In context, the scene isn't bad. If it was played straight as described, I would need to know the context and purpose of the work. If it was to pander to people with fantasies of raping women, then hell yes I would have a problem with the game.
Rape is a thing that occurs in real life, and I don't have a problem with it being depicted accurately in media. What I have a problem with is the glorification of rape, and I would absolutely vote with my wallet on that principle.
The question is though, who are you punishing with your wallet in the rape for pleasure scenario? Do you boycott the distributor (steam) or the creator (individual developers)? Even in a scenario where I would support voting with your wallet against the creators, I still feel like it would be bad to punish the distributor for carrying the game. That is what I see as the logical conclusion of the oft quoted "freedom of speech not freedom of criticism". You don't try and prevent the development or distribution of bad games, you simply apply criticisms and try and prevent the purchase of said games.
Whoever he wants. The artists, game company, distributor, all of the above.
Which is certainly his right, but that doesn't change the fact that some choices are better than others. I mean you might as well add rape victims to your list of people he could choose. Or Obama.
The point I was trying to make is that if you really believe in freedom of speech then why do you feel it is necessary to punish the distributor? Would you agree that choosing not to purchase a game, and shaming those who do, is fundamentally different than boycotting a distributor? To me, it seems like the ideal place to voice criticism is at the point of sale. Anything else seems like you are trying to leverage something unrelated to limit the ability of others to share ideas.
This is the first time I've heard of punishing distributors. I guess it's a thing. People are going to punish who they want to punish - I wouldn't say your examples are near what I was doing with mine, mine had some relation to selling the game, that's why their acceptable targets.
I question why you think anyone even tangentially related to the game is an acceptable filter. I'm proposing that going after the distributor hampers the free sharing of ideas that is the ultimate goal of the constitutional amendment for free speech. In a way that is distinctly unique from simply criticizing and boycotting the actual item that you have an issue with.
A distributor is closer to the game than Obama or random rape victims are. It's an unusual tactic, yet it is an organization that is vital to the game's success. Much like how targeting advertisers is, which isn't a new tactic for financially hurting another product/company.
Making a law that prohibited the creation and distribution of such a game is also a way to hurt a product/company. One that most people would agree would be a bad thing.
Which isn't happening in this situation. This isn't government censorship.
I am saying that boycotting a distributor is closer to censorship than criticism in terms of effects, and should be avoided.
People are going to boycott what they want to boycott.
I mean, basically I can't imagine the mindset where you go
"Hmmm... this company is engaging in business practices/selling products that I think actively hurt humanity and I wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole... but they have GTAV for $30 this week, better open my wallet!"
Basically my problem with your question is that it assumes the default state is support.
That isn't the case.
How is stream benefiting financially from you not buying the game? The state government and federal government also benefit from the game in terms of taxes, should we also be boycotting any programs they use that tax money for?
They're benefiting financially from selling the game. I'm supporting a company that benefits financially from selling something I don't want to support if I purchase from them (in this hypothetical situation).
Basically, if I don't agree with how, or from what, a company makes profit I don't support them.
A company has to earn business. Getting my business isn't the default state.
I feel like you are ignoring the effects of your decision though. The point of freedom of speech is to avoid a tyranny of the majority. The majority of us could decide that hatred is a bad game, that espouses harmful views. Passing a law to outlaw such a game is the most effective way to remove it from society. We all agree that this is a net bad thing as it limits the free sharing of ideas. But distributors are also beholden to the majority. We can achieve almost the exact same effect by simply boycotting the distributors in large numbers. If the end result is the same are we not also harming free speech by boycotting the distributors?
Jebus314 on
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
In context, the scene isn't bad. If it was played straight as described, I would need to know the context and purpose of the work. If it was to pander to people with fantasies of raping women, then hell yes I would have a problem with the game.
Rape is a thing that occurs in real life, and I don't have a problem with it being depicted accurately in media. What I have a problem with is the glorification of rape, and I would absolutely vote with my wallet on that principle.
The question is though, who are you punishing with your wallet in the rape for pleasure scenario? Do you boycott the distributor (steam) or the creator (individual developers)? Even in a scenario where I would support voting with your wallet against the creators, I still feel like it would be bad to punish the distributor for carrying the game. That is what I see as the logical conclusion of the oft quoted "freedom of speech not freedom of criticism". You don't try and prevent the development or distribution of bad games, you simply apply criticisms and try and prevent the purchase of said games.
Whoever he wants. The artists, game company, distributor, all of the above.
Which is certainly his right, but that doesn't change the fact that some choices are better than others. I mean you might as well add rape victims to your list of people he could choose. Or Obama.
The point I was trying to make is that if you really believe in freedom of speech then why do you feel it is necessary to punish the distributor? Would you agree that choosing not to purchase a game, and shaming those who do, is fundamentally different than boycotting a distributor? To me, it seems like the ideal place to voice criticism is at the point of sale. Anything else seems like you are trying to leverage something unrelated to limit the ability of others to share ideas.
This is the first time I've heard of punishing distributors. I guess it's a thing. People are going to punish who they want to punish - I wouldn't say your examples are near what I was doing with mine, mine had some relation to selling the game, that's why their acceptable targets.
I question why you think anyone even tangentially related to the game is an acceptable filter. I'm proposing that going after the distributor hampers the free sharing of ideas that is the ultimate goal of the constitutional amendment for free speech. In a way that is distinctly unique from simply criticizing and boycotting the actual item that you have an issue with.
Because they'd be making money off of content I don't want to support (hypothetically).
Say there's a sexual abuse simulator, and I don't want to in any way shape or form contribute money to anyone profiting off of it.
Is that a punishment, or is that me not rewarding business practices I don't want to support?
I'm not going after anyone by not purchasing things.
I think the point is that in this scenario "promoting the free sharing of ideas in the world" is a practice you hypothetically support. That is, you think distributors promoting the free sharing of ideas is a good thing. So you would reward businesses that do with your money, and not reward businesses that don't with your money.
In that scenario the default would be rewarding the business with your money (because they promote all ideas), and so not doing so because you don't like the item or whatever would be a punishment.
Hey if you don't want to buy games off Steam best of luck to you
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.
Basically my problem with your question is that it assumes the default state is support.
That isn't the case.
How is stream benefiting financially from you not buying the game? The state government and federal government also benefit from the game in terms of taxes, should we also be boycotting any programs they use that tax money for?
They're benefiting financially from selling the game. I'm supporting a company that benefits financially from selling something I don't want to support if I purchase from them (in this hypothetical situation).
Basically, if I don't agree with how, or from what, a company makes profit I don't support them.
A company has to earn business. Getting my business isn't the default state.
I feel like you are ignoring the effects of your decision though. The point of freedom of speech is to avoid a tyranny of the majority. The majority of us could decide that hatred is a bad game, that espouses harmful views. Passing a law to outlaw such a game is the most effective way to remove it from society. We all agree that this is a net bad thing as it limits the free sharing of ideas. But distributors are also beholden to the majority. We can achieve almost the exact same effect by simply boycotting the distributors in large numbers.
Sorry, distributors aren't guaranteed a profit if they make lousy business decisions.
The effect of my decision is me not spending money places I don't want to. The effect of their decisions is them possibly being one of those places.
Jebus you make it seem like any failed product do to people not purchasing/watching it has been censored and thats madness. Like I don't buy NCSoft mmos and actively encourage others not to because they are usually grindy garbage, are you trying to say I censored them?
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
In context, the scene isn't bad. If it was played straight as described, I would need to know the context and purpose of the work. If it was to pander to people with fantasies of raping women, then hell yes I would have a problem with the game.
Rape is a thing that occurs in real life, and I don't have a problem with it being depicted accurately in media. What I have a problem with is the glorification of rape, and I would absolutely vote with my wallet on that principle.
The question is though, who are you punishing with your wallet in the rape for pleasure scenario? Do you boycott the distributor (steam) or the creator (individual developers)? Even in a scenario where I would support voting with your wallet against the creators, I still feel like it would be bad to punish the distributor for carrying the game. That is what I see as the logical conclusion of the oft quoted "freedom of speech not freedom of criticism". You don't try and prevent the development or distribution of bad games, you simply apply criticisms and try and prevent the purchase of said games.
Whoever he wants. The artists, game company, distributor, all of the above.
Which is certainly his right, but that doesn't change the fact that some choices are better than others. I mean you might as well add rape victims to your list of people he could choose. Or Obama.
The point I was trying to make is that if you really believe in freedom of speech then why do you feel it is necessary to punish the distributor? Would you agree that choosing not to purchase a game, and shaming those who do, is fundamentally different than boycotting a distributor? To me, it seems like the ideal place to voice criticism is at the point of sale. Anything else seems like you are trying to leverage something unrelated to limit the ability of others to share ideas.
This is the first time I've heard of punishing distributors. I guess it's a thing. People are going to punish who they want to punish - I wouldn't say your examples are near what I was doing with mine, mine had some relation to selling the game, that's why their acceptable targets.
I question why you think anyone even tangentially related to the game is an acceptable filter. I'm proposing that going after the distributor hampers the free sharing of ideas that is the ultimate goal of the constitutional amendment for free speech. In a way that is distinctly unique from simply criticizing and boycotting the actual item that you have an issue with.
Because they'd be making money off of content I don't want to support (hypothetically).
Say there's a sexual abuse simulator, and I don't want to in any way shape or form contribute money to anyone profiting off of it.
Is that a punishment, or is that me not rewarding business practices I don't want to support?
I'm not going after anyone by not purchasing things.
I think the point is that in this scenario "promoting the free sharing of ideas in the world" is a practice you hypothetically support. That is, you think distributors promoting the free sharing of ideas is a good thing. So you would reward businesses that do with your money, and not reward businesses that don't with your money.
In that scenario the default would be rewarding the business with your money (because they promote all ideas), and so not doing so because you don't like the item or whatever would be a punishment.
Except that's not what I believe. I believe that some ideas and viewpoints are harmful. Not enough to be outlawed (censored) but enough where I wouldn't want to reward anyone profiting from those viewpoints.
Jebus you make it seem like any failed product do to people not purchasing/watching it has been censored and thats madness. Like I don't buy NCSoft mmos and actively encourage others not to because they are usually grindy garbage, are you trying to say I censored them?
