Ultimately, I think we’re getting sidetracked about what the main problem here is. When it comes to games which genuinely glorify or promote sexual assault or abuse, I think we’re more or less all at least uncomfortable with the idea of such games being carried by a “mainstream” storefront like Steam at one level or another, if nothing else because we’re generally not fond of the idea of those sorts of things being glorified or promoted regardless of what our view of its legality is.
The problem remains the fact that Steam and Itch are being pressured to self-censor not by a broad societal consensus, but by the pressure tactics of a single small group of miserable Australian TERFs who would almost certainly consider a wide swathe of media which we consume and are generally in support of (LGBTQ-affirming media in particular) to be “obscene” and “abusive”. It’s the thought of a group like Collective Shout operating as the arbiters of morality for these gigantic payment processors and storefronts which worries me - and which I suspect, worries all of you.
It’s one thing to not like media which crosses certain lines. I’ve got those lines, and so do you. It’s another to give over our power to draw what those lines are to the same kinds of people who (for example) find it perfectly okay to draft and support laws ostensibly intended to prevent sexual abuse to target trans folks.
We all have moral lines. That’s fine. My problem is when those moral lines are being imposed on me by people who consider a considerable fraction of my friends to be obscene just for existing.
When that individual or company plays a role in whether people see that media – a publisher, broadcaster, hosting platform – their decisions not to publish/host something they consider offensive or harmful are censorship, and best called that (as they generally have been historically).
Otherwise we can end up blind to the fact that when a lot of them make the same decision, it has the same effect as a government law censoring something. (Or stronger! Some laws are less enforced than a publishing company consensus.)
Private censorship will usually have more gaps and exceptions than a strongly enforced government law – and that’s one of its virtues. Things that get wrongly excluded can usually still find a place somewhere, a small press or niche forum, from which they have a chance at an audience.
Yep, but we’re not arguing about their legal right to moderate material on their site. We’re arguing about whether they should ban some fictional material, and if so by what criteria. That has very little to do with their legal rights, which are straightforward, but only end the argument if you think everything that’s legal is therefore moral/ justified.
Imagine the last few days playing out without the payment companies involved at all – itch deciding to delist all NSFW content and then adopting a principle to not monetize “anything containing” noncon or scat. Maybe they do it bc of Collective Shout, maybe just because the censors who’d always been on the team got the upper hand in internal policy debates.
I do not think the reaction would have been “fine, whatever.”
I do not think the reaction should have been “fine, whatever.”
I certainly don’t think the majority of the arguments people have been making and liking on this thread are consistent with “fine, whatever.”
So there’s a hint of motte-and-bailey here. Yes, there’s a strong case for imposing common-carrier rules on Visa/Mcard, and probably an even stronger one for the US and EU ignoring the bank lobbyists and creating a digital system like Pix or UPI in India that works for online payments. But set that aside for a sec. We’re also debating
and if that doesn’t include fictional CSA, that needs justification, not just “of course we all agree on that, no one’s arguing that.” All the questions you’re raising about “who decides? who gets the power of the censor?” apply there too. Who draws the line and decides what side of it Lolita falls? Or the arguably glorifying stuff like Leon or Sailor Moon?
If our only answer is, “it’s already illegal,” that just puts wind in the sails of people fighting to make noncon an issue of law. Should it be illegal? If so, why, and what makes it different from rape content? I am, along with you, ready to yuck NAMBLA’s yums. The fact that somebody yums to it isn’t an argument-ender.
I absolutely do not want Collective Shout operating as the arbiters of morality. But if we step back from fighting for an alternative moral standard and try instead to argue for a moral vacuum (into which we smuggle a few taboos, but without acknowledging that’s what we’re doing), we’re yielding the floor to them.
It is plainly possible to exclude content that glorifies nonconsensual sex and genocide without excluding LGBTQ content. We’re all on a forum that does that, talking about the games of a company that does that. I understand why some of us don’t want to see that as a norm on big platforms, especially payment providers. I wouldn’t argue nearly as hard if this conversation were limited to “Visa/ Mastercard shouldn’t be allowed to do this,” because of the unique role they play in rich-country economies. I can see the case that the duopoly’s powers here are more like the state’s, and that we should resist their censorship for the same reasons we want to minimise state censorship.
But in the broader argument of “who do we want making these decisions,” I don’t think we’re in a position any longer for the answer to be “nobody.” (There are too many other areas where we’re ready to defend limits on speech, for one thing. It’s not the 90s or 00s any more. ) Fighting for glorification of nonconsensuality to be the red line is a stronger strategy for keeping the puritans at bay than arguing for no red lines.
We agree, regardless of the specifics. But saying that a company should do something isn’t the same as saying it should be forced to do something. As customers and citizens, there are lots of things we can do to pressure and persuade which fall short of force.
