. We would do nothing unjust, nor lose anything of any value whatsoever, if every person who advocated teaching intelligent design in schools was arrested and imprisoned. Those people are undermining our society and should be treated as such. The reason I don't actually advocate passing that bill, is that I don't trust that same law, and / or same legal principle will continue to be a force for good when applied by people 100 years and 1000 miles away.
If we set, as a general principle, that when reasonable, content ought to be delivered to customers who want it, that sets us up very well.
You know, I had a lot of hypothetical examples to toss at the "Valve preventing a game from appearing on Steam is censorship" proponents. You know, is it censorship if a newspaper refuses to print an op-ed piece by Westboro Baptist, what if a theater refuses to show Birth of a Nation, should cracked.com be allowed to reject an article called '9 reasons the Jews caused 9/11," etc.
But then I realized something. This is a forum. One that is an extension of the digital content of the webcomic Penny Arcade. Said forum has mods who will, and have, infracted or banned posters or locked threads for many reasons, including offensive content. So isn't that effectively the same thing?
You know what? Nanowrimo's cancelled on account of the world is stupid.
0
Options
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
Also, "Network effects are real" is a glib way of saying "Sure, the makers of Hatred could distribute through their own website or GoG or Desura, but they won't make as much money!"
Allow me to play the world's smallest violin.
Which might be a bigger violin if it is something you want. a 500 sq. foot retail location has to pick winners and losers because of strict necessity of having only 500 sq. feet, but I don't really want international corporations with incredible industry pull picking winners and losers based on purely political views.
Really, this is the argument for free speech in general. We would do nothing unjust, nor lose anything of any value whatsoever, if every person who advocated teaching intelligent design in schools was arrested and imprisoned. Those people are undermining our society and should be treated as such. The reason I don't actually advocate passing that bill, is that I don't trust that same law, and / or same legal principle will continue to be a force for good when applied by people 100 years and 1000 miles away.
If we set, as a general principle, that when reasonable, content ought to be delivered to customers who want it, that sets us up very well.
I don't understand your point here?
So schools should be teaching intelligent design?
edit:
Okay, I think I got it, but then your example doesn't mesh with the Steam thing, since they're not actively working against the Game makers.
Steam Greenlight doesn't work like that anyway. It's not "get X number of votes and your game WILL be on Steam!", it's just a way for Valve to see if a game has a large amount of interest behind it. They aren't obligated to select anything on the service at all if they don't want to, even if something gets 8 billion votes.
This is probably what's going to happen to Hatred, anyway. It's back on Greenlight, but I assume they'll just ignore it entirely.
+1
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
So lots of games aren't successful, then?
Does that mean that there's a whole lot of censorship going on?
Yeah, the reason people state censorship is a government power. Is the fact that it requires one to have the power to suppress the publication or writing of thoughts, that are deemed subversive. Now last time I check, Valve doesn't have the fucking authority or resources to prevent people distributing shitty games or preventing people from buying them. Now the censorship argument might have some merit, if Valve actually had the power to prevent a game from being distributed by anyone and made use of that power, but that's not what is happening here.
The monopoly argument is incredibly dumb. If someone is mixing out on games because steam doesn't carrying, that's their own damn fault and they should learn how to find out about new games without having steam tell them about them. I think others have done a fine example of explain why Steam isn't a monopoly.
Also, "Network effects are real" is a glib way of saying "Sure, the makers of Hatred could distribute through their own website or GoG or Desura, but they won't make as much money!"
Allow me to play the world's smallest violin.
Which might be a bigger violin if it is something you want. a 500 sq. foot retail location has to pick winners and losers because of strict necessity of having only 500 sq. feet, but I don't really want international corporations with incredible industry pull picking winners and losers based on purely political views.
Really, this is the argument for free speech in general. We would do nothing unjust, nor lose anything of any value whatsoever, if every person who advocated teaching intelligent design in schools was arrested and imprisoned. Those people are undermining our society and should be treated as such. The reason I don't actually advocate passing that bill, is that I don't trust that same law, and / or same legal principle will continue to be a force for good when applied by people 100 years and 1000 miles away.