Actually I specifically stated that point of sale boycotting is something I am absolutely for. Boycott the shit out of any game you feel like. Or if a particular company, like say walmart, has shitty business practices then by all means boycott that company. But boycotting a distributor (like walmart or stream) not because of their in house practices, but because of the items they carry, is a fundamentally different idea. One that I think is far to effective and leads to a similar tyranny of the majority as simply creating a law to suppress the item.
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
In context, the scene isn't bad. If it was played straight as described, I would need to know the context and purpose of the work. If it was to pander to people with fantasies of raping women, then hell yes I would have a problem with the game.
Rape is a thing that occurs in real life, and I don't have a problem with it being depicted accurately in media. What I have a problem with is the glorification of rape, and I would absolutely vote with my wallet on that principle.
The question is though, who are you punishing with your wallet in the rape for pleasure scenario? Do you boycott the distributor (steam) or the creator (individual developers)? Even in a scenario where I would support voting with your wallet against the creators, I still feel like it would be bad to punish the distributor for carrying the game. That is what I see as the logical conclusion of the oft quoted "freedom of speech not freedom of criticism". You don't try and prevent the development or distribution of bad games, you simply apply criticisms and try and prevent the purchase of said games.
Whoever he wants. The artists, game company, distributor, all of the above.
Which is certainly his right, but that doesn't change the fact that some choices are better than others. I mean you might as well add rape victims to your list of people he could choose. Or Obama.
The point I was trying to make is that if you really believe in freedom of speech then why do you feel it is necessary to punish the distributor? Would you agree that choosing not to purchase a game, and shaming those who do, is fundamentally different than boycotting a distributor? To me, it seems like the ideal place to voice criticism is at the point of sale. Anything else seems like you are trying to leverage something unrelated to limit the ability of others to share ideas.
This is the first time I've heard of punishing distributors. I guess it's a thing. People are going to punish who they want to punish - I wouldn't say your examples are near what I was doing with mine, mine had some relation to selling the game, that's why their acceptable targets.
I question why you think anyone even tangentially related to the game is an acceptable filter. I'm proposing that going after the distributor hampers the free sharing of ideas that is the ultimate goal of the constitutional amendment for free speech. In a way that is distinctly unique from simply criticizing and boycotting the actual item that you have an issue with.
Because they'd be making money off of content I don't want to support (hypothetically).
Say there's a sexual abuse simulator, and I don't want to in any way shape or form contribute money to anyone profiting off of it.
Is that a punishment, or is that me not rewarding business practices I don't want to support?
I'm not going after anyone by not purchasing things.
I think the point is that in this scenario "promoting the free sharing of ideas in the world" is a practice you hypothetically support. That is, you think distributors promoting the free sharing of ideas is a good thing. So you would reward businesses that do with your money, and not reward businesses that don't with your money.
In that scenario the default would be rewarding the business with your money (because they promote all ideas), and so not doing so because you don't like the item or whatever would be a punishment.
Except that's not what I believe. I believe that some ideas and viewpoints are harmful. Not enough to be outlawed (censored) but enough where I wouldn't want to reward anyone profiting from those viewpoints.
In context, the scene isn't bad. If it was played straight as described, I would need to know the context and purpose of the work. If it was to pander to people with fantasies of raping women, then hell yes I would have a problem with the game.
Rape is a thing that occurs in real life, and I don't have a problem with it being depicted accurately in media. What I have a problem with is the glorification of rape, and I would absolutely vote with my wallet on that principle.
The question is though, who are you punishing with your wallet in the rape for pleasure scenario? Do you boycott the distributor (steam) or the creator (individual developers)? Even in a scenario where I would support voting with your wallet against the creators, I still feel like it would be bad to punish the distributor for carrying the game. That is what I see as the logical conclusion of the oft quoted "freedom of speech not freedom of criticism". You don't try and prevent the development or distribution of bad games, you simply apply criticisms and try and prevent the purchase of said games.
Whoever he wants. The artists, game company, distributor, all of the above.
Which is certainly his right, but that doesn't change the fact that some choices are better than others. I mean you might as well add rape victims to your list of people he could choose. Or Obama.
The point I was trying to make is that if you really believe in freedom of speech then why do you feel it is necessary to punish the distributor? Would you agree that choosing not to purchase a game, and shaming those who do, is fundamentally different than boycotting a distributor? To me, it seems like the ideal place to voice criticism is at the point of sale. Anything else seems like you are trying to leverage something unrelated to limit the ability of others to share ideas.
This is the first time I've heard of punishing distributors. I guess it's a thing. People are going to punish who they want to punish - I wouldn't say your examples are near what I was doing with mine, mine had some relation to selling the game, that's why their acceptable targets.
I question why you think anyone even tangentially related to the game is an acceptable filter. I'm proposing that going after the distributor hampers the free sharing of ideas that is the ultimate goal of the constitutional amendment for free speech. In a way that is distinctly unique from simply criticizing and boycotting the actual item that you have an issue with.
Because they'd be making money off of content I don't want to support (hypothetically).
Say there's a sexual abuse simulator, and I don't want to in any way shape or form contribute money to anyone profiting off of it.
Is that a punishment, or is that me not rewarding business practices I don't want to support?
I'm not going after anyone by not purchasing things.
I think the point is that in this scenario "promoting the free sharing of ideas in the world" is a practice you hypothetically support. That is, you think distributors promoting the free sharing of ideas is a good thing. So you would reward businesses that do with your money, and not reward businesses that don't with your money.
In that scenario the default would be rewarding the business with your money (because they promote all ideas), and so not doing so because you don't like the item or whatever would be a punishment.
Except that's not what I believe. I believe that some ideas and viewpoints are harmful. Not enough to be outlawed (censored) but enough where I wouldn't want to reward anyone profiting from those viewpoints.
In context, the scene isn't bad. If it was played straight as described, I would need to know the context and purpose of the work. If it was to pander to people with fantasies of raping women, then hell yes I would have a problem with the game.
Rape is a thing that occurs in real life, and I don't have a problem with it being depicted accurately in media. What I have a problem with is the glorification of rape, and I would absolutely vote with my wallet on that principle.
The question is though, who are you punishing with your wallet in the rape for pleasure scenario? Do you boycott the distributor (steam) or the creator (individual developers)? Even in a scenario where I would support voting with your wallet against the creators, I still feel like it would be bad to punish the distributor for carrying the game. That is what I see as the logical conclusion of the oft quoted "freedom of speech not freedom of criticism". You don't try and prevent the development or distribution of bad games, you simply apply criticisms and try and prevent the purchase of said games.
Whoever he wants. The artists, game company, distributor, all of the above.
Which is certainly his right, but that doesn't change the fact that some choices are better than others. I mean you might as well add rape victims to your list of people he could choose. Or Obama.
The point I was trying to make is that if you really believe in freedom of speech then why do you feel it is necessary to punish the distributor? Would you agree that choosing not to purchase a game, and shaming those who do, is fundamentally different than boycotting a distributor? To me, it seems like the ideal place to voice criticism is at the point of sale. Anything else seems like you are trying to leverage something unrelated to limit the ability of others to share ideas.
This is the first time I've heard of punishing distributors. I guess it's a thing. People are going to punish who they want to punish - I wouldn't say your examples are near what I was doing with mine, mine had some relation to selling the game, that's why their acceptable targets.
I question why you think anyone even tangentially related to the game is an acceptable filter. I'm proposing that going after the distributor hampers the free sharing of ideas that is the ultimate goal of the constitutional amendment for free speech. In a way that is distinctly unique from simply criticizing and boycotting the actual item that you have an issue with.
Because they'd be making money off of content I don't want to support (hypothetically).
Say there's a sexual abuse simulator, and I don't want to in any way shape or form contribute money to anyone profiting off of it.
Is that a punishment, or is that me not rewarding business practices I don't want to support?
I'm not going after anyone by not purchasing things.
I think the point is that in this scenario "promoting the free sharing of ideas in the world" is a practice you hypothetically support. That is, you think distributors promoting the free sharing of ideas is a good thing. So you would reward businesses that do with your money, and not reward businesses that don't with your money.
In that scenario the default would be rewarding the business with your money (because they promote all ideas), and so not doing so because you don't like the item or whatever would be a punishment.
Except that's not what I believe. I believe that some ideas and viewpoints are harmful. Not enough to be outlawed (censored) but enough where I wouldn't want to reward anyone profiting from those viewpoints.
In context, the scene isn't bad. If it was played straight as described, I would need to know the context and purpose of the work. If it was to pander to people with fantasies of raping women, then hell yes I would have a problem with the game.
Rape is a thing that occurs in real life, and I don't have a problem with it being depicted accurately in media. What I have a problem with is the glorification of rape, and I would absolutely vote with my wallet on that principle.
The question is though, who are you punishing with your wallet in the rape for pleasure scenario? Do you boycott the distributor (steam) or the creator (individual developers)? Even in a scenario where I would support voting with your wallet against the creators, I still feel like it would be bad to punish the distributor for carrying the game. That is what I see as the logical conclusion of the oft quoted "freedom of speech not freedom of criticism". You don't try and prevent the development or distribution of bad games, you simply apply criticisms and try and prevent the purchase of said games.
Whoever he wants. The artists, game company, distributor, all of the above.
Which is certainly his right, but that doesn't change the fact that some choices are better than others. I mean you might as well add rape victims to your list of people he could choose. Or Obama.
The point I was trying to make is that if you really believe in freedom of speech then why do you feel it is necessary to punish the distributor? Would you agree that choosing not to purchase a game, and shaming those who do, is fundamentally different than boycotting a distributor? To me, it seems like the ideal place to voice criticism is at the point of sale. Anything else seems like you are trying to leverage something unrelated to limit the ability of others to share ideas.
This is the first time I've heard of punishing distributors. I guess it's a thing. People are going to punish who they want to punish - I wouldn't say your examples are near what I was doing with mine, mine had some relation to selling the game, that's why their acceptable targets.
I question why you think anyone even tangentially related to the game is an acceptable filter. I'm proposing that going after the distributor hampers the free sharing of ideas that is the ultimate goal of the constitutional amendment for free speech. In a way that is distinctly unique from simply criticizing and boycotting the actual item that you have an issue with.
Because they'd be making money off of content I don't want to support (hypothetically).
