from the Welly,-welly,-welly,-welly,-welly,-welly,-well dept.
Devolver Digital is running into trouble with its game, Weedcraft, despite cannabis entering into an age of legalization. The game is about managing a cannabis business from startup to empire, but the videos have been demonetized on YouTube. Facebook is also causing trouble with the game which covers multiple scenarios from prohibition to full legalization. Treatment of the game on those, and other platforms, has been inconsistent.
"It's really hard to say how the game will be affected," Wilson told me. "A lot depends on how much [digital marketplaces] Steam and GOG continue to support its visibility and how many people share the story. All we can do is try to make a conversation happen around the industry and with gamers about this insanity and try to make changes. "
Wilson also pointed out that both YouTube and Facebook run ads for hyper-violent video games. Assault is illegal pretty much everywhere, whereas recreational weed use is legal in many states, such as California, Colorado, and all of Canada.
"We all know that violence/murder is A-OK, and that sex or drugs are not, even when presented in a thoughtful way to an audience with an average age of 40, but we've all known that for far too long," he said.
See also: YouTube, Facebook put up ad roadblocks for Weedcraft, Inc. business sim
(Score: 5, Interesting) by NotSanguine on Sunday April 14 2019, @08:54AM (9 children)
Keeping our children safe or being on the anti-cannabis bandwagon.
It's all about the almighty dollar.
Remember who Google and Facebook's customers are. They are advertisers, including pharmaceutical companies and the alcohol industry. They're afraid that legal cannabis will cut into their bottom line and will take whatever steps they feel are necessary to protect their profits.
While this game won't do that, more exposure for cannabis is another step in increasing awareness and support for legal cannabis.
How much revenue do Google and Facebook get from the publishers of this game? Not even a rounding error.
When trying to figure out why corporations do things, it's always best to *follow the money*.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 14 2019, @09:08AM (4 children)
That is a large part of it but it doesn't explain the strange US stance "We all know that violence/murder is A-OK, and that sex or drugs are not".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 14 2019, @09:22AM (2 children)
Really?
I thought it was "We all know that free speech is A-OK. Full stop."
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 14 2019, @11:20AM (1 child)
Found the recent college grad. Though the "Full stop" implies he is not from 'Merica
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 14 2019, @10:10PM
AC you replied to here. That's amusing! Thirty years ago, you might have made a case for drugs/sex bad and murder/violence good.
Things have changed significantly since I was a young'un.
And "Full stop." is in use all over the English speaking world. If I want sex or drugs in my media, it's all over the place. Just not on broadcast networks -- which are irrelevant these days.
No, there are no more whores on Seventh Avenue as Paul Simon described [youtube.com], that's mostly moved online. And you can't buy joints at the Bandshell [centralpark.org] any more, although I could probably still find some cannabis and LSD in the Meadow [wikipedia.org].
But there should be recreational cannabis legalization here pretty soon.
You know that old saw about "when you assume..."? The truth is, you only make an ass of yourself.
Culture changes slowly, but there's always an avant garde (does that make me French?) section that pulls us forward. And thank goodness for them!
So you're 0 for 2 so far, champ. I look forward to more pronouncements from you, oh wise one.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by RamiK on Sunday April 14 2019, @12:40PM
Violence and murder aren't fine and are only permitted in a context where it serves to reinforce the class system and the law or to educate/terrorize the masses about the perils of not having those. Sex and drugs are similarly fine under the same social hierarchic order like in the case of marriage or a doctor's prescription.
To actually be subversive, this game will have to have the protagonist being a loving single father/mother that deals in a real drug (heroin or the likes) in a comedic family drama way and has the customers be normal functioning members of society. That's to say, Weeds rather than Breaking Bad. Though even Weeds chickened out most of the time and portrayed many pot heads as, well, pot heads. A similar portrayal you'll never see is a good, moral prostitute that has no drug issues or the likes and doesn't die horribly or leaves behind a broken home...
At its most common form you have the trope where young couples are murdered immediately after they have sex in horror movies...
Honestly, it's all propaganda for one cause or the next. When you can't tell what the cause is, it means it's working since you already accepted the premise as an axiom.
compiling...
