SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
You might say we're all living inside a ruinous waking nightmare that spawned from the dream of Web 2.0.
Don't get me wrong: It was a beautiful dream.
Web 2.0. We are all of us producers. With our blogs and our comments and our tweets and our YouTube channels we will democratise content and the algorithms -- those glorious algorithms -- will aid in the process. We will upvote and favourite and like and the wheat will be separated from the chaff.
Magic.
I think we can all agree that Web 2.0 didn't quite work as advertised.
It gave us Minecraft. It gave us Wikipedia, collaborative spaces, online tools. But it also gave us Cambridge Analytica, Facebook, Gamergate, incels, toxic communities, Logan Paul wandering into a suicide forest. It gave us Twitter bullying, Kelly Marie Tran harassment campaigns on Instagram.
It gave us terrible, opportunistic video games about school shootings.
Wednesday, after yanking Active Shooter, a video game where you play as a high school shooter, from its Steam store, Valve made an announcement. In a blog titled "Who gets to be on the Steam Store" Valve discussed the steps it's taking to prevent a video game like Active Shooter from making it to the Steam store in the future.
Its solution is about as Web 2.0 as it gets.
"[W]e've decided," wrote Valve, "that the right approach is to allow everything onto the Steam Store, except for things that we decide are illegal, or straight up trolling."
"Taking this approach allows us to focus less on trying to police what should be on Steam, and more on building those tools to give people control over what kinds of content they see."
In 2018, at this current moment, it seems like a decision out of time. An old-fashioned solution to a problem that literally every single platform on the internet is currently trying to solve. We live in a world where Facebook, Twitter and Instagram are in the process of trying to actively take responsibility for the content produced and posted on their platforms.
Meanwhile, Valve is busy trying to abdicate that responsibility.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 09 2018, @06:16PM (17 children)
It's Valve's prerogative because it's their platform. If you don't like it create your own.
This is not censorship. This does not prevent [shitty] game developers from using other means to get to market. If you are a game developer and are unable to properly gauge how the public will react to your bad judgement, don't blame Valve.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 09 2018, @06:19PM (14 children)
Censorship is not just when the government removes someone's speech. The concept of corporate censorship [wikipedia.org] has existed for a long time, so update your dictionary. Just because something is called censorship doesn't make it illegal. So, Valve can censor all they want, and people can correctly refer to their actions as "censorship."
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 09 2018, @06:27PM (11 children)
Sorry, but you are wrong. Valve is not trying to stop the game company from releasing their game, which would be censorship. Valve is only saying "not on our platform", which is not censorship.
You need to update your dictionary (or maybe open a thesaurus) so you don't try to use inflammatory or provocative words just because you don't like someone else - like Valve - protecting their good name. You not liking it != censorship.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 09 2018, @07:06PM (4 children)
Censorship does not need to completely eradicate the speech for it to be censorship, because otherwise one could say that censorship does not exist at all. Even if they only ban the game on their platform, that is still censorship on their platform. They are allowed to do that, but it is still censorship. Even if you find the term to be too inflammatory or provocative, that still doesn't mean it's not censorship.
Really, the concept of corporate censorship exists and has for decades. Language evolves. Trying to ignore how people use language is nothing short of futile.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Saturday June 09 2018, @08:39PM (3 children)
No corporation has censorship ability. So, NO, it does not exist.
NOT IN MY HOUSE is not censorship. Its merely private property rights.
I'm pretty sure you'd agree the my right to wield a megaphone stops well short of your bedroom door.
Why do you insist on denying others such control of private property?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 09 2018, @08:53PM
On what do you base that argument? Are you saying that no definition of the term "censorship" exists that could apply to corporations? If so, you are flat-out incorrect, as I demonstrated previously. Really, just search around for "corporate censorship" to see that the term has been used this way for quite a while. Are you next going to argue against the indisputable fact that language changes over time, and that more definitions can be added to existing words?
False dichotomy. It can be both.
Why do you insist on making straw man arguments? I mentioned several times that they are allowed to censor.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by dry on Sunday June 10 2018, @03:24AM
Of course "not in my house" is a form of censorship, you're censoring someones speech if you say something like "no swearing in my house". Nothing wrong with that as it is part of your property rights, but censoring someones speech is the definitions of censorship.