Say there's a sexual abuse simulator, and I don't want to in any way shape or form contribute money to anyone profiting off of it.
Is that a punishment, or is that me not rewarding business practices I don't want to support?
I'm not going after anyone by not purchasing things.
I think the point is that in this scenario "promoting the free sharing of ideas in the world" is a practice you hypothetically support. That is, you think distributors promoting the free sharing of ideas is a good thing. So you would reward businesses that do with your money, and not reward businesses that don't with your money.
In that scenario the default would be rewarding the business with your money (because they promote all ideas), and so not doing so because you don't like the item or whatever would be a punishment.
Except that's not what I believe. I believe that some ideas and viewpoints are harmful. Not enough to be outlawed (censored) but enough where I wouldn't want to reward anyone profiting from those viewpoints.
How do feel about boycotting advertisers to punish a third party from doing a certain thing?
0
Options
SurfpossumA nonentitytrying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered Userregular
But people can freely share ideas without a distributor.
I think, generally, people should be allowed to create whatever content they want[1], and anyone who wants to access that content should be able to do so[2].
But going a step further and saying that they should necessarily be supported in their endeavor to do so does not jive super well with our current systems. Sometimes people aren't able to do things! Society isn't currently designed to support every endeavor undertaken.
Now, if we were to set up a system that does provide some support for every endeavor (e.g. a guaranteed minimum income or whatever), then yes, I might say that even the objectionable stuff should receive that support.
But until then I am fine with things being allowed but not supported.
[1] Please understand.
[2] Allowing for whatever[1] restrictions the creators want to put on access.
In context, the scene isn't bad. If it was played straight as described, I would need to know the context and purpose of the work. If it was to pander to people with fantasies of raping women, then hell yes I would have a problem with the game.
Rape is a thing that occurs in real life, and I don't have a problem with it being depicted accurately in media. What I have a problem with is the glorification of rape, and I would absolutely vote with my wallet on that principle.
The question is though, who are you punishing with your wallet in the rape for pleasure scenario? Do you boycott the distributor (steam) or the creator (individual developers)? Even in a scenario where I would support voting with your wallet against the creators, I still feel like it would be bad to punish the distributor for carrying the game. That is what I see as the logical conclusion of the oft quoted "freedom of speech not freedom of criticism". You don't try and prevent the development or distribution of bad games, you simply apply criticisms and try and prevent the purchase of said games.
Whoever he wants. The artists, game company, distributor, all of the above.
Which is certainly his right, but that doesn't change the fact that some choices are better than others. I mean you might as well add rape victims to your list of people he could choose. Or Obama.
The point I was trying to make is that if you really believe in freedom of speech then why do you feel it is necessary to punish the distributor? Would you agree that choosing not to purchase a game, and shaming those who do, is fundamentally different than boycotting a distributor? To me, it seems like the ideal place to voice criticism is at the point of sale. Anything else seems like you are trying to leverage something unrelated to limit the ability of others to share ideas.
This is the first time I've heard of punishing distributors. I guess it's a thing. People are going to punish who they want to punish - I wouldn't say your examples are near what I was doing with mine, mine had some relation to selling the game, that's why their acceptable targets.
I question why you think anyone even tangentially related to the game is an acceptable filter. I'm proposing that going after the distributor hampers the free sharing of ideas that is the ultimate goal of the constitutional amendment for free speech. In a way that is distinctly unique from simply criticizing and boycotting the actual item that you have an issue with.
Because they'd be making money off of content I don't want to support (hypothetically).
Say there's a sexual abuse simulator, and I don't want to in any way shape or form contribute money to anyone profiting off of it.
Is that a punishment, or is that me not rewarding business practices I don't want to support?
I'm not going after anyone by not purchasing things.
I think the point is that in this scenario "promoting the free sharing of ideas in the world" is a practice you hypothetically support. That is, you think distributors promoting the free sharing of ideas is a good thing. So you would reward businesses that do with your money, and not reward businesses that don't with your money.
In that scenario the default would be rewarding the business with your money (because they promote all ideas), and so not doing so because you don't like the item or whatever would be a punishment.
Except that's not what I believe. I believe that some ideas and viewpoints are harmful. Not enough to be outlawed (censored) but enough where I wouldn't want to reward anyone profiting from those viewpoints.
Hey if you don't want to buy games off Steam best of luck to you
I don't think anyone in this thread is actively boycotting Steam. This is all hypothetical as far as I know.
Why do you think censorship is bad? What are you trying to protect by preventing things from being censored?
People having the right to express ideas.
Which is completely different from people profiting off of ideas in the free market, which isn't driven by rights, but profit.
What does the right to express ideas mean? If we create a law that bans you from creating a game like hatred, but allows you to create a movie with the same ideas, have you lost the right to express ideas? What if we make it legal to create that game but illegal to sell it?
Suppose hatred was a book rather than a video game. We the majority, in hopes to prevent anyone from profiting off hatred the book, vow to boycott not only publishers/distributors but also any paper/ink companies that would sell paper to anyone making the book. Through such a boycott we make it impossible for anyone to create this book on a scale larger than a few copies, despite the fact that demand for such a book could be substantially larger. Is this a problem or simply an effective use of the free market?
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
I can never understand why money not flowing into someone's pocket is presented as a free speech issue. It's not. Profit isn't related to free speech at all.
In context, the scene isn't bad. If it was played straight as described, I would need to know the context and purpose of the work. If it was to pander to people with fantasies of raping women, then hell yes I would have a problem with the game.
Rape is a thing that occurs in real life, and I don't have a problem with it being depicted accurately in media. What I have a problem with is the glorification of rape, and I would absolutely vote with my wallet on that principle.
The question is though, who are you punishing with your wallet in the rape for pleasure scenario? Do you boycott the distributor (steam) or the creator (individual developers)? Even in a scenario where I would support voting with your wallet against the creators, I still feel like it would be bad to punish the distributor for carrying the game. That is what I see as the logical conclusion of the oft quoted "freedom of speech not freedom of criticism". You don't try and prevent the development or distribution of bad games, you simply apply criticisms and try and prevent the purchase of said games.
Whoever he wants. The artists, game company, distributor, all of the above.
Which is certainly his right, but that doesn't change the fact that some choices are better than others. I mean you might as well add rape victims to your list of people he could choose. Or Obama.
The point I was trying to make is that if you really believe in freedom of speech then why do you feel it is necessary to punish the distributor? Would you agree that choosing not to purchase a game, and shaming those who do, is fundamentally different than boycotting a distributor? To me, it seems like the ideal place to voice criticism is at the point of sale. Anything else seems like you are trying to leverage something unrelated to limit the ability of others to share ideas.
This is the first time I've heard of punishing distributors. I guess it's a thing. People are going to punish who they want to punish - I wouldn't say your examples are near what I was doing with mine, mine had some relation to selling the game, that's why their acceptable targets.
I question why you think anyone even tangentially related to the game is an acceptable filter. I'm proposing that going after the distributor hampers the free sharing of ideas that is the ultimate goal of the constitutional amendment for free speech. In a way that is distinctly unique from simply criticizing and boycotting the actual item that you have an issue with.
Because they'd be making money off of content I don't want to support (hypothetically).
Say there's a sexual abuse simulator, and I don't want to in any way shape or form contribute money to anyone profiting off of it.
Is that a punishment, or is that me not rewarding business practices I don't want to support?
I'm not going after anyone by not purchasing things.
I think the point is that in this scenario "promoting the free sharing of ideas in the world" is a practice you hypothetically support. That is, you think distributors promoting the free sharing of ideas is a good thing. So you would reward businesses that do with your money, and not reward businesses that don't with your money.
In that scenario the default would be rewarding the business with your money (because they promote all ideas), and so not doing so because you don't like the item or whatever would be a punishment.
Except that's not what I believe. I believe that some ideas and viewpoints are harmful. Not enough to be outlawed (censored) but enough where I wouldn't want to reward anyone profiting from those viewpoints.
Hey if you don't want to buy games off Steam best of luck to you
I don't think anyone in this thread is actively boycotting Steam. This is all hypothetical as far as I know.
Why do you think censorship is bad? What are you trying to protect by preventing things from being censored?
People having the right to express ideas.
Which is completely different from people profiting off of ideas in the free market, which isn't driven by rights, but profit.
What does the right to express ideas mean? If we create a law that bans you from creating a game like hatred, but allows you to create a movie with the same ideas, have you lost the right to express ideas? What if we make it legal to create that game but illegal to sell it?
Suppose hatred was a book rather than a video game. We the majority, in hopes to prevent anyone from profiting off hatred the book, vow to boycott not only publishers/distributors but also any paper/ink companies that would sell paper to anyone making the book. Through such a boycott we make it impossible for anyone to create this book on a scale larger than a few copies, despite the fact that demand for such a book could be substantially larger. Is this a problem or simply an effective use of the free market?
Profit has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with the right to express ideas.
As long as you're free to express your ideas and sell them your right hasn't been violated.
Not being able to make money off of doing so isn't silencing anyone.
And actually, not spending money is as much speech as any product on the shelf.
Death of Rats on
No I don't.
+6
Options
SurfpossumA nonentitytrying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered Userregular
In context, the scene isn't bad. If it was played straight as described, I would need to know the context and purpose of the work. If it was to pander to people with fantasies of raping women, then hell yes I would have a problem with the game.
Rape is a thing that occurs in real life, and I don't have a problem with it being depicted accurately in media. What I have a problem with is the glorification of rape, and I would absolutely vote with my wallet on that principle.
The question is though, who are you punishing with your wallet in the rape for pleasure scenario? Do you boycott the distributor (steam) or the creator (individual developers)? Even in a scenario where I would support voting with your wallet against the creators, I still feel like it would be bad to punish the distributor for carrying the game. That is what I see as the logical conclusion of the oft quoted "freedom of speech not freedom of criticism". You don't try and prevent the development or distribution of bad games, you simply apply criticisms and try and prevent the purchase of said games.
Whoever he wants. The artists, game company, distributor, all of the above.
Which is certainly his right, but that doesn't change the fact that some choices are better than others. I mean you might as well add rape victims to your list of people he could choose. Or Obama.