If we set, as a general principle, that when reasonable, content ought to be delivered to customers who want it, that sets us up very well.
First, if a company refuses to carry something I want. I'll just get the product from elsewhere, if someone else is offering it. I sure as hell won't bitch about the company's action be censorship or accuse the company of being a monopoly. If a company pisses me off enough, I'll just take my money elsewhere either permanently or until the company fixes the issue to my satisfaction.
As for the whole "picking winners and losers" thing. When you go through a third party, instead of directly buying a product, from the producer. You are implicitly giving that third party permission to pick winners and losers. Yes, the goal is to save time on shopping, by having to visit less places, having someone tailor the product selection to a specific price range and possibly to specific tastes, while also ideally blocking all of the shitty scam items. The thing is, that third party also wants to make money. Sometimes this means they don't carry something because the demand isn't there to justify having the item in stock or securing it. Sometimes they don't carry something because there is no way for them to turn a reasonable profit off of it. Sometimes they don't carry something because they feel it will harm their reputation, in a manner that is bad for business.
Now since we're talking digital distribution, the argument becomes even more fucking shaky because the internet makes it even easier to buy directly from the producer. So a producer in this day and age, is going to have a hard time arguing that they are being unfairly impacted, if one or all the distributors refuse to carry product and they refuse to distribute it directly to potential customers. I'm sure there is something out there, where licensing and regulations, pretty much force the need for a third party distributor, but that's probably going to be something incredibly niche and likely where political views are an afterthought at best, if anyone bothers to pay attention. Video game are certainly not such an item and the make of Hatred is going to have hard time getting any sympathy from me because I'm pretty sure all the distributors aren't going to waste time dealing with Hatred (not only in not carrying it, but they aren't going to waste time blocking it either).
Surely the whole thing depends on Valve's motives?
Valve deciding that Hatred is not going to be commercially viable due to any boycotts/bad press etc in response to releasing it wouldn't be censorship on Valve's behalf (the people arranging the boycotts would be attempting to censor Hatred's developers though).
Valve deciding that Hatred is offensive and not something that should be distributed, so removing it from Steam, is censorship.
Nope. Neither are censorship. Valve is not obligated to sell someone's game and they explicitly state they won't if contains offensive material.
Obligation has nothing to do with it, Valve are well within their rights to pull a game from their store but if they're doing it because they're intentionally trying to limit the spread of this game then that seems to be a pretty clear cut example of censorship. Taking action to prevent people from being exposed to some kind of speech or media because you think it is harmful is censorship.
There's no requirement for something to be compulsory before stopping it can be censorship. We censor ourselves all the time based on where we are or who we're around, or when making something for a particular market - censorship isn't necessarily good or bad*, and to say that censorship can only happen when the it's bad and is being done by a government or a monopoly seems oddly narrow - especially when we know that censorship can and does occur on so many other levels.
*which should be obvious because clearly the person doing the censoring thinks it's a good thing!
Surely the whole thing depends on Valve's motives?
Valve deciding that Hatred is not going to be commercially viable due to any boycotts/bad press etc in response to releasing it wouldn't be censorship on Valve's behalf (the people arranging the boycotts would be attempting to censor Hatred's developers though).
Valve deciding that Hatred is offensive and not something that should be distributed, so removing it from Steam, is censorship.
Nope. Neither are censorship. Valve is not obligated to sell someone's game and they explicitly state they won't if contains offensive material.
Obligation has nothing to do with it, Valve are well within their rights to pull a game from their store but if they're doing it because they're intentionally trying to limit the spread of this game then that seems to be a pretty clear cut example of censorship. Taking action to prevent people from being exposed to some kind of speech or media because you think it is harmful is censorship.
There's no requirement for something to be compulsory before stopping it can be censorship. We censor ourselves all the time based on where we are or who we're around, or when making something for a particular market - censorship isn't necessarily good or bad*, and to say that censorship can only happen when the it's bad and is being done by a government or a monopoly seems oddly narrow - especially when we know that censorship can and does occur on so many other levels.