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Sunday April 14 2019, @09:55PM (3 children)
I'm all for legalization, but let's not forget that cannabis has a rather insidious and potentially fatal side effect: Cannabinoid Hyperemesis Syndrome.
Due to the nature of the disease, legalization of cannabis will likely cause a significant increase in ER visits for the medium term.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 3, Informative) by NotSanguine on Sunday April 14 2019, @10:49PM (2 children)
That has not been proven. [wikipedia.org]
What's more, this syndrome is only seen in a tiny population of heavy, daily users who maintained that behavior for *years* [nih.gov].
A tiny minority of cannabis users are long-term, *daily* users. Of that tiny minority, only 6% exhibit symptoms of CHS. It seems as if it's not an issue for the vast majority of cannabis users.
As I said a few weeks ago [soylentnews.org]:
If a few hundred people heavy users out of tens of millions of cannabis users need to go to the ER or take hot baths, it's a small price to pay for stoipping the practice of making up to 1/6 of the US population criminals. What's more, the money saved on enforcement, interdiction and incarceration, plus the tax revenue raised, more than covers any additional ER costs and would easily cover treatment facilities for those who manifest abuse issues.
And even among those heavy users, like most people, if something is making them sick, they'll likely stop without any intervention at all. CHS does affect a very small number of people, but given the size of the population affected, it's neither "insidious" nor potentially fatal (see link above -- in the one fatality associated with CHS, the patient already had a much more serious, potentially fatal disorder [wikipedia.org]).
Note that I am not advocating cannabis use, nor am I claiming that cannabis use is free of risk or potential harms. However, using CHS to advocate for keeping cannabis illegal is absurd and, at best, a strawman.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 3, Informative) by darkfeline on Monday April 15 2019, @02:25AM (1 child)
> That has not been proven
https://www.businessinsider.my/marijuana-syndrome-vomiting-nausea-symptoms-do-i-have-chs-2019-4/ [businessinsider.my]
On her birthday, Denney received her son’s coroner’s report. When Smith died, he had been severely dehydrated, according to the document. The cause of death on the report, which Business Insider viewed, read “dehydration due to CHS.”
>However, using CHS to advocate for keeping cannabis illegal is absurd and, at best, a strawman.
I literally started my post with "I'm all for legalization". We need legalization so we can get more clinical studies about the health benefits and risks of cannabis.
The problem is, CHS is a not at all understood disease with very late, sudden onset. It could be that a lot of people will be affected after using cannabis for 20 or 30 years, such that with the legalization of cannabis there will be a sharp spike of hospitalizations ten years from now as all of the CHS kicks in. We're seeing more and more cases now, but that could still be the long tail of a normal distribution curve. If/when the 60% +-1 standard deviation part of the curve kicks in, it would cause a medical treatment problem.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 3, Informative) by NotSanguine on Monday April 15 2019, @02:51AM
Yes. Yes you did. And when re-reading your post after I finished mine I saw that and was more than a little embarrassed. My apologies for ignoring that portion of your post in my reply. I shouldn't have implied that you feel otherwise.
And yes, I'm not claiming that CHS is bullshit or that it isn't potentially serious. Research is certainly needed.
However, I'd posit that at least some (if not most) of the nausea/vomiting and ER visits related to using cannabis are folks who are using edibles and ingest too much cannabis all at once. I've seen that happen on a bunch of occasions, even with folks that smoke/vape quite a bit. The symptoms are usually nausea and vomiting, just like CHS.
Which is why I'll agree with you again that more research is needed. But it's not really all that surprising. It seems obvious that putting large quantities of chemicals into your body over years or decades may have deleterious effects (e.g., ibuprofen) on your health.
Another good example is long-term use of alcohol, which is linked to all sorts of maladies which have much higher rates of mortality than CHS.
Once again, my apologies for ignoring the clear and unambiguous statement in your post.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 14 2019, @09:25AM (16 children)
Oh no, they ban ads for drug dealer simulators, but what about games with violence? What about simulators for illegal street racing?
Facebook, Google, and Valve can show whatever ads they want to. Maybe the controlling shareholders really dislike drugs.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday April 14 2019, @01:04PM (15 children)
*Legitimate business simulators
And nobody should call them out on it!