The point I was trying to make is that if you really believe in freedom of speech then why do you feel it is necessary to punish the distributor? Would you agree that choosing not to purchase a game, and shaming those who do, is fundamentally different than boycotting a distributor? To me, it seems like the ideal place to voice criticism is at the point of sale. Anything else seems like you are trying to leverage something unrelated to limit the ability of others to share ideas.
This is the first time I've heard of punishing distributors. I guess it's a thing. People are going to punish who they want to punish - I wouldn't say your examples are near what I was doing with mine, mine had some relation to selling the game, that's why their acceptable targets.
I question why you think anyone even tangentially related to the game is an acceptable filter. I'm proposing that going after the distributor hampers the free sharing of ideas that is the ultimate goal of the constitutional amendment for free speech. In a way that is distinctly unique from simply criticizing and boycotting the actual item that you have an issue with.
Because they'd be making money off of content I don't want to support (hypothetically).
Say there's a sexual abuse simulator, and I don't want to in any way shape or form contribute money to anyone profiting off of it.
Is that a punishment, or is that me not rewarding business practices I don't want to support?
I'm not going after anyone by not purchasing things.
I think the point is that in this scenario "promoting the free sharing of ideas in the world" is a practice you hypothetically support. That is, you think distributors promoting the free sharing of ideas is a good thing. So you would reward businesses that do with your money, and not reward businesses that don't with your money.
In that scenario the default would be rewarding the business with your money (because they promote all ideas), and so not doing so because you don't like the item or whatever would be a punishment.
Except that's not what I believe. I believe that some ideas and viewpoints are harmful. Not enough to be outlawed (censored) but enough where I wouldn't want to reward anyone profiting from those viewpoints.
Hey if you don't want to buy games off Steam best of luck to you
I don't think anyone in this thread is actively boycotting Steam. This is all hypothetical as far as I know.
Why do you think censorship is bad? What are you trying to protect by preventing things from being censored?
People having the right to express ideas.
Which is completely different from people profiting off of ideas in the free market, which isn't driven by rights, but profit.
What does the right to express ideas mean? If we create a law that bans you from creating a game like hatred, but allows you to create a movie with the same ideas, have you lost the right to express ideas? What if we make it legal to create that game but illegal to sell it?
Suppose hatred was a book rather than a video game. We the majority, in hopes to prevent anyone from profiting off hatred the book, vow to boycott not only publishers/distributors but also any paper/ink companies that would sell paper to anyone making the book. Through such a boycott we make it impossible for anyone to create this book on a scale larger than a few copies, despite the fact that demand for such a book could be substantially larger. Is this a problem or simply an effective use of the free market?
This is getting pretty absurd.
At this point why don't we the majority just boycott everything and have the creators starve to death.
How do feel about boycotting advertisers to punish a third party from doing a certain thing?
I would have to think about it more. As was discussed earlier, I am of the opinion that inclusion by a distributor does not equal direct support or approval. Advertising is a bit different. I would probably be ok with say boycotting a company that uses the item in it's advertising. Like boycotting nike for giving sponsorship deals to an nfl player that beats his wife. That seems like far more direct support.
Something like mountain dew paying developers of hatred to include mountain dew ads is a little different, but I also don't see this in the same light as distributors. It's still a more direct form of endorsement, and I don't think it has the same chilling effects as boycotting distributors. So I would probably be ok with it in most cases.
Jebus314 on
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
In context, the scene isn't bad. If it was played straight as described, I would need to know the context and purpose of the work. If it was to pander to people with fantasies of raping women, then hell yes I would have a problem with the game.
Rape is a thing that occurs in real life, and I don't have a problem with it being depicted accurately in media. What I have a problem with is the glorification of rape, and I would absolutely vote with my wallet on that principle.
The question is though, who are you punishing with your wallet in the rape for pleasure scenario? Do you boycott the distributor (steam) or the creator (individual developers)? Even in a scenario where I would support voting with your wallet against the creators, I still feel like it would be bad to punish the distributor for carrying the game. That is what I see as the logical conclusion of the oft quoted "freedom of speech not freedom of criticism". You don't try and prevent the development or distribution of bad games, you simply apply criticisms and try and prevent the purchase of said games.
Whoever he wants. The artists, game company, distributor, all of the above.
Which is certainly his right, but that doesn't change the fact that some choices are better than others. I mean you might as well add rape victims to your list of people he could choose. Or Obama.
The point I was trying to make is that if you really believe in freedom of speech then why do you feel it is necessary to punish the distributor? Would you agree that choosing not to purchase a game, and shaming those who do, is fundamentally different than boycotting a distributor? To me, it seems like the ideal place to voice criticism is at the point of sale. Anything else seems like you are trying to leverage something unrelated to limit the ability of others to share ideas.
This is the first time I've heard of punishing distributors. I guess it's a thing. People are going to punish who they want to punish - I wouldn't say your examples are near what I was doing with mine, mine had some relation to selling the game, that's why their acceptable targets.
I question why you think anyone even tangentially related to the game is an acceptable filter. I'm proposing that going after the distributor hampers the free sharing of ideas that is the ultimate goal of the constitutional amendment for free speech. In a way that is distinctly unique from simply criticizing and boycotting the actual item that you have an issue with.
Because they'd be making money off of content I don't want to support (hypothetically).
Say there's a sexual abuse simulator, and I don't want to in any way shape or form contribute money to anyone profiting off of it.
Is that a punishment, or is that me not rewarding business practices I don't want to support?
I'm not going after anyone by not purchasing things.
I think the point is that in this scenario "promoting the free sharing of ideas in the world" is a practice you hypothetically support. That is, you think distributors promoting the free sharing of ideas is a good thing. So you would reward businesses that do with your money, and not reward businesses that don't with your money.
In that scenario the default would be rewarding the business with your money (because they promote all ideas), and so not doing so because you don't like the item or whatever would be a punishment.
Except that's not what I believe. I believe that some ideas and viewpoints are harmful. Not enough to be outlawed (censored) but enough where I wouldn't want to reward anyone profiting from those viewpoints.
In context, the scene isn't bad. If it was played straight as described, I would need to know the context and purpose of the work. If it was to pander to people with fantasies of raping women, then hell yes I would have a problem with the game.
Rape is a thing that occurs in real life, and I don't have a problem with it being depicted accurately in media. What I have a problem with is the glorification of rape, and I would absolutely vote with my wallet on that principle.
The question is though, who are you punishing with your wallet in the rape for pleasure scenario? Do you boycott the distributor (steam) or the creator (individual developers)? Even in a scenario where I would support voting with your wallet against the creators, I still feel like it would be bad to punish the distributor for carrying the game. That is what I see as the logical conclusion of the oft quoted "freedom of speech not freedom of criticism". You don't try and prevent the development or distribution of bad games, you simply apply criticisms and try and prevent the purchase of said games.
Whoever he wants. The artists, game company, distributor, all of the above.
Which is certainly his right, but that doesn't change the fact that some choices are better than others. I mean you might as well add rape victims to your list of people he could choose. Or Obama.
The point I was trying to make is that if you really believe in freedom of speech then why do you feel it is necessary to punish the distributor? Would you agree that choosing not to purchase a game, and shaming those who do, is fundamentally different than boycotting a distributor? To me, it seems like the ideal place to voice criticism is at the point of sale. Anything else seems like you are trying to leverage something unrelated to limit the ability of others to share ideas.
This is the first time I've heard of punishing distributors. I guess it's a thing. People are going to punish who they want to punish - I wouldn't say your examples are near what I was doing with mine, mine had some relation to selling the game, that's why their acceptable targets.
I question why you think anyone even tangentially related to the game is an acceptable filter. I'm proposing that going after the distributor hampers the free sharing of ideas that is the ultimate goal of the constitutional amendment for free speech. In a way that is distinctly unique from simply criticizing and boycotting the actual item that you have an issue with.
Because they'd be making money off of content I don't want to support (hypothetically).
Say there's a sexual abuse simulator, and I don't want to in any way shape or form contribute money to anyone profiting off of it.
Is that a punishment, or is that me not rewarding business practices I don't want to support?
I'm not going after anyone by not purchasing things.
I think the point is that in this scenario "promoting the free sharing of ideas in the world" is a practice you hypothetically support. That is, you think distributors promoting the free sharing of ideas is a good thing. So you would reward businesses that do with your money, and not reward businesses that don't with your money.
In that scenario the default would be rewarding the business with your money (because they promote all ideas), and so not doing so because you don't like the item or whatever would be a punishment.
Except that's not what I believe. I believe that some ideas and viewpoints are harmful. Not enough to be outlawed (censored) but enough where I wouldn't want to reward anyone profiting from those viewpoints.
Hey if you don't want to buy games off Steam best of luck to you
I don't think anyone in this thread is actively boycotting Steam. This is all hypothetical as far as I know.
Why do you think censorship is bad? What are you trying to protect by preventing things from being censored?
People having the right to express ideas.
Which is completely different from people profiting off of ideas in the free market, which isn't driven by rights, but profit.
What does the right to express ideas mean? If we create a law that bans you from creating a game like hatred, but allows you to create a movie with the same ideas, have you lost the right to express ideas? What if we make it legal to create that game but illegal to sell it?
Suppose hatred was a book rather than a video game. We the majority, in hopes to prevent anyone from profiting off hatred the book, vow to boycott not only publishers/distributors but also any paper/ink companies that would sell paper to anyone making the book. Through such a boycott we make it impossible for anyone to create this book on a scale larger than a few copies, despite the fact that demand for such a book could be substantially larger. Is this a problem or simply an effective use of the free market?
Profit has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with the right to express ideas.
As long as you're free to express your ideas and sell them your right hasn't been violated.
Not being able to make money off of doing so isn't silencing anyone.
And actually, not spending money is as much speech as any product on the shelf.
So your view is that so long as I can shout whatever I want from my porch there is literally nothing that can be done that would violate my rights? Monopolies don't matter, price fixing by major players doesn't matter, nothing short of creating a law can violate my rights?
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
In context, the scene isn't bad. If it was played straight as described, I would need to know the context and purpose of the work. If it was to pander to people with fantasies of raping women, then hell yes I would have a problem with the game.
Rape is a thing that occurs in real life, and I don't have a problem with it being depicted accurately in media. What I have a problem with is the glorification of rape, and I would absolutely vote with my wallet on that principle.