*which should be obvious because clearly the person doing the censoring thinks it's a good thing!
By your reasoning if I don't buy Hatred, or really anything else I consider distasteful or offensive, for myself or others I am censoring them.
This is not a particularly useful definition of the term.
And I never said it can only be bad. But I don't find the idea of extending the word censorship to cover nearly every action ever to be an especially good idea.
It's the definition used on Wikipedia, or close to it
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Also, "Network effects are real" is a glib way of saying "Sure, the makers of Hatred could distribute through their own website or GoG or Desura, but they won't make as much money!"
Allow me to play the world's smallest violin.
Which might be a bigger violin if it is something you want. a 500 sq. foot retail location has to pick winners and losers because of strict necessity of having only 500 sq. feet, but I don't really want international corporations with incredible industry pull picking winners and losers based on purely political views.
Really, this is the argument for free speech in general. We would do nothing unjust, nor lose anything of any value whatsoever, if every person who advocated teaching intelligent design in schools was arrested and imprisoned. Those people are undermining our society and should be treated as such. The reason I don't actually advocate passing that bill, is that I don't trust that same law, and / or same legal principle will continue to be a force for good when applied by people 100 years and 1000 miles away.
If we set, as a general principle, that when reasonable, content ought to be delivered to customers who want it, that sets us up very well.
Dude stop overestimating Steam's power here. They make up, overall, a very small portion of the actual video game market. If you don't like Steam's actions you've got at least a half dozen other options on PC alone.
A comparison to government quashing speech is not the same at all.
And "when reasonable" is ridiculously vague. I consider it perfectly reasonable for anyone to not support content they do not approve of. You, for some reason, disagree. So "reasonable" is clearly too subjective for you to be okay with given Steam doesn't sell games they find offensive all the time.
Surely the whole thing depends on Valve's motives?
Valve deciding that Hatred is not going to be commercially viable due to any boycotts/bad press etc in response to releasing it wouldn't be censorship on Valve's behalf (the people arranging the boycotts would be attempting to censor Hatred's developers though).
Valve deciding that Hatred is offensive and not something that should be distributed, so removing it from Steam, is censorship.
Nope. Neither are censorship. Valve is not obligated to sell someone's game and they explicitly state they won't if contains offensive material.
Obligation has nothing to do with it, Valve are well within their rights to pull a game from their store but if they're doing it because they're intentionally trying to limit the spread of this game then that seems to be a pretty clear cut example of censorship. Taking action to prevent people from being exposed to some kind of speech or media because you think it is harmful is censorship.
There's no requirement for something to be compulsory before stopping it can be censorship. We censor ourselves all the time based on where we are or who we're around, or when making something for a particular market - censorship isn't necessarily good or bad*, and to say that censorship can only happen when the it's bad and is being done by a government or a monopoly seems oddly narrow - especially when we know that censorship can and does occur on so many other levels.
*which should be obvious because clearly the person doing the censoring thinks it's a good thing!
By your reasoning if I don't buy Hatred, or really anything else I consider distasteful or offensive, for myself or others I am censoring them.
This is not a particularly useful definition of the term.
And I never said it can only be bad. But I don't find the idea of extending the word censorship to cover nearly every action ever to be an especially good idea.
You not buying it is not really censorship as your not attempting to stop someone else seeing it - you buying it and not letting your kid see it until they're a certain age would be.
The intent and the third party are the key things here - that doesn't seem too broad a definition to me, but would cover most things that would be recognised as censorship; governments banning materials, activist groups pressuring companies to pull a product or cancel a screening, bleeping out swear words or covering up nudity etc
Surely the whole thing depends on Valve's motives?
Valve deciding that Hatred is not going to be commercially viable due to any boycotts/bad press etc in response to releasing it wouldn't be censorship on Valve's behalf (the people arranging the boycotts would be attempting to censor Hatred's developers though).
Valve deciding that Hatred is offensive and not something that should be distributed, so removing it from Steam, is censorship.
