Diversity and Representation in Media

Surely that’s not-

WHAT THE HELL.

Every once in a while, someone releases a game not out of any artistic flair, but to test the system of sorts. Can I be allowed to do this?

Free expression’s equivalent of running a marathon. It hurts but it must be done. This is not to say the subject matter is tasteful or even warranted, but that someone feels the need to see if this can get released as an example for less controversial stuff. And if it fails, well, it’s a problem, not because you block a great work of art, but the proverbial slippery slope.

Edited by Beatman1 on Mar 7th 2019 at 7:39:13 AM

Freedom of expression does not actually mean people or businesses are required to platform you.

This is also true, and they admit such. But at the same time, a platform that claims to be pro consumer and anti censorship refusing to stock a game because of moral or ethical pushback cannot claim to be those things.

This game is essentially a big trap designed to weed out perceived hypocrisy from online retailers. Do you support something distasteful or do you get labeled as hypocritical?

Edited by Beatman1 on Mar 7th 2019 at 8:44:47 AM

Being pro-consumer in this case means supporting the rights of all the Steam users who have experienced sexual abuse in their lives to go on the platform without being re-traumatised by seeing a title like this on the best seller list.

I’d say that slippery slope is a bad argument. Big companies always pull crappy shit, whether it’s Youtube demonetizing pro LGBTQ content or Apple blocking apps with adult content (as in, any sexual or even perhaps LGBTQ and sex ed content) from the App Store.

Saying that because of those abuses it’s not okay to ban a far right website or a blatantly misogynist game is a false equivalence. You want to support free expression? Fight against the silencing of oppressed people, not in support of the rare awful thing that gets banned.

I agree.

Edited by wisewillow on Mar 7th 2019 at 8:48:38 AM

Nope, not the same. Because if something like that which offends one side is Ok, people WILL argue that something like say, gay erotica novels aren’t Ok either.

Freedom of expression is easy until it isn’t. I wouldn’t buy this, nor would I buy something vile and poorly made like Hatred, which was clearly made as a sick joke to go “Hey, look at the big mean company not stocking my expression of free speech!” But at the same time, if that’s Ok, so is Tumblr banning all the porn, specifically all the porn that served the LBGTQ+ community that wasn’t being served by more conventional pornography sites. So is the banning of other items that might offend more traditional values.

It really sucks to say, but the true ethical response is that it all has to be Ok within the confines of the law, no matter how distasteful or perceptually ugly it might be. That’s not to say that users shouldn’t be given tools to avoid seeing such things (like noting and allowing users to block items with descriptions of sexual assault).

Edited by Beatman1 on Mar 7th 2019 at 9:17:33 AM

Wow...someone here is actually advocating that Steam should have allowed a rape simulator to be sold in their store.

In a perfect world, no. You think I like the subject matter? This game is a very sick joke like Hatred was, an expression of anger designed to test the limits of allowable content (hence the developer bragging about it not violating any of Steam’s rules). Unfortunately, it’s for that exact reason that something like that should be allowed on the store, even if it’s slapped with every warning label possible. Because if it’s banned, it will be used as an example against other items, and used to label Steam hypocritical.

That is an unreasonably rosy and noble view of what is "this is a cash-grab and we can get free publicity by being controversial."

Like, I loved the Mortal Kombat games and I don't think they were nobly testing the waters and trying to make us reconsider what we can and cannot do. It was fun schlock with a violent gimmick. I don't see the point in pretending these things are more than they are.

Even the most consumer friendly store has the right — the responsibility — to ensure that the content they provide for sale towards customers is not offensive bullshit.

This isn't even a "free speech" issue since Steam is not a fucking government institution.

Also, this.

Edited by M84 on Mar 7th 2019 at 10:35:29 PM

This game is a troll job. And it’s not a free speech issue in terms of the government definition, but Steam, banning this, will get equal pressure to ban stuff like gay content.

I don’t like defending vile crap like this, but the alternative is the potential that anything deemed offensive is now an open target.

For someone who doesn't like defending it, you're sure putting in a lot of effort to do so.

Once again Valve has to be forced to do their job properly by the community.

Why does Rape Day sound like a really bad 50s B Movie title?

You are leaping off the slippery slope.

What's closer to an actual "free speech" issue here is forcing Steam to sell something it doesn't want to. It can and does take things down all the time. They have no obligation to sell something it doesn't want to. If you're worried about free speech, you'd think that is where you'd be concerned.

Edited by Larkmarn on Mar 7th 2019 at 9:48:05 AM

It’s my opinion that the alternative leaves itself open to some...really bad things, like uncomfortable subjects being done tastefully or erotica serving underserved communities being banned because someone thinks it’s offensive. Not that I support the product.

Wouldn’t get past the Hays Code. More really sleazy 70’s grindhouse production.

Edited by Beatman1 on Mar 7th 2019 at 9:47:07 AM

Valve also had that School Shooter simulator game that they had to take down. It also was around for far longer than this game.

I really hate those things, to go off on a brief tangent. Some edgelord jury rigs an old 3D engine or RPG maker, and posts it going “look how original and edgy I am!” and they’re all done with the same reason this game was, to score pity points because people find it offensive, to show how super EDGY they are, and to bilk a few bucks over dumb teens that don’t know any better. You’re not cool, and the idea was tired 500 iterations ago.

Most of them can be rejected on sheer quality grounds since they’re about as artistic as a stick figure.

Edited by Beatman1 on Mar 7th 2019 at 9:55:56 AM

If you admit that this whole thing is a troll just to test Steam's waters, then why shouldn't they ban it? If it's a serious game, there's nothing stopping the creator from trying to release it from a more appropriate venue. When Tumblr banned porn, the reaction wasn't "how dare they try to censor LGBT people," it was "wow they're killing their market by destroying one of their big draws." By contrast, Steam gains nothing from keeping this game on their platform except to please r/kia, which really shouldn't be a priority.

And according to the Polygon article, the creator is planning to seek other venues for their work.

It's also a matter of who their "pro-customer" policies are supporting. By platforming the game, Valve would be saying that they approve of doing business with gamers who are into sexual assault simulators. Not a good look, to say the least.

Actually “how dare they try to censor LGBT people“ was a response, they’ve flagged a lot of LGBT content that wasn’t NSFW. Meanwhile, there’s still Nazis and pornbots.

Yeah, there were several thinkpieces on the subject of leaving Nazis alone because reasons, pornbots adapting in a DAY, but removing a market that served an underserved community.

Free speech is indeed a more complex issue than it first appears. For instance: by allowing such a high-profile, pro-rape game in their store, Steam would be stifling the free speech of rape survivors.

It wasn't the main one, though. At least from what I saw, people saw that focus as being more about the incompetence of the whole process than anything else, that they couldn't hit the porn bots as well as they did the respectable NSFW producers. Either way, still not a breach of free speech because it's not a government entity.

Edited by IniuriaTalis on Mar 7th 2019 at 10:59:23 AM