The question is though, who are you punishing with your wallet in the rape for pleasure scenario? Do you boycott the distributor (steam) or the creator (individual developers)? Even in a scenario where I would support voting with your wallet against the creators, I still feel like it would be bad to punish the distributor for carrying the game. That is what I see as the logical conclusion of the oft quoted "freedom of speech not freedom of criticism". You don't try and prevent the development or distribution of bad games, you simply apply criticisms and try and prevent the purchase of said games.
Whoever he wants. The artists, game company, distributor, all of the above.
Which is certainly his right, but that doesn't change the fact that some choices are better than others. I mean you might as well add rape victims to your list of people he could choose. Or Obama.
The point I was trying to make is that if you really believe in freedom of speech then why do you feel it is necessary to punish the distributor? Would you agree that choosing not to purchase a game, and shaming those who do, is fundamentally different than boycotting a distributor? To me, it seems like the ideal place to voice criticism is at the point of sale. Anything else seems like you are trying to leverage something unrelated to limit the ability of others to share ideas.
This is the first time I've heard of punishing distributors. I guess it's a thing. People are going to punish who they want to punish - I wouldn't say your examples are near what I was doing with mine, mine had some relation to selling the game, that's why their acceptable targets.
I question why you think anyone even tangentially related to the game is an acceptable filter. I'm proposing that going after the distributor hampers the free sharing of ideas that is the ultimate goal of the constitutional amendment for free speech. In a way that is distinctly unique from simply criticizing and boycotting the actual item that you have an issue with.
Because they'd be making money off of content I don't want to support (hypothetically).
Say there's a sexual abuse simulator, and I don't want to in any way shape or form contribute money to anyone profiting off of it.
Is that a punishment, or is that me not rewarding business practices I don't want to support?
I'm not going after anyone by not purchasing things.
I think the point is that in this scenario "promoting the free sharing of ideas in the world" is a practice you hypothetically support. That is, you think distributors promoting the free sharing of ideas is a good thing. So you would reward businesses that do with your money, and not reward businesses that don't with your money.
In that scenario the default would be rewarding the business with your money (because they promote all ideas), and so not doing so because you don't like the item or whatever would be a punishment.
Except that's not what I believe. I believe that some ideas and viewpoints are harmful. Not enough to be outlawed (censored) but enough where I wouldn't want to reward anyone profiting from those viewpoints.
Hey if you don't want to buy games off Steam best of luck to you
I don't think anyone in this thread is actively boycotting Steam. This is all hypothetical as far as I know.
Why do you think censorship is bad? What are you trying to protect by preventing things from being censored?
People having the right to express ideas.
Which is completely different from people profiting off of ideas in the free market, which isn't driven by rights, but profit.
What does the right to express ideas mean? If we create a law that bans you from creating a game like hatred, but allows you to create a movie with the same ideas, have you lost the right to express ideas? What if we make it legal to create that game but illegal to sell it?
Suppose hatred was a book rather than a video game. We the majority, in hopes to prevent anyone from profiting off hatred the book, vow to boycott not only publishers/distributors but also any paper/ink companies that would sell paper to anyone making the book. Through such a boycott we make it impossible for anyone to create this book on a scale larger than a few copies, despite the fact that demand for such a book could be substantially larger. Is this a problem or simply an effective use of the free market?
Profit has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with the right to express ideas.
As long as you're free to express your ideas and sell them your right hasn't been violated.
Not being able to make money off of doing so isn't silencing anyone.
And actually, not spending money is as much speech as any product on the shelf.
So your view is that so long as I can shout whatever I want from my porch there is literally nothing that can be done that would violate my rights? Monopolies don't matter, price fixing by major players doesn't matter, nothing short of creating a law can violate my rights?
No, you can also try to sell products containing any idea you want.
You just don't have the right to make a profit off of that. You don't have a right to a distributor or funding. You don't have a right to success or support.
As far as your example things that don't matter, those things dont have shit to do with censorship or free speech or the expression of ideas.
In context, the scene isn't bad. If it was played straight as described, I would need to know the context and purpose of the work. If it was to pander to people with fantasies of raping women, then hell yes I would have a problem with the game.
Rape is a thing that occurs in real life, and I don't have a problem with it being depicted accurately in media. What I have a problem with is the glorification of rape, and I would absolutely vote with my wallet on that principle.
The question is though, who are you punishing with your wallet in the rape for pleasure scenario? Do you boycott the distributor (steam) or the creator (individual developers)? Even in a scenario where I would support voting with your wallet against the creators, I still feel like it would be bad to punish the distributor for carrying the game. That is what I see as the logical conclusion of the oft quoted "freedom of speech not freedom of criticism". You don't try and prevent the development or distribution of bad games, you simply apply criticisms and try and prevent the purchase of said games.
Whoever he wants. The artists, game company, distributor, all of the above.
Which is certainly his right, but that doesn't change the fact that some choices are better than others. I mean you might as well add rape victims to your list of people he could choose. Or Obama.
The point I was trying to make is that if you really believe in freedom of speech then why do you feel it is necessary to punish the distributor? Would you agree that choosing not to purchase a game, and shaming those who do, is fundamentally different than boycotting a distributor? To me, it seems like the ideal place to voice criticism is at the point of sale. Anything else seems like you are trying to leverage something unrelated to limit the ability of others to share ideas.
This is the first time I've heard of punishing distributors. I guess it's a thing. People are going to punish who they want to punish - I wouldn't say your examples are near what I was doing with mine, mine had some relation to selling the game, that's why their acceptable targets.
I question why you think anyone even tangentially related to the game is an acceptable filter. I'm proposing that going after the distributor hampers the free sharing of ideas that is the ultimate goal of the constitutional amendment for free speech. In a way that is distinctly unique from simply criticizing and boycotting the actual item that you have an issue with.
Because they'd be making money off of content I don't want to support (hypothetically).
Say there's a sexual abuse simulator, and I don't want to in any way shape or form contribute money to anyone profiting off of it.
Is that a punishment, or is that me not rewarding business practices I don't want to support?
I'm not going after anyone by not purchasing things.
I think the point is that in this scenario "promoting the free sharing of ideas in the world" is a practice you hypothetically support. That is, you think distributors promoting the free sharing of ideas is a good thing. So you would reward businesses that do with your money, and not reward businesses that don't with your money.
In that scenario the default would be rewarding the business with your money (because they promote all ideas), and so not doing so because you don't like the item or whatever would be a punishment.
Except that's not what I believe. I believe that some ideas and viewpoints are harmful. Not enough to be outlawed (censored) but enough where I wouldn't want to reward anyone profiting from those viewpoints.
Hey if you don't want to buy games off Steam best of luck to you
I don't think anyone in this thread is actively boycotting Steam. This is all hypothetical as far as I know.
Why do you think censorship is bad? What are you trying to protect by preventing things from being censored?
This isn't censorship.
I didn't say it was?
Than why do you insist on bringing censorship into your argument?
Because I believe that the problems that censorship creates are not unique to actual, text book definitions of censorship. Many seem to be using the argument that so long as we can literally define something as not being censorship we are free and clear, and there will be no negative outcomes. I disagree with such a sentiment. So I have tried to delve further into the reasons why censorship is considered bad to see if we can also apply those reasons to situations that are not technically censorship, necessitating we first discuss why censorship is bad.
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
There's a rather large excluded middle between not buying something and doing 'literally' anything to prevent distribution. Why not address the point, which is that an individual is free to boycot a distributor if they wish.
But people can freely share ideas without a distributor.
I think, generally, people should be allowed to create whatever content they want[1], and anyone who wants to access that content should be able to do so[2].
But going a step further and saying that they should necessarily be supported in their endeavor to do so does not jive super well with our current systems. Sometimes people aren't able to do things! Society isn't currently designed to support every endeavor undertaken.
Now, if we were to set up a system that does provide some support for every endeavor (e.g. a guaranteed minimum income or whatever), then yes, I might say that even the objectionable stuff should receive that support.
But until then I am fine with things being allowed but not supported.
[1] Please understand.
[2] Allowing for whatever[1] restrictions the creators want to put on access.
I think Steam is willing to be a universal distributor as long as there is consumer demand
And since PC indie gaming is so niche they can afford to do this
Steam wants to be a development and marketing platform, not just a retailer. That's what separates it from Amazon, not curation, but support. Steam supports every game it sells by reducing overhead of distribution, advertising, marketing metadata, customer interaction, etc etc.
Steam isn't a mom and pop store that can afford to background check everyone that uses the service, and all services vying to be a universal name opts for the Don't Ask Don't Tell strategy. Any service that pulls support for something because Kotaku told them to is not reacting to the moral issue but to PR, because if they were really genuine about it they'd do their own research to be consistent. So that's why I do not rely on highly publicized individual cases to determine a company's moral fiber. Because reactionary morality is never genuine.
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.
In context, the scene isn't bad. If it was played straight as described, I would need to know the context and purpose of the work. If it was to pander to people with fantasies of raping women, then hell yes I would have a problem with the game.
Rape is a thing that occurs in real life, and I don't have a problem with it being depicted accurately in media. What I have a problem with is the glorification of rape, and I would absolutely vote with my wallet on that principle.
The question is though, who are you punishing with your wallet in the rape for pleasure scenario? Do you boycott the distributor (steam) or the creator (individual developers)? Even in a scenario where I would support voting with your wallet against the creators, I still feel like it would be bad to punish the distributor for carrying the game. That is what I see as the logical conclusion of the oft quoted "freedom of speech not freedom of criticism". You don't try and prevent the development or distribution of bad games, you simply apply criticisms and try and prevent the purchase of said games.
Whoever he wants. The artists, game company, distributor, all of the above.
Which is certainly his right, but that doesn't change the fact that some choices are better than others. I mean you might as well add rape victims to your list of people he could choose. Or Obama.
The point I was trying to make is that if you really believe in freedom of speech then why do you feel it is necessary to punish the distributor? Would you agree that choosing not to purchase a game, and shaming those who do, is fundamentally different than boycotting a distributor? To me, it seems like the ideal place to voice criticism is at the point of sale. Anything else seems like you are trying to leverage something unrelated to limit the ability of others to share ideas.
