Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Thursday March 07 2019, @04:59PM   Printer-friendly
from the think-of-your-mother,-daughter,-or-sister dept.

Valve says it won't publish game about raping women, after 'significant discussion'

Valve has at last responded to a mounting controversy concerning an indie game designed entirely around the violent sexual assault of women. The statement, posted to the Steam Blog earlier today, makes clear that Valve will in fact not distribute the visual novel, which was called Rape Day and scheduled for release in April through the company's Steam Direct distribution channel. The declaration marks a quizzical few days of silence from the video game developer and marketplace owner, which has taken varying, occasionally radical stances to moderation on Steam in the past few years.

In a policy change announced last year, Valve said it would let basically anything onto the platform so long as it was not illegal or very obviously trolling to illicit negative reactions from the general public. So far, the only category to meet that definition included visual novels and other games featuring the sexual exploitation of children, which Valve banned last December. In this case, Valve says Rape Day posed "unknown costs and risks," without clarifying which rule it broke.

Developer's website. Also at Ars Technica, Business Insider, and Kotaku.

Previously: "Active Shooter" Game on Steam Sparks Uproar
Valve Still Lives in the Waking Nightmare of Web 2.0
Valve Attempts to Define "Troll Games" in Order to Ban Them on Steam


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Thursday March 07 2019, @07:10PM (13 children)

    by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Thursday March 07 2019, @07:10PM (#811291) Journal

    I never said that. You're being dense now.

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Disagree=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 4, Disagree) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday March 07 2019, @09:29PM (12 children)

    by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Thursday March 07 2019, @09:29PM (#811343) Journal

    No, you didn't say that, but you implied that there was something suspect about a company taking action based on what some people said.

    There is this thing called "persuasive speech" which is a subset of speech that should be free. Why is it wrong for Steam to do a cost-benefit analysis based on potential damage to their reputation publicly vs. sales revenue for different scenarios? Maybe you don't agree with their decision or their analysis, but it's not like someone forced them somehow to do what they did.

    Boycotts and such can be effective. Maybe someone would boycott if they released the game; maybe others will boycott if they don't release it. Each side gets to make their case (and they have the right to do so publicly if they wish), and the company can then decide what's in the company's best interest.

    • (Score: 5, Informative) by takyon on Thursday March 07 2019, @09:54PM (4 children)

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Thursday March 07 2019, @09:54PM (#811346) Journal

      DM said "The actual policy: It's my printing press, I can print or not-print whatever the hell I want."

      I said "People asked Steam to remove/reject it. It's not their marketplace, but apparently their noise had an effect."

      The point is that Steam isn't merely picking and choosing what it wants to publish using a set of criteria, even if some of them are subjective (such as no "troll games"). It is reacting to outside pressure and bad press.

      They can do that, but it is inconsistent with the policy they set forth in September. They have bent the knee and admitted that they will go where the wind blows. Even Rape Day detractors are unsatisfied with this approach [kotaku.com].

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday March 08 2019, @04:27AM

        by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Friday March 08 2019, @04:27AM (#811456) Journal

        It is reacting to outside pressure and bad press.

        So? Welcome to the real world. You want to be a company that does business in the real world, you need to choose how to respond to the public. That IS making choices about criteria for publishing: perhaps very savvy choices.

        Or maybe you're right, and maybe they'll alienate customers who wish they had a more "first principles" approach, and maybe that's worse in the long term.

        It is what it is: a corporate decision that obviously weighed perception of different potential actions. Any company that completely ignores public perception of its actions -- even if it's claiming to operate on some superior moral high ground -- is likely not going to last long. Maybe this is some exception, but I really doubt it.

      • (Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday March 08 2019, @04:42AM (1 child)

        by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Friday March 08 2019, @04:42AM (#811460) Journal

        And by the way, I read your link and agree with you about the wording of the statement from Valve -- it's vague. But also, I think, perfectly realistic for a business acting in the real world.

        Don't like it? Don't support them. And keep complaining about them. But don't try to pretend this sort of business decision is somehow improper because it was pragmatically influenced by complaints. That's what businesses do. Now you get your turn to complain... I just think "this decision was made wrong because it responded to public pressure" is a particularly strong complaint against them.

      • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Friday March 08 2019, @08:25AM

        by maxwell demon (1608) on Friday March 08 2019, @08:25AM (#811482) Journal

        The point is that Steam isn't merely picking and choosing what it wants to publish using a set of criteria,

        Of course they are. It's just that one of their criteria is how they expect it to affect their public image. Evaluation of people's reactions of course is part of determining that.

        --
        The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 07 2019, @10:02PM (6 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 07 2019, @10:02PM (#811348)

      This is not the hill for free speech defenders to die on. It looks really bad when they defend something like this when the "offending" party (steam) is 100% within their rights.

      If there really are systemic problems where people are effectively 100% censored with no recourse, then we should update the Bill of Rights to make sure freedoms are preserved. This developer should be able to host their own online store but other stores should not be required to host their content. One rights violation I can think of is if their ISP refused service due to their game because the ISP should not consider a customer's content unless it breaks the law.

      I understand the intellectual desire to defend freedom and prevent the slippery slope, but defending this trash without a real violation of freedom? Yuck.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 07 2019, @11:15PM (4 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 07 2019, @11:15PM (#811389)

        Even web hosts and payment processors have jumped onto the deplatforming bandwagon, though. This makes it significantly more expensive and difficult for anyone guilty of wrongthink to even host their own services, since they have to play tiring cat-and-mouse games with web hosts and payment processors. At least when it comes to payment processors, this deplatforming nonsense should be outright forbidden.

        • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday March 08 2019, @03:33AM (3 children)

          At least when it comes to payment processors, this deplatforming nonsense should be outright forbidden.

          I think you should write your congressperson and demand that payment processors accept payments for *anyone*, regardless of circumstance.

          I expect you'll have lots of support from payment processors, drug cartels, hate groups, money launderers and lots of other folks.

          What could go wrong?

          Expression is speech, writing, video, painting, sculpture and even software, plus other mechanisms/media which spread what one wants to express.

          And, at least in the US, the ability of the government to restrict such expression is quite minimal.

          However, private entities are not bound by the requirements of the First amendment. No private individual or entity is required to host your content, process money transactions for you or provide you with any product or sevice which may serve to enable wider distribution of your expression(s).

          Don't like what a particular private individual/entity is doing or saying? Speak out. Don't take action (purchase goods/services, use their platform if free, etc.) that supports them. That's freedom of expression too.

          It might be hypocritical for Steam to have taken the actions they did. So you now have choices to make:
          Do you boycott (including deleting any games you own) Steam?
          Do you buy more Steam stuff?
          Do you speak out against hypocrisy?
          Do you speak out against promoting rape as good, clean fun?
          Do you speak out that rape *is* good, clean fun?

          I choose not to do any of those things. I don't use anything Steam, nor am I interested in doing so, regardless of their actions.

          I don't think rape is good, clean fun (consent is *not* optional), but I have no interest in whether or not some game developer wants to promote that idea.

          in a nutshell: Don't like it? Don't support it. Whether that be with speech, money, services or products. If you do, then support it.

          Either way, it's no skin off my nose. If I didn't despise popcorn, I might suggest making some to enjoy the debacle. But I don't support popcorn. It's the devil's spawn.

          --
          No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 08 2019, @03:42PM (2 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 08 2019, @03:42PM (#811556)

            I expect you'll have lots of support from payment processors, drug cartels, hate groups, money launderers and lots of other folks.

            Law enforcement should go after drug cartels, money launderers, and other such criminals when they are found. I don't think it's the responsibility of payment processors to make sure no one does bad things with their service, much like it isn't the responsibility of ISPs to make sure no one does bad things with their Internet connections. I support net neutrality, and I support payment processor neutrality.

            However, private entities are not bound by the requirements of the First amendment. No private individual or entity is required to host your content, process money transactions for you or provide you with any product or sevice which may serve to enable wider distribution of your expression(s).