The second definition from http://www.dictionary.com/browse/censor [dictionary.com]
(Score: 2) by Fluffeh on Tuesday June 12 2018, @03:58AM
It's so common in the media, there is actually a nick-name for that EXACT thing. It's called Catch and Kill [wikipedia.org].
From the link:
Tabloids may pay for stories. Besides scoops meant to be headline stories, this can be used to censor stories damaging to the paper's allies. Known as "catch and kill", tabloid newspapers may pay someone for the exclusive rights to a story, then choose not to run it.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Captival on Saturday June 09 2018, @10:25PM
Fuck you. Just fuck off. Stop trying to redefine terms so that you SJW Nazis get to ban anything you want and it's OK because you changed the word censorship to mean "only bad when people besides us do it".
(Score: 4, Insightful) by khallow on Saturday June 09 2018, @11:58PM (4 children)
I disagree.
No, that is wrong. First, it doesn't need to be a 100% or all possible markets to count as censorship. For example, forcing library patrons to read a book only in a particular room would be an act of censorship even though the book's overall market isn't affected and people aren't actually being prohibited, even in the library, from reading the book. Suppression counts even if it is partial.
Second, censorship is not just "stopping the game company". Any restriction on availability of a game due to its content is censorship whether or not the censor bears any sort of ill will to the originator of the content.
Back at you.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ilPapa on Sunday June 10 2018, @05:57AM (3 children)
So, what you're saying is that if Breitbart doesn't allow me to post my pro-Socialist column daily on their website that they're censoring me?
Do you have any inkling of the extent of your stupidity?
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Sunday June 10 2018, @11:20AM (2 children)
Why would you have an expectation that your post would end up on their website otherwise? Valve has pretty low hurdles for game publishing once you get past the censored subjects. Breibart has a very restrictive conditions on what they public even once you get past the ideological bias.
I do. You apparently do not.
(Score: 2) by ilPapa on Monday June 11 2018, @06:31AM (1 child)
But you're calling those restrictive conditions "censorship" when Valve does it, so why isn't it censorship when Breitbart does it?
Weren't you just saying, "Suppression counts even if it is partial." So are you OK with Breitbart's suppression of left-wing thought?
This is why the First Amendment is clear on "congress shall make no law". Because people are allowed to publish what they want, but on their own dime. And when you get into making the definition of censorship all mushy by including private individuals or organizations, you end up devaluing the entire concept of free speech.
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 11 2018, @09:38PM
I already stated why. Read the post. Even slavishly following the Breibart ideology (and hence, removing the ideological aspect as a reason for rejection) doesn't guarantee you'll see your words in print. While the non-ideological aspects of the Valve system are minimal and not much of a restriction.
Yes, that is what I said. We call it "bias" not "censorship".
I didn't say it was a First Amendment issue though it can be such. A more likely legal matter is whether the system falsely presented itself as being without significant censorship to get public buy-in and then did a switch-and-bait.
It can also be a First Amendment issue, if this censorship is being done at the behest of the US federal government or the various state and local governments (which are also beholden to the First Amendment), particularly, if being responsive to government requests results in better treatment by the government.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 09 2018, @11:12PM (1 child)
Thats not censorship, you are trying "bake my cake bigot!" here, valve does not have to do business with anyone.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 09 2018, @11:38PM
If you actually bothered to read the post - a rare skill, admittedly - you would see that I said that Valve can censor all they want. Because, legally, they can. So, no, I did not advocate for forcing Valve to do anything.
As for it not being censorship, there are definitions of "censorship" that apply to the actions of corporations, so you're just wrong. I'm not sure why some people are so determined to deny that such definitions exist.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 09 2018, @06:31PM (1 child)
The OP doesn't say anything that suggests he disagrees with you, so nice straw man.
Rather, the OP is saying that Valve has now explicitly accepted responsibility for the content that is posted on its servers. That's a stupid, dangerous position to take; it would have been better to say "We don't take responsibility for the content. We're just a platform; it's up to the users to determine the content with which they'd like to interact, and we'll provide tools to help them avoid what they don't want to see, but we're not going to make decisions for people, because we're completely separate from content."
Valve has associated itself with other people's content. That's a burden they'll regret.
Assholes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 09 2018, @06:45PM
My post supported the position of the OP. I did not quote any part of the OP or state that I disagree with them. No strawman, just a very direct concurrence. But, nice straw man on your part.