Diversity and Representation in Media

It’s like I said, supporting freedom of expression is easy...until it isn’t.

And again, nobody is being arrested for this game so the first amendment is not being breached. Meanwhile, it is a bad idea to give private entities like Steam and Viacom and Youtube the right and responsibility to control what is said and expressed. It's not their job.

The latter is ultimately my argument, that letting corporations act as moral arbiters never ends well. What should be done instead is giving consumers the tools to avoid and block out materials that don’t fit with their ethics and tailor the experience to their needs, so abuse victims don’t have to see things that will trigger reactions.

But it is not their responsibility to give a voice to things they find objectionable. They're private entities. Just like I could be banned from TV Tropes for insulting you or posting porn or vandalizing pages, games can be banned from Steam for being grossly offensive and upsetting.

For anyone who needs it, I’m going to post a link to a tiny spoiler in Captain Marvel for anyone who needs a warning about content related to body dysphoria. The link contains more information. Basically, for anyone who wants to avoid a bad joke while in the theater.

Edited by Tuckerscreator on Mar 7th 2019 at 8:44:29 AM

The thing is, going "well, you have to give this thing you disagree with a platform to spout their stupidity" is the exact opposite of free speech. You're taking Steam's free speech, you're removing consumer's ability to speak with their money.

You're worried about corporations yielding to pressure from people. Do you not realize that that pressure is people exercising their free speech?

The armchair psychologist in me is having an absolute field day

People telling other people they can’t do or watch something is censorship in its purest form, and that gives me pause, even if it’s something I find vile and distasteful.

On a similar but different tangent, more radio stations are banning Michael Jackson from their playlists following “Leaving Neverland”. The argument given by one is since you don’t have a choice what the radio plays, subjecting people uncomfortable with his actions to his music would be insensitive.

Jackson, if the accusations are true, committed crimes and had them covered up to not impede his profits. That is vile.

I wish we weren’t since it’s a troll of a game.

Edited by Beatman1 on Mar 7th 2019 at 12:07:19 PM

... Are we really discussing at length about a game called "Rape Day?"

There’s plenty of things I’m displeased with Steam for, but I’m glad this horrid game was kicked off.

A platform not wanting to host content is not "censorship", that's not how that works. whoever made that game can distribute it somewhere besides steam and still have it available for others to play.

And in this case, illustrates why censorship in its purest form is absolutely necessary sometimes. Some things are absolute evils. Steam refusing to air something Steam doesn't want to air is not one of those things.

Correction, Steam refusing to air a smelly piece of garbage that can only tarnish Steam, the Steam experience for its customers, and video gaming as a medium in general, is decidedly not an evil. It is the only rational, wise, and business savvy decision that anyone could make.

An article about the Captain Marvel fandom over the years leading up to the film. (No spoilers.)

The actual event seemed a lot less dramatic than the comments are making it sound like. It still makes me raise an eyebrow about some of the stuff they do allow though.

Someone forcing you to take down something you want to sell? That could be censorship.

Voluntarily not using your resources to do something you don't want to do (because people have told you it's a bad idea)? About as far from censorship as you can get.

At worst it's tyranny of the masses. But under literally no possible definition is it censorship.

You're arguing Steam shouldn't be allowed to do or change what it wants to do with its own servers in the name of censorship. Which is bass-ackwards.

The argument that you're afraid that "rape simulator" = LGBT representation is similarly nonsensical. It's not going down the slippery slope, it's seeing a slippery slope, then turning around and realizing there's a cliff on the other side so instead you take a swan dive off it.

Edited by Larkmarn on Mar 7th 2019 at 1:42:14 PM

It's normal business practice for game vendors to not distribute certain products based on content, and this has been the case for a long time. They need to keep up a certain reputation for their brand. Moreover, it's good business ethics.

This is not censorship, it's simply a business-side boycott.

Edited by Protagonist506 on Mar 7th 2019 at 10:36:56 AM

Everything else being said, I do kind of wonder about the "protection" argument that some people have mentioned. What is seeing the name on the Steam store page supposed to do to people that simply knowing the game exists (maybe through say, that linked article) wouldn't? You wouldn't be exposed to any of the content unless you actually bought and played it.

It's admittedly low on the list of reasons to reject that game but it's still a reason

This is actually a pretty interesting issue that has been coming to the forefront lately. When it comes to "platform" media that serves as a promoting tool they want to be seen as a stage that people can rent, rather than being the direct promoters. The moment they lay down any rules compromises that stance, as that means they become accountable for the material being posted by its users and seen by its viewers. So that means they have to develop a set of rules that affects everyone equally and non-partisan, precisely because they want to invite everyone to participate and have as many sponsors as possible. Youtube wants to curate its material as little as possible while Netflix admits to having bias, if there is evidence that Youtube shows bias (especially non-transparent bias) that opens them up to lawsuits. The simplest example as to why is that they may be taking money from certain advertisers and content creators and then mixing their ad algorithm to shut out all traffic to their ads and videos. Twitter has come under fire recently for their history of banning people for controversial statements and hashtag campaigns, but hasn't touched people who are actively encouraging violence and physical harassment.

In the particular case of "Rape Day" and Steam, the game is obviously trying to be a provocateur and cut through PC barriers, but Steam is different in that it has a direct monetary transaction function. They take money from every purchase made, which in turn makes them a publisher and they MUST be accountable for every game on their platform. That means they also have an investment in games that are launched buggy or using fraudulent practices. Things might be a little different if they hosted a game that featured a rape scene, but social media backlash can be spotty and contradictory at times.

A game where the objective is raping women is not “provocateur” or “cutting through PC barriers.” It’s shitty, misogynist trolling.

And again, Steam is not a public institution. It has no obligation to stock stuff it does not want to stock. That's their call to make. Arguing otherwise is repressing their right to make that call.

...Fucking hell I cannot believe I am defending Valve here.

Edited by M84 on Mar 7th 2019 at 9:43:24 PM

Of course, it's possible that publishers can pull products for poor reasons regardless of it being their right, but this is not one of those times.

That's what I'm saying, Steam is well within their rights to pull a game because it goes contrary to their brand and image since they are direct recipients of purchases. If they were merely a message board like Reddit this would be a different conversation.

Stuff like reddit I would assume would just have that game be on some shitty sub reddit where it's the containment zone.

Even if this isn't technically a First Amendment free speech issue. I find myself agreeing with what KJ is saying. Steam does ultimately have the right to not distribute anything they don't want so yeah. This is kind of one of those extreme examples where the offending product is so repulsive even if you weren't for censorship (and this isn't really censorship), it's kind of a no brainer to not air it because well, yeah.

For a sort of related aside, I'm left wondering if this will even impact the decisions Steam wants to make releasing uncensored adult games (A-rated shit). I want to say no because, again, banning this should be too easy to accept.

IIRC, Steam was censoring adult content for V Ns, and there's always been a pushback to have the full package. And I think one solution was having a separate adult content store site??