Nope. Neither are censorship. Valve is not obligated to sell someone's game and they explicitly state they won't if contains offensive material.
Obligation has nothing to do with it, Valve are well within their rights to pull a game from their store but if they're doing it because they're intentionally trying to limit the spread of this game then that seems to be a pretty clear cut example of censorship. Taking action to prevent people from being exposed to some kind of speech or media because you think it is harmful is censorship.
There's no requirement for something to be compulsory before stopping it can be censorship. We censor ourselves all the time based on where we are or who we're around, or when making something for a particular market - censorship isn't necessarily good or bad*, and to say that censorship can only happen when the it's bad and is being done by a government or a monopoly seems oddly narrow - especially when we know that censorship can and does occur on so many other levels.
*which should be obvious because clearly the person doing the censoring thinks it's a good thing!
By your reasoning if I don't buy Hatred, or really anything else I consider distasteful or offensive, for myself or others I am censoring them.
This is not a particularly useful definition of the term.
And I never said it can only be bad. But I don't find the idea of extending the word censorship to cover nearly every action ever to be an especially good idea.
You not buying it is not really censorship as your not attempting to stop someone else seeing it - you buying it and not letting your kid see it until they're a certain age would be.
The intent and the third party are the key things here - that doesn't seem too broad a definition to me, but would cover most things that would be recognised as censorship; governments banning materials, activist groups pressuring companies to pull a product or cancel a screening, bleeping out swear words or covering up nudity etc
I'd be cutting in to their revenue stream by not purchasing it, making it that much more difficult for them to make more games in the same vein. I'd be preventing myself from seeing it. I'd be denying the chance of anyone browsing my Steam choices from seeing it's a game I would support. Remember, your exact words are "Taking action to prevent people from being exposed to some kind of speech or media because you think it is harmful is censorship." You make no mention of actual suppression. Which means by your logic virtually any action in regards to something you dislike that doesn't support it is censorship.
You're effectively mounting a one man boycott - how many people do you need for something to be counted as a boycott? If you were just going around telling people why you weren't buying it and why they shouldn't either, is there some line where after it snowballs and people start telling others what you told them and also not buying it where what you originally did becomes censorship, when you just telling a few people wasn't?
There's always going to be some fuzziness at the edges of any definition, but that's partly why I was saying that the whole 'is it censorship?' question is not the important one because basically if you're having to ask that question then the answer is probably going to be 'yes' unless it's unintentional. The important question is more 'is it effective censorship and should we be concerned about what is being censored, who is censoring it and how are they doing it?'
Saying it must be OK because censorship requires near total suppression seems a dangerous path to take.
Steam Greenlight doesn't work like that anyway. It's not "get X number of votes and your game WILL be on Steam!", it's just a way for Valve to see if a game has a large amount of interest behind it. They aren't obligated to select anything on the service at all if they don't want to, even if something gets 8 billion votes.
This is probably what's going to happen to Hatred, anyway. It's back on Greenlight, but I assume they'll just ignore it entirely.
Yeah, the Greenlight process is opaque, at best. Valve periodically checks the stats to see what can make them money and then works with the dev to publish it on Steam. Hatred has an extremely low chance of making it through that process.
For it to be censorship, you have to actively be trying to stop it, not just not helping it.
If you choose not to buy something and/or recommend to others that they shouldn't, that's not censorship, because in that case you're not stopping the content creators from doing anything. Even boycotting something isn't censorship unless it completely stops the distribution of something. Not supporting something is NOT the same as actively stopping something.
A store not carrying an item isn't censorship. They're not stopping the item from reaching an audience, they're simply not helping it along. That's a very important distinction.
If you suggest that something is censorship, and it turns out that it isn't, you can't just jump to 'well, the definition of censorship if a bit fuzzy and up in the air'. It isn't. It's actually pretty clear most of the time, including in this particular case. Valve choosing not to carry a game is not even close to being censorship.