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday April 14 2019, @01:08PM (13 children)
I guess rights to free speech just don't extend that far?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 14 2019, @10:57PM (12 children)
You guessed right. The *government* may not restrict your speech.
When did Google become an agency of the Federal (or a state) government?
Or did someone modify the First Amendment with:
"Congress and any corporation who does something Khallow doesn't like shall make no law..."
When I wasn't paying attention?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday April 14 2019, @11:09PM (11 children)
Good question. They are acting as a proxy in China for Chinese government censorship. If they're doing similar things in the US, then the First Amendment applies.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 14 2019, @11:42PM (1 child)
"If"
My my, I always dreamed of meeting King Scarecrow.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday April 15 2019, @01:35PM
I have since found evidence that the "if" [soylentnews.org] happens fairly often.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @06:39AM (8 children)
Do you have any evidence that such is the case? You don't need to answer. We all know that answer already.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday April 15 2019, @01:34PM (7 children)
Read this [upenn.edu] starting on page 22. For example:
Then on page 80, we see a number of Supreme Court rulings over the decades scaling back (but alas, not eliminating) the power to censor by proxy.
Apparently, I did need to answer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 16 2019, @01:03AM (6 children)
Your "evidence" is seriously flawed.
As noted in the court decisions surrounding Zieper v. Metzinger (which is what the link/quote you provided referenced), the government has as much legal authority to force private organizations to censor as a reputation management company does. That'd be None. They can (as can anyone else) request that content be removed, but those requests do not have the force of law.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15165058342700344073&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr [google.com]
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8282623029633834815&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr [google.com]
So once again you're talking out of your ass.
Now, if you'd said that the US government has *tried* to have stuff censored, you might have some sort of argument. Regardless, the courts have made clear that the government may not force private entities to censor for them. Full stop.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday April 16 2019, @01:55AM (2 children)
It also allowed law enforcement to intimidate people for their speech as long as the intimidation could be construed to be part of their official duties.
As to the "which is what the link/quote you provided referenced", you are very incorrect. Notice the quote refers to ISPs, the Patriot Act (which "provided federal officers with unilateral authority to demand that private intermediaries secretly turn over the records of those whose communications pass through their equipment"), and punishing someone for assisting in the construction of an Islamic website.
To reduce that complex mess to claiming it's about a single court case which had little to do with the above?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 16 2019, @02:51AM (1 child)
None of that has anything to do with censoring speech. It's still wrong, but it doesn't support the argument you initially made.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday April 16 2019, @04:08AM
See my reply [soylentnews.org] to (presumably) your other post.
Also note the title of the article I quoted from: "Censorship by Proxy: The First Amendment,Internet Intermediaries, and the Problem of the Weakest Link". It's not about violation of privacy (though that is necessary to enabling more thorough censorship), but censorship by private proxy, precisely the issue I spoke of in the first place. From the abstract:
This is the problem. The US government has also sorts of options for obtaining censorship via proxy (and various other otherwise criminal activities): by threat or by quid pro quo arrangements with the business or with agents of the business. Nor is this ability somehow unique to the US government. It allows for governments to route around their own legal constraints in reaching for power.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday April 16 2019, @02:12AM (2 children)
Yet you were able to reduce all that to claiming it was about a single court case.
And what of the rest of this document. Is it too about a single court case? Or a very precise and detailed answer which for some reason you felt would not be forthcoming?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 16 2019, @03:05AM (1 child)
Did the US government do bad shit? Yes. Was that related to the specific topic at hand? No.
If you want to have a more general conversation about privacy, that's fine. But using unrelated stuff (privacy violations) to claim that the government is *forcing private companies to censor speech* is, at best, disingenuous.
Let's review. We started out with Takyon's comment [soylentnews.org]:
To which you replied [soylentnews.org]:
Then I made the point [soylentnews.org] that:
To which you replied [soylentnews.org]:
And I responded [soylentnews.org]:
At which point you started conflating invasions of privacy with censorship and have continued to run with it.
Invasion of privacy != censorship no matter how much you try to move the goalposts.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday April 16 2019, @03:57AM
Ok, let's look at the very first sentence of that quote:
Interdicting communication is censoring communication. Then in sentence two:
This incidentally was footnoted by the Zieper v. Metzinger court case which you had thought was somehow irrelevant.