This is the first time I've heard of punishing distributors. I guess it's a thing. People are going to punish who they want to punish - I wouldn't say your examples are near what I was doing with mine, mine had some relation to selling the game, that's why their acceptable targets.
I question why you think anyone even tangentially related to the game is an acceptable filter. I'm proposing that going after the distributor hampers the free sharing of ideas that is the ultimate goal of the constitutional amendment for free speech. In a way that is distinctly unique from simply criticizing and boycotting the actual item that you have an issue with.
Because they'd be making money off of content I don't want to support (hypothetically).
Say there's a sexual abuse simulator, and I don't want to in any way shape or form contribute money to anyone profiting off of it.
Is that a punishment, or is that me not rewarding business practices I don't want to support?
I'm not going after anyone by not purchasing things.
I think the point is that in this scenario "promoting the free sharing of ideas in the world" is a practice you hypothetically support. That is, you think distributors promoting the free sharing of ideas is a good thing. So you would reward businesses that do with your money, and not reward businesses that don't with your money.
In that scenario the default would be rewarding the business with your money (because they promote all ideas), and so not doing so because you don't like the item or whatever would be a punishment.
Except that's not what I believe. I believe that some ideas and viewpoints are harmful. Not enough to be outlawed (censored) but enough where I wouldn't want to reward anyone profiting from those viewpoints.
Hey if you don't want to buy games off Steam best of luck to you
I don't think anyone in this thread is actively boycotting Steam. This is all hypothetical as far as I know.
Why do you think censorship is bad? What are you trying to protect by preventing things from being censored?
People having the right to express ideas.
Which is completely different from people profiting off of ideas in the free market, which isn't driven by rights, but profit.
What does the right to express ideas mean? If we create a law that bans you from creating a game like hatred, but allows you to create a movie with the same ideas, have you lost the right to express ideas? What if we make it legal to create that game but illegal to sell it?
Suppose hatred was a book rather than a video game. We the majority, in hopes to prevent anyone from profiting off hatred the book, vow to boycott not only publishers/distributors but also any paper/ink companies that would sell paper to anyone making the book. Through such a boycott we make it impossible for anyone to create this book on a scale larger than a few copies, despite the fact that demand for such a book could be substantially larger. Is this a problem or simply an effective use of the free market?
Profit has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with the right to express ideas.
As long as you're free to express your ideas and sell them your right hasn't been violated.
Not being able to make money off of doing so isn't silencing anyone.
And actually, not spending money is as much speech as any product on the shelf.
So your view is that so long as I can shout whatever I want from my porch there is literally nothing that can be done that would violate my rights? Monopolies don't matter, price fixing by major players doesn't matter, nothing short of creating a law can violate my rights?
No, you can also try to sell products containing any idea you want.
You just don't have the right to make a profit off of that. You don't have a right to a distributor or funding. You don't have a right to success or support.
As far as your example things that don't matter, those things dont have shit to do with censorship or free speech or the expression of ideas.
How is a monopoly or price fixing taking away your right to sell products? Just because I own all the distributors and wont carry your game doesn't mean you can't hawk it out of your garage. I've done nothing but impact your profits, which according to you is not a violation of your rights.
edit - Also, what about a tax? From now on all games with racist ideals are subject to a 150% bad ideas tax. Or maybe all feminist games are subject to the 150% bad idea tax. After all profits don't matter to free speech rights.
Jebus314 on
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
Basically my problem with your question is that it assumes the default state is support.
That isn't the case.
How is stream benefiting financially from you not buying the game? The state government and federal government also benefit from the game in terms of taxes, should we also be boycotting any programs they use that tax money for?
They're benefiting financially from selling the game. I'm supporting a company that benefits financially from selling something I don't want to support if I purchase from them (in this hypothetical situation).
Basically, if I don't agree with how, or from what, a company makes profit I don't support them.
A company has to earn business. Getting my business isn't the default state.
I feel like you are ignoring the effects of your decision though. The point of freedom of speech is to avoid a tyranny of the majority. The majority of us could decide that hatred is a bad game, that espouses harmful views. Passing a law to outlaw such a game is the most effective way to remove it from society. We all agree that this is a net bad thing as it limits the free sharing of ideas. But distributors are also beholden to the majority. We can achieve almost the exact same effect by simply boycotting the distributors in large numbers. If the end result is the same are we not also harming free speech by boycotting the distributors?
Um. Most distributors are "boycotted" by the majority.
That is to say, the vast majority of distributors do not enjoy the financial support of a majority of people.
In context, the scene isn't bad. If it was played straight as described, I would need to know the context and purpose of the work. If it was to pander to people with fantasies of raping women, then hell yes I would have a problem with the game.
Rape is a thing that occurs in real life, and I don't have a problem with it being depicted accurately in media. What I have a problem with is the glorification of rape, and I would absolutely vote with my wallet on that principle.
The question is though, who are you punishing with your wallet in the rape for pleasure scenario? Do you boycott the distributor (steam) or the creator (individual developers)? Even in a scenario where I would support voting with your wallet against the creators, I still feel like it would be bad to punish the distributor for carrying the game. That is what I see as the logical conclusion of the oft quoted "freedom of speech not freedom of criticism". You don't try and prevent the development or distribution of bad games, you simply apply criticisms and try and prevent the purchase of said games.
Whoever he wants. The artists, game company, distributor, all of the above.
Which is certainly his right, but that doesn't change the fact that some choices are better than others. I mean you might as well add rape victims to your list of people he could choose. Or Obama.
The point I was trying to make is that if you really believe in freedom of speech then why do you feel it is necessary to punish the distributor? Would you agree that choosing not to purchase a game, and shaming those who do, is fundamentally different than boycotting a distributor? To me, it seems like the ideal place to voice criticism is at the point of sale. Anything else seems like you are trying to leverage something unrelated to limit the ability of others to share ideas.
This is the first time I've heard of punishing distributors. I guess it's a thing. People are going to punish who they want to punish - I wouldn't say your examples are near what I was doing with mine, mine had some relation to selling the game, that's why their acceptable targets.
I question why you think anyone even tangentially related to the game is an acceptable filter. I'm proposing that going after the distributor hampers the free sharing of ideas that is the ultimate goal of the constitutional amendment for free speech. In a way that is distinctly unique from simply criticizing and boycotting the actual item that you have an issue with.
Because they'd be making money off of content I don't want to support (hypothetically).
Say there's a sexual abuse simulator, and I don't want to in any way shape or form contribute money to anyone profiting off of it.
Is that a punishment, or is that me not rewarding business practices I don't want to support?
I'm not going after anyone by not purchasing things.
I think the point is that in this scenario "promoting the free sharing of ideas in the world" is a practice you hypothetically support. That is, you think distributors promoting the free sharing of ideas is a good thing. So you would reward businesses that do with your money, and not reward businesses that don't with your money.
In that scenario the default would be rewarding the business with your money (because they promote all ideas), and so not doing so because you don't like the item or whatever would be a punishment.
Except that's not what I believe. I believe that some ideas and viewpoints are harmful. Not enough to be outlawed (censored) but enough where I wouldn't want to reward anyone profiting from those viewpoints.
Hey if you don't want to buy games off Steam best of luck to you
I don't think anyone in this thread is actively boycotting Steam. This is all hypothetical as far as I know.
Why do you think censorship is bad? What are you trying to protect by preventing things from being censored?
People having the right to express ideas.
Which is completely different from people profiting off of ideas in the free market, which isn't driven by rights, but profit.
What does the right to express ideas mean? If we create a law that bans you from creating a game like hatred, but allows you to create a movie with the same ideas, have you lost the right to express ideas? What if we make it legal to create that game but illegal to sell it?
Suppose hatred was a book rather than a video game. We the majority, in hopes to prevent anyone from profiting off hatred the book, vow to boycott not only publishers/distributors but also any paper/ink companies that would sell paper to anyone making the book. Through such a boycott we make it impossible for anyone to create this book on a scale larger than a few copies, despite the fact that demand for such a book could be substantially larger. Is this a problem or simply an effective use of the free market?
Profit has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with the right to express ideas.
As long as you're free to express your ideas and sell them your right hasn't been violated.
Not being able to make money off of doing so isn't silencing anyone.
And actually, not spending money is as much speech as any product on the shelf.
So your view is that so long as I can shout whatever I want from my porch there is literally nothing that can be done that would violate my rights? Monopolies don't matter, price fixing by major players doesn't matter, nothing short of creating a law can violate my rights?
No, you can also try to sell products containing any idea you want.
You just don't have the right to make a profit off of that. You don't have a right to a distributor or funding. You don't have a right to success or support.
As far as your example things that don't matter, those things dont have shit to do with censorship or free speech or the expression of ideas.
How is a monopoly or price fixing taking away your right to sell products? Just because I own all the distributors and wont carry your game doesn't mean you can't hawk it out of your garage. I've done nothing but impact your profits, which according to you is not a violation of your rights.
They don't. Which is what I said.
They aren't laws about protecting free speech, they protect the free market.
Edit for your edit: these are actions by the government, which is different that actions by individuals or corporations. I'm not sure what all these straw men arguments have to do with what we're talking about.
How do feel about boycotting advertisers to punish a third party from doing a certain thing?
I would have to think about it more. As was discussed earlier, I am of the opinion that inclusion by a distributor does not equal direct support or approval. Advertising is a bit different. I would probably be ok with say boycotting a company that uses the item in it's advertising. Like boycotting nike for giving sponsorship deals to an nfl player that beats his wife. That seems like far more direct support.
Something like mountain dew paying developers of hatred to include mountain dew ads is a little different, but I also don't see this in the same light as distributors. It's still a more direct form of endorsement, and I don't think it has the same chilling effects as boycotting distributors. So I would probably be ok with it in most cases.
Did you think when Gamegate boycotted advertisers on gaming sites to edit their content to their liking was appropriate?
How do feel about boycotting advertisers to punish a third party from doing a certain thing?
I would have to think about it more. As was discussed earlier, I am of the opinion that inclusion by a distributor does not equal direct support or approval. Advertising is a bit different. I would probably be ok with say boycotting a company that uses the item in it's advertising. Like boycotting nike for giving sponsorship deals to an nfl player that beats his wife. That seems like far more direct support.
Something like mountain dew paying developers of hatred to include mountain dew ads is a little different, but I also don't see this in the same light as distributors. It's still a more direct form of endorsement, and I don't think it has the same chilling effects as boycotting distributors. So I would probably be ok with it in most cases.