And if you said publishing companies should never face pressure around what they publish, I would both disagree and point out that you’re ceding the field to advocacy groups that are willing to apply pressure.
I agree that Visa/Mastercard are so big that it becomes nigh impossible to avoid them.
But Visa/Mastercard are not a banks nor even compete with other banks. They’re payment processors competing with other payment processors.
Visa is being sued by the US Justice Department accusing it of using its dominant position to stifle competition in the debit market and thwarting the growth of its existing competitors and blocking others from developing alternatives.
Enforcing ToS on adult content which is high risk for Visa and Mastercard and even PayPal, isn’t acting anticompetitive. If Visa/Mastercard had a ToS that stopped or punished Steam or Itchio for finding alternative payment processors then that will be anticompetitive.
No private company that isn’t a state sanctioned utility is forced to service everyone no matter what.
Market dominance doesn’t mean you’re acting like a monopoly who stifles competition.
Using American Tobacco as an example, this is how the US Supreme ruled against the company:
“The rule of reason stated that monopolies were not necessarily unlawful; they violated the law only by acting “unreasonably.” White noted that the “undisputed” evidence of “unreasonable” business practices was overwhelming. This evidence included the original formation of the tobacco trust through the buying out of competitors, the use of the trust’s power to monopolize the trade in tobacco and the plug and snuff business further by using below-cost pricing, attempts to conceal the trust’s practices through secret agreements and creation of brands falsely promoted as independent, the practice of vertical integration with wholesalers and leaf tobacco suppliers to blockade the entry of others into the tobacco trade, and price fixing with some formerly independent tobacco companies.” (Source)
If one wants to argue that Visa/Mastercard and any other payment processor is acting unreasonably for having ToS around adult content that’s fine so long as we then make them immune from being sued for potentially processing illegal stuff.
Setting aside legal rights, I still think that private companies should be empowered to enforce whatever they like.
Let’s say there is a Faith based Book publishing company. The company publicly states its ToS that it only publishes books around faith stories and the goodness of believing in some God or gods.
I don’t think that faith publishing company should be forced to publish or host a book by someone who pushes themes against religion or faith. Obviously I think the author should be able to call out the company and publish their book elsewhere. But the company itself doesn’t owe everyone the right to publish all books as though it was a government utility company.
In a free market, we expect competition. Let’s say this faith based publishing company is so popular that it owns 90% of the market. So long as this company maintains its monopoly through fair competition and doesn’t block competitors, morally speaking it has the right to continue enforcing it’s ToS.
Thats how I see things. If a company has a policy that’s bad then let the market punish it unless of course it does something illegal and thus the government needs to step up.
Agreed. I’ve no problem with them facing pressure from their customers. Because companies tend to become complacent without competition or pushback from customers/users.
I’m going to try to express my thoughts about this.
I can’t promise much cohesion, because it’s early morning, I wasn’t able to sleep during the night, and being in my thirties, I am apparently too old to handle that.
I don’t know if this all is a super hot take? I wouldn’t think so, myself.
(cw: discussion of SA, BDSM, CNC, dubcon, and hate crimes)
Many people use BDSM, and CNC in particular for this topic, as a safe way to explore the feeling of being helpless. Many SA survivors (but not all, of course) also find it very carthartic, and it can help them working through the trauma.
Fiction can work the same way. It could even be argued that it is safer, because it doesn’t involve needing a trustworthy partner (and there are absolutely people out there who will take advantage of other people).
And this is where we seem to disagree, because I do not think kink erotica needs to portray a realistic kink scene, to be okay. I believe that it is fine for it to just portray the fantasy itself.
And I don’t think of that as glorification.
In a way, I see it as a BDSM scene, made by the writer, for the readers. The content warnings (which should absolutely be there, and be clear and thorough) are the kink negotiations, choosing to read/play is giving informed consent, and the reader can at any point withdraw that consent, by stopping and closing the game/book/browser tab.
And in the case of some SA survivors, the heavy fetishization of SA is exactly what makes it work for them. And a realistic portrayal of a cnc scene, might not work the same way.
As a personal anecdote (but with a quite different topic), I used to be almost semi-phobic about the topic of pregnancy, and purposefully reading some pregnancy fetish stories, was the very thing that made me work through it, and stop having a fear/disgust reaction to the topic.
I should point out that I am specifically talking about dubcon romance content, and primarily where the POV character is the one having stuff happening to them.
I very strongly do not personally want to play any games, where the PC I am controlling SA’s someone, so I am not the person to argue the case for such content.
I do not think that dark romance with dubcon elements is in the same category as, lets say, some freaky fucking game that awards the ‘cool chad’ male PC for commiting corrective rape on AFAB people who are queer, or feminists, or have political opinions that differ from the creator’s in some other way.