            That's just a restatement of the status quo, which can be changed. I don't see how forbidding payment processors from arbitrarily banning people from sending money to a specific person or organization using their service would violate the first amendment. The definition of "speech" would then be so broad as to be effectively all-encompassing.

            I'm also worried about the government having the indirect ability to stop some person it deems undesirable from making money by pressuring payment processors, like MasterCard did to Wikileaks. That's what this 'free market at all costs' approach results in.

            Don't like what a particular private individual/entity is doing or saying? Speak out. Don't take action (purchase goods/services, use their platform if free, etc.) that supports them. That's freedom of expression too.

            That's all well and good, but some problems are too large to be solved by boycotts. But, just because massive numbers of people don't have the willpower to boycott a product or service, that doesn't mean that there isn't an issue that warrants additional regulations.

            • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday March 08 2019, @08:14PM (1 child)

              Law enforcement should go after drug cartels, money launderers, and other such criminals when they are found. I don't think it's the responsibility of payment processors to make sure no one does bad things with their service,

              From a legal standpoint, who said anything different? It certainly wasn't me.

              That's all well and good, but some problems are too large to be solved by boycotts. But, just because massive numbers of people don't have the willpower to boycott a product or service, that doesn't mean that there isn't an issue that warrants additional regulations.

              It saddens me that you have such a low opinion of people. I'm sorry you need to live around folks who won't live their professed beliefs.

              Beyond that, there are 535 (actually, more but we'll stick with congress for now) folks in Washington, DC whose job it is to address these types of issues. I think you'll find little sympathy from them, given that forcing private entities to support beliefs/practices/speech/etc. is anathema to a free society.

              It's sad that centralized private entities have so much power in this way. However, we gave them that power and we can take it away.

              The best way to do so would be to reverse the centralization of information flow, and realize the full potential of data networks by decentralizing them.

              That would take away the power of private entities like payment processors and "social media" platforms to support (or not) certain ideas and/or expression.

              Fully open data networks without centralized platforms can make that happen without restrictions on the freedom of expression.

              When every individual or entity can freely express themselves, we can leave it to the marketplace of ideas [wikipedia.org] to discuss and evaluate them.

              Any other "solution," including a requirement that payment processors accept all comers, just legitimizes censorship in the hands of those who currently hold power.

              As Justice Brandeis pointed out [wikipedia.org]:

              If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the process of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.

              Requiring payment processors (or anyone else) to support expression with which they disagree is tantamount to imposing "enforced silence" on those people. There are better ways to address such issues.

              --
              No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 09 2019, @08:52AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 09 2019, @08:52AM (#811976)

                It saddens me that you have such a low opinion of people.

                I certainly do have a low opinion of the so-called 'free market,' yes. It leads to countless undesirable outcomes, and were that not the case, we wouldn't need regulations at all. Boycotts don't solve everything.

                I think you'll find little sympathy from them, given that forcing private entities to support beliefs/practices/speech/etc. is anathema to a free society.

                What? They do it all the time, in the form of numerous other regulations. I don't think that this is some dramatic violation of people's basic liberties. If you don't want it to affect you, then don't be a payment processor. And hey, the vast, vast majority of people do not run payment processors.

                However, we gave them that power and we can take it away.

                Yeah, and one of the ways we can do that is through... regulations.

                Requiring payment processors (or anyone else) to support expression with which they disagree is tantamount to imposing "enforced silence" on those people.

                Well, they don't have to "support" the "expression"; they just can't ban it. I don't see how this is fundamentally different from net neutrality.

      • (Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday March 07 2019, @11:57PM

        by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Thursday March 07 2019, @11:57PM (#811405) Journal

        Nobody's dying on this hill. People are just recognizing that Valve/Steam has rolled back its permissive policy, which was outlined just 6 months ago.

        It's highly likely that the game will be self-published and will be far more successful than it would have been if there was no controversy. But we could see some further developments if payment processors try to prevent the developer from making sales/earning donations for the game.

        Payment processors are the real enemy, not Valve. If you want to set up a more permissive Steam competitor, or other free speech platform, you could run into major trouble or even have funds frozen. People end up having to mess around with highly decentralized platforms and cryptocurrencies.

        --
        [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]