Did you think when Gamegate boycotted advertisers on gaming sites to edit their content to their liking was appropriate?
I did. It was all the harassment and death threats and doxxing and now swatting that's inappropriate.
Profit has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with the right to express ideas.
As long as you're free to express your ideas and sell them your right hasn't been violated.
Not being able to make money off of doing so isn't silencing anyone.
And actually, not spending money is as much speech as any product on the shelf.
So your view is that so long as I can shout whatever I want from my porch there is literally nothing that can be done that would violate my rights? Monopolies don't matter, price fixing by major players doesn't matter, nothing short of creating a law can violate my rights?
No, you can also try to sell products containing any idea you want.
You just don't have the right to make a profit off of that. You don't have a right to a distributor or funding. You don't have a right to success or support.
As far as your example things that don't matter, those things dont have shit to do with censorship or free speech or the expression of ideas.
How is a monopoly or price fixing taking away your right to sell products? Just because I own all the distributors and wont carry your game doesn't mean you can't hawk it out of your garage. I've done nothing but impact your profits, which according to you is not a violation of your rights.
They don't. Which is what I said.
They aren't laws about protecting free speech, they protect the free market.
Edit for your edit: these are actions by the government, which is different that actions by individuals or corporations. I'm not sure what all these straw men arguments have to do with what we're talking about.
Why is government action different than co-ordinated individual actions? What is the difference between me not being able to sell a book at any store because the majority of people voted to have the government stop me, and a majority of people vowed to boycott stores that carried it? Both situations end up with me not being able to sell the book because it's what the majority of people wanted.
There is no law protecting the free market. Sometimes we allow monopolies. If an allowed monopoly is used to silence certain ideas, is there any functional difference than if a government had done the same thing?
edit- sorry to anyone who tried to read this before. Was phone posting last night and something went terribly wrong.
Jebus314 on
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
+1
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
I think it's important to get away from the whole censorship debate, which is really a conversation haggling over methods, and talk instead about outcomes. What do we want the media landscape to look like? How do we achieve that with our actions? I'm sure most of us have given money we didn't have to give to a creator in order to support their inclusion in the marketplace (investing in Kickstarters or Patreons, or putting money in tip jars, etc) or encouraged friends to, say, watch a favorite TV show in danger of cancellation, or to see a movie they otherwise wouldn't have seen that you enjoyed. We do this because as individuals we have certain preferences for what art we would like to see encouraged--and sometimes what art we would like to see discouraged ("I'm not seeing Transformers 3, because after 2, Bay doesn't deserve my money"; "I'm not paying for the new Polanski because I think he's a rapist").
In a broader sense, what is our preference for the overall landscape? Looking beyond individual works, what kind of art do we want to see thriving and what kind of art would we rather die on the vine, or never be made at all? Do we want all people to have fair access to the artistic medium, regardless of traits like race and gender? Do we want certain political views to be marginalized, or certain content (hardcore violence, explicit sex) cordoned off into specialty markets? The choices we make as individuals and as a society should reflect the outcomes we're looking for--and it's important to see which methods will result in which outcomes.
Personally, I favor a very free and open marketplace of ideas, but that means more than just allowing for the legal side of things; it can also mean using my dollars and my words to support unusual, niche, or controversial titles. I've made this point once before a while back in this thread, but video games have a special place in this discussion because, although they are a unique and valuable medium, they're also some of the most expensive and time-consuming pieces of art you can make. Imagine if we provided the legal freedom to make games in a society where, say, the hardware required to create and test those games is beyond the financial reach of all but the richest individuals--what would result would be games either made by the wealthy or games funded by the wealthy on a patronage system. There would be no censorship, but the actions of individuals within the computer industry would lead to a more homogeneous marketplace where not all ideas would be represented.
Any economic system can get to a point, with no criminal or governmental action required, at which the outcomes are considered non-optimal by society. So society has to make sure that when it chooses to act upon an economic system--for example, by organizing a boycott of developers carrying AwfulGame 4000--that those actions will not negatively impact the economic industry in question in a way that will result in worse outcomes for everybody. This is particularly true in the field of video games, because of the expense of development; market conditions can shape or discourage certain games or certain types of games or certain ideas in games more easily than it could, say, the medium of the novel, which has a much lower barrier to entry.
I'm not saying that boycotts are the wrong thing to do; but they are a powerful tool, especially when it comes to art and especially when it comes to video games, that we shouldn't use lightly or myopically. We should be aware of the messages we're sending, and that focusing too specifically on using social power (which can be just as powerful as government action) to affect the sale of an individual game can lead us to send a broader message to the industry and to future developers--a message that may be less than ideal, if our ideal is, indeed, a free and open marketplace of ideas.
Why is government action different than co-ordinated individual actions? What is the difference between me not being able to sell a book at any store because the majority of people voted to have the government stop me, and a majority of people vowed to boycott stores that carried it? Both situations end up with me not being able to sell the book because it's what the majority of people wanted.
There is no law protecting the free market. Sometimes we allow monopolies. If an allowed monopoly is used to silence certain ideas, is there any functional difference than if a government had done the same thing?
The difference is other people/corporations/the government doesn't have an obligation to boost your speech or reward your speech where the government has an obligation to protect your speech.
And trying to engineer the situation to where that's the case and speech is not just protected but being rewarded for that speech is entitled actually harms the free speech of others.
It's a short sighted idea. How is my speech protected if I'm obligated, or my company is obligated, to support the speech of others?
People keep using the marketplace of ideas as a metaphor. It is a marketplace, I quite agree. And the particular ideas contained within some games is not being bought by all.
As for niche or controversial ideas, misogyny, xenophobia or homophobia are not niche or controversial. They are pretty common ideas, historically and globally.
I figure I could take a bear.
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited January 2015
I cannot believe how we have a proper, honest to god example of what CENSORSHIP ACTUALLY MEANS in how the Australian Government has ridiculously banned Hotline Miami 2 by seemingly highly exaggerating the nature of what happens (it is nowhere near as horrific as they describe, you can clearly skip the content if you do not want it) and such, yet some are still coming up with entirely asinine definitions that have no coherent meaning or application to anything sensible.
My personal view on HM2 is that I think using implied rape as a thing - even if it does have a context that explains it - does not add a whole lot to the scene or game in any way. At the same time, they've put a clear "Hey, you don't want to experience this content and would you like to skip it?" warning and the scene itself is awful, but in no way as deeply disturbing as the ratings board made it out to be. THIS IS CENSORSHIP. The game cannot be sold in Australia and you can be prosecuted/fined for doing so and their reasoning is not based on a fair evaluation of what the game actually does.
Consider that there are much worse scenes than this in media that IS distributed in Australia, like Game of Thrones. I mean I could have understood their decision in some small way if they had accurately contextualized and described what happened, but it feels to me like they deliberately distorted it to get the game banned intentionally.
I cannot believe how we have a proper, honest to god example of what CENSORSHIP ACTUALLY MEANS in how the Australian Government has ridiculously banned Hotline Miami 2 by seemingly highly exaggerating the nature of what happens (it is nowhere near as horrific as they describe, you can clearly skip the content if you do not want it) and such, yet some are still coming up with entirely asinine definitions that have no coherent meaning or application to anything sensible.
My personal view on HM2 is that I think using implied rape as a thing - even if it does have a context that explains it - does not add a whole lot to the scene or game in any way. At the same time, they've put a clear "Hey, you don't want to experience this content and would you like to skip it?" warning and the scene itself is awful, but in no way as deeply disturbing as the ratings board made it out to be. THIS IS CENSORSHIP. The game cannot be sold in Australia and you can be prosecuted/fined for doing so and their reasoning is not based on a fair evaluation of what the game actually does.
Consider that there are much worse scenes than this in media that IS distributed in Australia, like Game of Thrones. I mean I could have understood their decision in some small way if they had accurately contextualized and described what happened, but it feels to me like they deliberately distorted it to get the game banned intentionally.
Agreed. I 100% disagree with any decision that makes the distribution of a game actually impossible in a country.
Why couldn't Australia ban Hotline Miami 2 due to the buckets of blood decorating every room you leave behind? I heard the Aussies got their Mature rating nailed down and can't simply refuse classification but are they not banning hyper violent games anymore?
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
People keep using the marketplace of ideas as a metaphor. It is a marketplace, I quite agree. And the particular ideas contained within some games is not being bought by all.
I guess I'm saying that actions can have unintended consequences. Those consequences are less likely when an individual decides not to purchase a game they dislike than they are when an individual decides to convince as many people as they can not to buy that game; those consequences are even more likely when that individual decides to convince as many people as they can not to buy any games from that distributor in the hopes of pressuring that distributor to stop selling the game; and those consequences are most likely (and most intended) when that individual decides to convince as many people as they can to pressure the government to pass a law forcing the distributor (or artist) to stop selling the game. It's a gradient, with one end not problematic and the other (in my opinion) very problematic, and everything else somewhere in between, where it behooves the individuals participating to be cognizant of the consequences of their actions beyond the scope of an individual game.
Posts
Which isn't happening in this situation. This isn't government censorship.
People are going to boycott what they want to boycott.
edit: Products aren't guaranteed sales.
"Hmmm... this company is engaging in business practices/selling products that I think actively hurt humanity and I wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole... but they have GTAV for $30 this week, better open my wallet!"
I feel like you are ignoring the effects of your decision though. The point of freedom of speech is to avoid a tyranny of the majority. The majority of us could decide that hatred is a bad game, that espouses harmful views. Passing a law to outlaw such a game is the most effective way to remove it from society. We all agree that this is a net bad thing as it limits the free sharing of ideas. But distributors are also beholden to the majority. We can achieve almost the exact same effect by simply boycotting the distributors in large numbers. If the end result is the same are we not also harming free speech by boycotting the distributors?
I think the point is that in this scenario "promoting the free sharing of ideas in the world" is a practice you hypothetically support. That is, you think distributors promoting the free sharing of ideas is a good thing. So you would reward businesses that do with your money, and not reward businesses that don't with your money.
In that scenario the default would be rewarding the business with your money (because they promote all ideas), and so not doing so because you don't like the item or whatever would be a punishment.
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.