Not even close.
But, some other people absolutely think they belong in the same category.
So, I am personally not comfortable making any broad statements of condemnation about any broad categories of content.
It would need to be much more specific, so I know exactly what content is included in that person’s specific definition of the term.
And very importantly:
Enjoying rape fantasies (in irl cnc scenes or fictional kink erotica) does not mean that the person in any way condones actual rape.
I do wish that point would click easier. Like fiction is by far the safest place for that and working through whatever other shit, no one to take advantage of and no pressure so you can stop at any point. It’s frustrating to me that like there keeps being some line or another put on it, i.e. “but not actual depicted rape for purposes beyond total condemnation”. Despite what I’m sure half this thread thinks, it’s intensely not for me, any dub/noncon (well, an alter of mine has some circumstances) or even simply being put in a submissive position (again, well an alter but circumstances are complicated and very loaded), precisely because of my experience, but I know so intensely how it helps other people. That goes for other abuse as well, where fictional depictions (and related safe real life experiences) can help work through trauma. Just wish that it helping so many would help it be less controversial, especially when like it doesn’t harm people due to the low barrier to just, say nah and leave (as I do when it or any other triggering content comes up). And like as GreekWinter had brought up, it’s not like this (dub/non) is niche at all, it’s a huge majority of the romance market for traditional books (and targeted towards women from the perspective of the “victim”, at that). But also know how swerfs and related radfems and such go so hard after it for reasons very much like what I’ve seen in the thread (among other reasons), unfortunately.
I don’t know. I think the sides taken (not excluding myself here) are too set, due to the nature of morality leading to such strong opinions and being so seemingly obvious and self evident to most people, and won’t be changed by any argument .
I think you might have glazed over the “I’d be pissed” part of where you quoted me.
My point was that I’d have less of an issue with a single platform purposefully de-listing me than a terrifying multinational behemoth that answers to nobody and completely controls online commerce forcing that company to de-list me, because nobody should have that much power and they affect far more than just Steam. The can potentially de-list me everywhere. That’s MUCH scarier than one platform, no matter how big, cutting me out.
I think this line is very clear. CSAM of actual people is the line. It’s documentation of an actual crime. We used to live in a world of common sense where people understood that documenting a crime was bad. But now we’re living in crazy town where lawmakers are actively watering down these laws by conflating the depiction of crime with art and stories about something that never happened with no victims. I do not believe those things are the same. /unpopularOpinion
I think it’s perfectly fine if Steam decides not to host stories involving unsavoury topics including the above, and I think I’ve been fairly consistent about that. I’ve never suggested that any company should be forced to platform any kind of pornography at all.
The problem is when the massive company that’s only supposed to be processing payments comes in and bulldozes all the tables over regardless of what anyone wants, simply because they can.
I miss the 90s and 00s more and more every day. All we have today is scolds VS scolds and everybody is convinced that their version of censorship is the right one.
Give an inch, they’ll take a mile. Get ready to realize real quick that the definition of ‘glorification’ can be extremely flexible. We’ve seen it already on this thread, and that’s nothing compared to the wider world out there where people have all kinds of opinions.
We don’t live in a world where payment processors can turn a blind eye to what they’re facilitating without consequences. There are laws in place that hold them criminally and civilly liable for enabling illegal activity (beyond just adult content). They’re required by law to do more due diligence than simply process a payment.
Except not a single thing about these games is actually illegal. They aren’t facilitating anything they can be prosecuted for by allowing Steam and Itch to use their systems to sell these games. I have no other way to pay for things online besides a Visa or MasterCard debit card and now they are dictating what I can spend my own money on and that is the main issue here. We are not buying drugs, and yet they have no problem with people using their payment methods to purchase that, despite it being illegal on the federal level. So no, this isn’t a problem with them being sued over illegal things, because again, not a single one of these games is actually illegal.
I will say, that I can absolutely see where you were coming from, even at the most ‘emotional response’ point.
I would personally have no problem with what I would consider ‘rape simulators’ to be demonetized and banned from platforms.
I just also think there is a huge difference between the ‘power fantasy’ type non-con games, where the PC is a perpetrator, and which could potentially encourage a real-life rapist, and the stories and games that has the POV of the victim, and actually explores the experience and relationships in a non-glorifying way, which is what I believe can be helpful to some people.
And I do not trust laws and corporations to not just lump it all together, out of lack of knowledge, or just because it is easier and cheaper.
If that makes sense?
While I do hope you read this, I also fully understand if you don’t.