So in the first two sentences, two separate cases where the federal government used private proxies to censor speech.
(Score: 2) by DeVilla on Wednesday April 17 2019, @11:57AM
I thought it said it cover the "weed" industry from "prohibition to full legalization". So from illegal to more legal that it currently is in the US. Of course you could also bring up series like GTA, Saint's Row and probably others.
(Score: 2) by looorg on Sunday April 14 2019, @12:50PM
I have not played the game but I looked at a few screenshots and it looks like some pretty ordinary business tycoon type simulator, except that you are growing and selling weed instead of pizza/videogames/trains/whatever-tycoon-type-game-it-is-product. So I'm not sure if the developer are just trying to on the edge by it being weed instead. Still it looks like you can have a choice in the game if you want to be a legal weed business or an illegal weed business.
But then I guess this isn't really so much about what looks like a fairly ordinary biz-sim-game but about the fact that Facebook and Youtube are demonetizing due to the weed content. Sure while it is now starting to be legal in a few states or countries isn't it still illegal in more of them? They might not want to have to geofilter things depending on where the user are to see if it should give ads or monies. While violent videogames are a thing on their own, they do ban those to from time to time, I'm not sure Youtube et al would have done anything different here if it had been a gun-tycoon type game where you sold guns out of your van. Also as noted -- their platform, their rules. If you don't like it get your own platform.
(Score: 2, Funny) by redneckmother on Sunday April 14 2019, @03:06PM (1 child)
I guess no one else out there ever played Dealer McDope, circa late 70s?
Based on the game "Monopoly", the winner was either the first player to amass one million dollars worth of cash and product, or the last one to pass out.
Fun stoner game, back in the day.
Mas cerveza por favor.
(Score: 2) by srobert on Sunday April 14 2019, @05:50PM
I don't remember that, but there was card game named "Grass" in the 1980's. It was popular with college students at the time.
https://www.gamesworld.com.au/product/grass-card-game-hessian-bag-boxed/ [gamesworld.com.au]
It was fun.
And I remember "Dopewars" in the 2000's.
https://dopewars.sourceforge.io/news.html [sourceforge.io]
It's still in the repositories of typical linux distributions.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 14 2019, @03:21PM (1 child)
According to the summary, they are not banning the videos. The are "demonetizing" them, which means they don't get to earn money from advertising.
One reason could be that nobody wants their ads associated with these videos. Nothing wrong with that.
Another reason could be that the videos themselves are essentially ads. Who wants to wait for an ad before they get to watch their ads?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @12:03AM
You could question why we as a society have such a problem with marijuana. So, the fact that it's controversial at all could be considered a problem.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bradley13 on Sunday April 14 2019, @03:45PM (3 children)
It used to be that conservatives would pull sh*t like this, especially religious conservatives. There was no way but the one, true way.
Now it's the liberals and progressives. WTF? These are the intellectual descendants of the 1960's hippies. Only, now that they have power, they are turning into what their predecessors revolted against: inflexible, intolerant fans of suppression and censorship.
Unbelievable.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 14 2019, @05:57PM
Completely believable. He who has the power uses it.
Use it for what? Whatever is convenient or in their financial interest.
(Score: 1) by Coward, Anonymous on Sunday April 14 2019, @10:03PM
Probably these "descendants" dislike their parents' culture, because it is the Western way for the new generation to always find fault with the old one. There's something to be said for constant cultural rebirth, even if it ends up being a bit of a random walk.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @12:06AM
Facebook and Google are not liberal or progressive; they are mega corporations that benefit immensely from the status quo and, as such, oppose any measures that would fundamentally change it. This is not the fault of 'the left,' but an issue with a society that is dominated by corporations and authoritarians.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 14 2019, @06:40PM (1 child)
put your videos on LBRY, peertube, and bittube instead of slavetube.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday April 16 2019, @06:03AM
Marketing requires sending your message to where people actually are.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday April 16 2019, @06:03AM
Chilly reception for marijuana tycoon game shows games industry’s backwards stance on drugs [techcrunch.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]