+12
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
You not buying it is not really censorship as your not attempting to stop someone else seeing it
Steam wasn't trying to stop anyone from being exposed to Hatred. They were disassociating themselves from it.
And what's the difference between Steam choosing not to distribute a game from Greenlight, and the voters choosing not to support a game so that it doesn't get Greenlighted?
a private company not carrying a product is not censorship. how is this even up for debate?
A cable news channel is a private company that can creatively bury or kill news stories that the public should know about.
A record company in the music industry is a private company that can force a singer to change offensive lyrics or else not get a CD released.
Brick and mortar retailers are private companies that have colluded with each other not to carry Adults Only rated videogames ever which then shapes the entire videogame industry.
That's all censorship.
Steam not carrying one disgusting game because it's disgusting is not censorship but you can see how some people want to argue it is.
+2
Options
Gabriel_Pitt(effective against Russian warships)Registered Userregular
Surely the whole thing depends on Valve's motives?
Valve deciding that Hatred is not going to be commercially viable due to any boycotts/bad press etc in response to releasing it wouldn't be censorship on Valve's behalf (the people arranging the boycotts would be attempting to censor Hatred's developers though).
Valve deciding that Hatred is offensive and not something that should be distributed, so removing it from Steam, is censorship.
Not in the colloquial usage of the term, and you can argue about it all you want, but colloquial use trumps dictionary definition (and is where those definitions come from). The colloquial usage is that an entity is actively stopping someone from using their own faculties. Not giving someone a platform or access to their platform, for any reason, is not censorship.
a private company not carrying a product is not censorship. how is this even up for debate?
A cable news channel is a private company that can creatively bury or kill news stories that the public should know about.
A record company in the music industry is a private company that can force a singer to change offensive lyrics or else not get a CD released.
Brick and mortar retailers are private companies that have colluded with each other not to carry Adults Only rated videogames ever which then shapes the entire videogame industry.
That's all censorship.
Steam not carrying one disgusting game because it's disgusting is not censorship but you can see how some people want to argue it is.
You not buying it is not really censorship as your not attempting to stop someone else seeing it
Steam wasn't trying to stop anyone from being exposed to Hatred. They were disassociating themselves from it.
And what's the difference between Steam choosing not to distribute a game from Greenlight, and the voters choosing not to support a game so that it doesn't get Greenlighted?
If Valve didn't pick up Hatred from Greenlight to start developing properly, it could be a number of things - could be that they didn't think the content was suitable for Steam, or thought that the market for this is so niche that it's not worth the effort compared to other games they could pick, or they could just not be interested in it (I don't know how closely linked Valve's anarchic team structure ties in with Greenlight projects, but I met projects get picked up almost as much just because some people at Valve are interested in it as a marketing team reckons that they're going to be profitable).
However they didn't do that, they actively removed it from Greenlight once they saw it was getting a lot of votes/views, even though they didn't really need to in order to stop it appearing on Steam, and then put it back up when people started talking about censorship. This argument probably happened at Valve until Newell put his foot down.
It's definitely a borderline case, partly because I'm not all that familiar with Greenlight and partly because it wasn't done kind of a bit late and haphazardly for the first time which get the whole Streisand effect going.
Plus "Valve" isn't really that much of a single entity.
If Steam does decide that they want more control over the projects up on Greenlight I reckon we'll see it happen a lot more quietly.
Surely the whole thing depends on Valve's motives?
Valve deciding that Hatred is not going to be commercially viable due to any boycotts/bad press etc in response to releasing it wouldn't be censorship on Valve's behalf (the people arranging the boycotts would be attempting to censor Hatred's developers though).
Valve deciding that Hatred is offensive and not something that should be distributed, so removing it from Steam, is censorship.
Not in the colloquial usage of the term, and you can argue about it all you want, but colloquial use trumps dictionary definition (and is where those definitions come from). The colloquial usage is that an entity is actively stopping someone from using their own faculties. Not giving someone a platform or access to their platform, for any reason, is not censorship.