Sorry, distributors aren't guaranteed a profit if they make lousy business decisions.
The effect of my decision is me not spending money places I don't want to. The effect of their decisions is them possibly being one of those places.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Except that's not what I believe. I believe that some ideas and viewpoints are harmful. Not enough to be outlawed (censored) but enough where I wouldn't want to reward anyone profiting from those viewpoints.
I don't think anyone in this thread is actively boycotting Steam. This is all hypothetical as far as I know.
Actually I specifically stated that point of sale boycotting is something I am absolutely for. Boycott the shit out of any game you feel like. Or if a particular company, like say walmart, has shitty business practices then by all means boycott that company. But boycotting a distributor (like walmart or stream) not because of their in house practices, but because of the items they carry, is a fundamentally different idea. One that I think is far to effective and leads to a similar tyranny of the majority as simply creating a law to suppress the item.
Why do you think censorship is bad? What are you trying to protect by preventing things from being censored?
This isn't censorship.
I didn't say it was?
People having the right to express ideas.
Which is completely different from people profiting off of ideas in the free market, which isn't driven by rights, but profit.
How do feel about boycotting advertisers to punish a third party from doing a certain thing?
I think, generally, people should be allowed to create whatever content they want[1], and anyone who wants to access that content should be able to do so[2].
But going a step further and saying that they should necessarily be supported in their endeavor to do so does not jive super well with our current systems. Sometimes people aren't able to do things! Society isn't currently designed to support every endeavor undertaken.
Now, if we were to set up a system that does provide some support for every endeavor (e.g. a guaranteed minimum income or whatever), then yes, I might say that even the objectionable stuff should receive that support.
But until then I am fine with things being allowed but not supported.
[1] Please understand.
[2] Allowing for whatever[1] restrictions the creators want to put on access.
What does the right to express ideas mean? If we create a law that bans you from creating a game like hatred, but allows you to create a movie with the same ideas, have you lost the right to express ideas? What if we make it legal to create that game but illegal to sell it?
Suppose hatred was a book rather than a video game. We the majority, in hopes to prevent anyone from profiting off hatred the book, vow to boycott not only publishers/distributors but also any paper/ink companies that would sell paper to anyone making the book. Through such a boycott we make it impossible for anyone to create this book on a scale larger than a few copies, despite the fact that demand for such a book could be substantially larger. Is this a problem or simply an effective use of the free market?
Profit has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with the right to express ideas.
As long as you're free to express your ideas and sell them your right hasn't been violated.
Not being able to make money off of doing so isn't silencing anyone.
And actually, not spending money is as much speech as any product on the shelf.
At this point why don't we the majority just boycott everything and have the creators starve to death.
I would have to think about it more. As was discussed earlier, I am of the opinion that inclusion by a distributor does not equal direct support or approval. Advertising is a bit different. I would probably be ok with say boycotting a company that uses the item in it's advertising. Like boycotting nike for giving sponsorship deals to an nfl player that beats his wife. That seems like far more direct support.
Something like mountain dew paying developers of hatred to include mountain dew ads is a little different, but I also don't see this in the same light as distributors. It's still a more direct form of endorsement, and I don't think it has the same chilling effects as boycotting distributors. So I would probably be ok with it in most cases.
Than why do you insist on bringing censorship into your argument?
So your view is that so long as I can shout whatever I want from my porch there is literally nothing that can be done that would violate my rights? Monopolies don't matter, price fixing by major players doesn't matter, nothing short of creating a law can violate my rights?
No, you can also try to sell products containing any idea you want.
You just don't have the right to make a profit off of that. You don't have a right to a distributor or funding. You don't have a right to success or support.
As far as your example things that don't matter, those things dont have shit to do with censorship or free speech or the expression of ideas.
Because I believe that the problems that censorship creates are not unique to actual, text book definitions of censorship. Many seem to be using the argument that so long as we can literally define something as not being censorship we are free and clear, and there will be no negative outcomes. I disagree with such a sentiment. So I have tried to delve further into the reasons why censorship is considered bad to see if we can also apply those reasons to situations that are not technically censorship, necessitating we first discuss why censorship is bad.
I think Steam is willing to be a universal distributor as long as there is consumer demand
And since PC indie gaming is so niche they can afford to do this
Steam wants to be a development and marketing platform, not just a retailer. That's what separates it from Amazon, not curation, but support. Steam supports every game it sells by reducing overhead of distribution, advertising, marketing metadata, customer interaction, etc etc.
Steam isn't a mom and pop store that can afford to background check everyone that uses the service, and all services vying to be a universal name opts for the Don't Ask Don't Tell strategy. Any service that pulls support for something because Kotaku told them to is not reacting to the moral issue but to PR, because if they were really genuine about it they'd do their own research to be consistent. So that's why I do not rely on highly publicized individual cases to determine a company's moral fiber. Because reactionary morality is never genuine.
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.
How is a monopoly or price fixing taking away your right to sell products? Just because I own all the distributors and wont carry your game doesn't mean you can't hawk it out of your garage. I've done nothing but impact your profits, which according to you is not a violation of your rights.
edit - Also, what about a tax? From now on all games with racist ideals are subject to a 150% bad ideas tax. Or maybe all feminist games are subject to the 150% bad idea tax. After all profits don't matter to free speech rights.
Um. Most distributors are "boycotted" by the majority.
That is to say, the vast majority of distributors do not enjoy the financial support of a majority of people.
They don't. Which is what I said.
They aren't laws about protecting free speech, they protect the free market.
Edit for your edit: these are actions by the government, which is different that actions by individuals or corporations. I'm not sure what all these straw men arguments have to do with what we're talking about.
Did you think when Gamegate boycotted advertisers on gaming sites to edit their content to their liking was appropriate?
I did. It was all the harassment and death threats and doxxing and now swatting that's inappropriate.
Why is government action different than co-ordinated individual actions? What is the difference between me not being able to sell a book at any store because the majority of people voted to have the government stop me, and a majority of people vowed to boycott stores that carried it? Both situations end up with me not being able to sell the book because it's what the majority of people wanted.
There is no law protecting the free market. Sometimes we allow monopolies. If an allowed monopoly is used to silence certain ideas, is there any functional difference than if a government had done the same thing?
edit- sorry to anyone who tried to read this before. Was phone posting last night and something went terribly wrong.
In a broader sense, what is our preference for the overall landscape? Looking beyond individual works, what kind of art do we want to see thriving and what kind of art would we rather die on the vine, or never be made at all? Do we want all people to have fair access to the artistic medium, regardless of traits like race and gender? Do we want certain political views to be marginalized, or certain content (hardcore violence, explicit sex) cordoned off into specialty markets? The choices we make as individuals and as a society should reflect the outcomes we're looking for--and it's important to see which methods will result in which outcomes.
Personally, I favor a very free and open marketplace of ideas, but that means more than just allowing for the legal side of things; it can also mean using my dollars and my words to support unusual, niche, or controversial titles. I've made this point once before a while back in this thread, but video games have a special place in this discussion because, although they are a unique and valuable medium, they're also some of the most expensive and time-consuming pieces of art you can make. Imagine if we provided the legal freedom to make games in a society where, say, the hardware required to create and test those games is beyond the financial reach of all but the richest individuals--what would result would be games either made by the wealthy or games funded by the wealthy on a patronage system. There would be no censorship, but the actions of individuals within the computer industry would lead to a more homogeneous marketplace where not all ideas would be represented.
Any economic system can get to a point, with no criminal or governmental action required, at which the outcomes are considered non-optimal by society. So society has to make sure that when it chooses to act upon an economic system--for example, by organizing a boycott of developers carrying AwfulGame 4000--that those actions will not negatively impact the economic industry in question in a way that will result in worse outcomes for everybody. This is particularly true in the field of video games, because of the expense of development; market conditions can shape or discourage certain games or certain types of games or certain ideas in games more easily than it could, say, the medium of the novel, which has a much lower barrier to entry.
I'm not saying that boycotts are the wrong thing to do; but they are a powerful tool, especially when it comes to art and especially when it comes to video games, that we shouldn't use lightly or myopically. We should be aware of the messages we're sending, and that focusing too specifically on using social power (which can be just as powerful as government action) to affect the sale of an individual game can lead us to send a broader message to the industry and to future developers--a message that may be less than ideal, if our ideal is, indeed, a free and open marketplace of ideas.
The difference is other people/corporations/the government doesn't have an obligation to boost your speech or reward your speech where the government has an obligation to protect your speech.
And trying to engineer the situation to where that's the case and speech is not just protected but being rewarded for that speech is entitled actually harms the free speech of others.
It's a short sighted idea. How is my speech protected if I'm obligated, or my company is obligated, to support the speech of others?
As for niche or controversial ideas, misogyny, xenophobia or homophobia are not niche or controversial. They are pretty common ideas, historically and globally.
My personal view on HM2 is that I think using implied rape as a thing - even if it does have a context that explains it - does not add a whole lot to the scene or game in any way. At the same time, they've put a clear "Hey, you don't want to experience this content and would you like to skip it?" warning and the scene itself is awful, but in no way as deeply disturbing as the ratings board made it out to be. THIS IS CENSORSHIP. The game cannot be sold in Australia and you can be prosecuted/fined for doing so and their reasoning is not based on a fair evaluation of what the game actually does.
Consider that there are much worse scenes than this in media that IS distributed in Australia, like Game of Thrones. I mean I could have understood their decision in some small way if they had accurately contextualized and described what happened, but it feels to me like they deliberately distorted it to get the game banned intentionally.
Agreed. I 100% disagree with any decision that makes the distribution of a game actually impossible in a country.
I guess I'm saying that actions can have unintended consequences. Those consequences are less likely when an individual decides not to purchase a game they dislike than they are when an individual decides to convince as many people as they can not to buy that game; those consequences are even more likely when that individual decides to convince as many people as they can not to buy any games from that distributor in the hopes of pressuring that distributor to stop selling the game; and those consequences are most likely (and most intended) when that individual decides to convince as many people as they can to pressure the government to pass a law forcing the distributor (or artist) to stop selling the game. It's a gradient, with one end not problematic and the other (in my opinion) very problematic, and everything else somewhere in between, where it behooves the individuals participating to be cognizant of the consequences of their actions beyond the scope of an individual game.