You're effectively mounting a one man boycott - how many people do you need for something to be counted as a boycott? If you were just going around telling people why you weren't buying it and why they shouldn't either, is there some line where after it snowballs and people start telling others what you told them and also not buying it where what you originally did becomes censorship, when you just telling a few people wasn't?
There's always going to be some fuzziness at the edges of any definition, but that's partly why I was saying that the whole 'is it censorship?' question is not the important one because basically if you're having to ask that question then the answer is probably going to be 'yes' unless it's unintentional. The important question is more 'is it effective censorship and should we be concerned about what is being censored, who is censoring it and how are they doing it?'
Your first paragraph still doesn't address the use of calling nearly everything censorship which is what you've apparently decided to do. Doing so doesn't help anything.
Your second paragraph is nonsense. "If you're having to ask that question then the answer is probably going to be 'yes'" is not fair to this discussion. No one is questioning it. One group of people is saying it definitely isn't because no one is actually being censored. Another group is saying it's totally censorship and suppressing people's rights without giving a satisfactory reason.
And this right here?
Saying it must be OK because censorship requires near total suppression seems a dangerous path to take.
I never said that so please stop making up statements just because you can't support yours.
Posts
Netflix is censoring Numb3rs because they are removing it on Jan 2.
Fascists.
I have a suspicion that this motivates a lot of the arguments as well
I kind of think that the game is likely to have only niche appeal on any distribution platform, since the era of hyper violence being shocking, and notoreity as marketing, has kind of passed
I mean
You apparently think a lot of things
Well they won't make as much money but I think the point is rather that not as many people will be aware of a game regardless of the content of the game.
And while Hatred doesn't have much merit the same network effect would also apply to games with a lot of merit. I don't care about the network effect in this case because Hatred looks to be a pretty terrible game, but that is not the same as saying the network effect is of no concern ever.
Valve deciding that Hatred is not going to be commercially viable due to any boycotts/bad press etc in response to releasing it wouldn't be censorship on Valve's behalf (the people arranging the boycotts would be attempting to censor Hatred's developers though).
Valve deciding that Hatred is offensive and not something that should be distributed, so removing it from Steam, is censorship.
No, it doesn't. That comment doesn't even make sense in this context.
That you can develop for more then one platform just means you can sell your product in two different markets.
Because it's not when anyone you are actually replying to is claiming. (someone was earlier, but they were not me so bringing it up to me makes no sense) The thread title talks about Duck Dynasty too, but that's not what anyone is talking about in here anymore.
And still not censorship at all.
As I said before. If Steam decided to not allow a game because it espoused feminist themes I would indeed be upset with Steam. I wouldn't call it censorship or anything beyond a terrible decision and I'd probably just go use some other service.
Nope. Neither are censorship. Valve is not obligated to sell someone's game and they explicitly state they won't if contains offensive material.
Which might be a bigger violin if it is something you want. a 500 sq. foot retail location has to pick winners and losers because of strict necessity of having only 500 sq. feet, but I don't really want international corporations with incredible industry pull picking winners and losers based on purely political views.
Really, this is the argument for free speech in general. We would do nothing unjust, nor lose anything of any value whatsoever, if every person who advocated teaching intelligent design in schools was arrested and imprisoned. Those people are undermining our society and should be treated as such. The reason I don't actually advocate passing that bill, is that I don't trust that same law, and / or same legal principle will continue to be a force for good when applied by people 100 years and 1000 miles away.
If we set, as a general principle, that when reasonable, content ought to be delivered to customers who want it, that sets us up very well.
But then I realized something. This is a forum. One that is an extension of the digital content of the webcomic Penny Arcade. Said forum has mods who will, and have, infracted or banned posters or locked threads for many reasons, including offensive content. So isn't that effectively the same thing?
I don't understand your point here?
So schools should be teaching intelligent design?
edit:
Okay, I think I got it, but then your example doesn't mesh with the Steam thing, since they're not actively working against the Game makers.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
I'd like to quote this because no one answered it. I didn't know that all games submitted to Greenlight were accepted.
This is probably what's going to happen to Hatred, anyway. It's back on Greenlight, but I assume they'll just ignore it entirely.
Does that mean that there's a whole lot of censorship going on?
The monopoly argument is incredibly dumb. If someone is mixing out on games because steam doesn't carrying, that's their own damn fault and they should learn how to find out about new games without having steam tell them about them. I think others have done a fine example of explain why Steam isn't a monopoly.
First, if a company refuses to carry something I want. I'll just get the product from elsewhere, if someone else is offering it. I sure as hell won't bitch about the company's action be censorship or accuse the company of being a monopoly. If a company pisses me off enough, I'll just take my money elsewhere either permanently or until the company fixes the issue to my satisfaction.
As for the whole "picking winners and losers" thing. When you go through a third party, instead of directly buying a product, from the producer. You are implicitly giving that third party permission to pick winners and losers. Yes, the goal is to save time on shopping, by having to visit less places, having someone tailor the product selection to a specific price range and possibly to specific tastes, while also ideally blocking all of the shitty scam items. The thing is, that third party also wants to make money. Sometimes this means they don't carry something because the demand isn't there to justify having the item in stock or securing it. Sometimes they don't carry something because there is no way for them to turn a reasonable profit off of it. Sometimes they don't carry something because they feel it will harm their reputation, in a manner that is bad for business.
Now since we're talking digital distribution, the argument becomes even more fucking shaky because the internet makes it even easier to buy directly from the producer. So a producer in this day and age, is going to have a hard time arguing that they are being unfairly impacted, if one or all the distributors refuse to carry product and they refuse to distribute it directly to potential customers. I'm sure there is something out there, where licensing and regulations, pretty much force the need for a third party distributor, but that's probably going to be something incredibly niche and likely where political views are an afterthought at best, if anyone bothers to pay attention. Video game are certainly not such an item and the make of Hatred is going to have hard time getting any sympathy from me because I'm pretty sure all the distributors aren't going to waste time dealing with Hatred (not only in not carrying it, but they aren't going to waste time blocking it either).
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
Obligation has nothing to do with it, Valve are well within their rights to pull a game from their store but if they're doing it because they're intentionally trying to limit the spread of this game then that seems to be a pretty clear cut example of censorship. Taking action to prevent people from being exposed to some kind of speech or media because you think it is harmful is censorship.
There's no requirement for something to be compulsory before stopping it can be censorship. We censor ourselves all the time based on where we are or who we're around, or when making something for a particular market - censorship isn't necessarily good or bad*, and to say that censorship can only happen when the it's bad and is being done by a government or a monopoly seems oddly narrow - especially when we know that censorship can and does occur on so many other levels.
*which should be obvious because clearly the person doing the censoring thinks it's a good thing!
By your reasoning if I don't buy Hatred, or really anything else I consider distasteful or offensive, for myself or others I am censoring them.
This is not a particularly useful definition of the term.
And I never said it can only be bad. But I don't find the idea of extending the word censorship to cover nearly every action ever to be an especially good idea.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Dude stop overestimating Steam's power here. They make up, overall, a very small portion of the actual video game market. If you don't like Steam's actions you've got at least a half dozen other options on PC alone.
A comparison to government quashing speech is not the same at all.
And "when reasonable" is ridiculously vague. I consider it perfectly reasonable for anyone to not support content they do not approve of. You, for some reason, disagree. So "reasonable" is clearly too subjective for you to be okay with given Steam doesn't sell games they find offensive all the time.
You not buying it is not really censorship as your not attempting to stop someone else seeing it - you buying it and not letting your kid see it until they're a certain age would be.
The intent and the third party are the key things here - that doesn't seem too broad a definition to me, but would cover most things that would be recognised as censorship; governments banning materials, activist groups pressuring companies to pull a product or cancel a screening, bleeping out swear words or covering up nudity etc
I'd be cutting in to their revenue stream by not purchasing it, making it that much more difficult for them to make more games in the same vein. I'd be preventing myself from seeing it. I'd be denying the chance of anyone browsing my Steam choices from seeing it's a game I would support. Remember, your exact words are "Taking action to prevent people from being exposed to some kind of speech or media because you think it is harmful is censorship." You make no mention of actual suppression. Which means by your logic virtually any action in regards to something you dislike that doesn't support it is censorship.
There's always going to be some fuzziness at the edges of any definition, but that's partly why I was saying that the whole 'is it censorship?' question is not the important one because basically if you're having to ask that question then the answer is probably going to be 'yes' unless it's unintentional. The important question is more 'is it effective censorship and should we be concerned about what is being censored, who is censoring it and how are they doing it?'
Saying it must be OK because censorship requires near total suppression seems a dangerous path to take.
If you choose not to buy something and/or recommend to others that they shouldn't, that's not censorship, because in that case you're not stopping the content creators from doing anything. Even boycotting something isn't censorship unless it completely stops the distribution of something. Not supporting something is NOT the same as actively stopping something.
A store not carrying an item isn't censorship. They're not stopping the item from reaching an audience, they're simply not helping it along. That's a very important distinction.
If you suggest that something is censorship, and it turns out that it isn't, you can't just jump to 'well, the definition of censorship if a bit fuzzy and up in the air'. It isn't. It's actually pretty clear most of the time, including in this particular case. Valve choosing not to carry a game is not even close to being censorship.
Steam wasn't trying to stop anyone from being exposed to Hatred. They were disassociating themselves from it.
And what's the difference between Steam choosing not to distribute a game from Greenlight, and the voters choosing not to support a game so that it doesn't get Greenlighted?
I think that we must ask the questions:
Who is denying something
What is being denied
Why is it being denied
To who is it being denied
How is it being denied
And, personally, after answering all these questions I'm fine with Steam taking down Hatred (and really wish they had kept it down)
A cable news channel is a private company that can creatively bury or kill news stories that the public should know about.
A record company in the music industry is a private company that can force a singer to change offensive lyrics or else not get a CD released.
Brick and mortar retailers are private companies that have colluded with each other not to carry Adults Only rated videogames ever which then shapes the entire videogame industry.
That's all censorship.
Steam not carrying one disgusting game because it's disgusting is not censorship but you can see how some people want to argue it is.
Not in the colloquial usage of the term, and you can argue about it all you want, but colloquial use trumps dictionary definition (and is where those definitions come from). The colloquial usage is that an entity is actively stopping someone from using their own faculties. Not giving someone a platform or access to their platform, for any reason, is not censorship.
No, it's really not.
If Valve didn't pick up Hatred from Greenlight to start developing properly, it could be a number of things - could be that they didn't think the content was suitable for Steam, or thought that the market for this is so niche that it's not worth the effort compared to other games they could pick, or they could just not be interested in it (I don't know how closely linked Valve's anarchic team structure ties in with Greenlight projects, but I met projects get picked up almost as much just because some people at Valve are interested in it as a marketing team reckons that they're going to be profitable).
However they didn't do that, they actively removed it from Greenlight once they saw it was getting a lot of votes/views, even though they didn't really need to in order to stop it appearing on Steam, and then put it back up when people started talking about censorship. This argument probably happened at Valve until Newell put his foot down.
It's definitely a borderline case, partly because I'm not all that familiar with Greenlight and partly because it wasn't done kind of a bit late and haphazardly for the first time which get the whole Streisand effect going.
Plus "Valve" isn't really that much of a single entity.
If Steam does decide that they want more control over the projects up on Greenlight I reckon we'll see it happen a lot more quietly.
By colloquial you mean hyper-reactionary?
Your first paragraph still doesn't address the use of calling nearly everything censorship which is what you've apparently decided to do. Doing so doesn't help anything.
Your second paragraph is nonsense. "If you're having to ask that question then the answer is probably going to be 'yes'" is not fair to this discussion. No one is questioning it. One group of people is saying it definitely isn't because no one is actually being censored. Another group is saying it's totally censorship and suppressing people's rights without giving a satisfactory reason.
And this right here?
I never said that so please stop making up statements just because you can't support yours.