Daily reminder that whatever supposedly is only directed towards “icky” and “gross” porn or the like will be used immediately against everyone else if they need them silenced. We had a law against childhood LGBT propaganda - everyone went “oh, okay, then it’s totally not gonna affect us, we’re totally safe, we’re marking it as 18+” and, for a while, they did only pressure activists and political figures without affecting everyone else. Sure, they’ve banned passport gender transition, but that’s totally fine, it’s not affecting us!
Then there was a very notorious book about pioners gaying it up in the pioner camp, “Лето в пионерском галстуке”, and it started the shitstorm - it was loud, it was public, it attracted plenty of people’s attention and, in a way, it paved the road towards blanket ban towards “LGBT propaganda” in media. It’s used as a tool to bludgeon and fine people or entities and everything can be labelled as such if you squint, and people who need an excuse do. Rainbows, longing looks at a man, anything that isn’t strictly marked as +18 or separated from “normal things”, and even then it needs to be restricted even further if it’s on big service things, the like - you can pass under the water and they mostly tie it to other political things like donations to Ukraine’s armies in order to fine and arrest, but, like… are you really gonna be sitting there and going “oh well, they totally only affect cringe and wrong things, I can totally manage” when your own rulers constantly out themselves on Twitter about what they consider immoral and when you know Visa and the like service them like whores?
Who gives a shit about fiction when the laws against icky fiction solely affect real people? Why do dumbasses cheer for laws about banning icky fiction when they know perfectly well they’re on the chopping block next?
People in this thread didn’t. But the trend I’ve mentioned is usually expressed in much less flattering terms and gets used just as well. Some outright cheered when Steam banned several incest and rape games, only to immediately start crying once itch removed most of its NSFW. Same happened with fanfics, with yearly AO3 hate campaigns, with pro-anti debates, with the whole problematic fiction shitshows that happen almost yearly - people who were against censorship then, with PayPal and Gumroad, were often derided as boys crying wolves. And now we’re here, and now these same people can start saying “fucking told you so”, but the cost is a tad too fucking great.
Also, treating Russia and China as some specific cases that would totally never happen elsewhere is how americans ended in their current shitshow.
I wasn’t planning on posting here again as I get that my opinion is not exactly in-line with the party line, but I feel the need to point out that the people on this thread who expressed being uncomfortable with defending certain kinds of content did this in a respectful manner, and in my opinion don’t deserve to be called dumbasses or lumped in with the lunatics in Russia (которые могут идти лесом, к слову).
I don’t like what Visa and Mastercard are doing, but this is just patently untrue. There are many great arguments against what Visa and Mastercard are doing; this isn’t one of them.
Banks and payment processors don’t like processing porn, but they really really don’t like processing illegal drugs.
This might change if the US Congress manages to pass the SAFE Banking Act of 2023, which would deregulate financial institutions by preventing regulators from penalizing them for doing business with state-sanctioned marijuana companies. But given the ideological positions of the current congress, I am skeptical it will be passed anytime soon.
I’m even more skeptical the current US Government would pass an equivalent deregulation bill aimed at protecting NSFW media, or a regulation bill aimed at turning Visa and Mastercard into common carriers.
I can unfortunately see them jumping in on the side of penalizing NSFW, which I why I personally hope they just stay out of this conflict. I don’t think anyone on this thread wants to see Operation Choke Point 2: Trump Boogaloo.
The US isn’t the centre of the world. I bought cannabis with my Visa credit card last week in Canada. Meanwhile, we have some of the strictest laws against ‘icky’ media in North America and this Steam/itch.io problem affects us just as much as it does you.
Imo, all this comparison does is prove Visa is full of shit when they talk about protecting their ‘brand.’ They’re just doing what they feel like doing, throwing around their weight like a kaiju. Even worse, it seems to suggest that one head doesn’t know (or care) what the other is doing, which is pretty normal for regional heads of major corps, but in a corp with this much power, it’s a lot worse for the general public.
Which is pretty much the point I was making in my first post where I talked about how many of these censorship-happy people would view my Werewolf games as promoting bestiality and try to ban them if things progressed to going after text-based games. There are people out there who don’t understand the difference between furry fantasies and beasty stuff. There are a LOT of people out there who don’t get it.
Like I said, I don’t want to force a store to carry games that they don’t feel comfortable selling. But Steam is clearly comfortable hosting them. The problem is if we keep moving the window of what’s acceptable, they may be forced to take even more action when pressure is put on them. Give an inch, and the anti-porn activists take a mile.
This was the main argument used by politicians and conservative groups for banning violence in video games in the 90s and early 00s. It’s been widely (but not completely, to be fair) debunked.
Alright, I’m mostly (“mostly” doing a bit of lifting here) keeping out of this discussion, but I will not tolerate kaiju libel. Godzilla will step on you (no, not like that) regardless of what content you put out.
I know of at least one vTuber who does both adult and non-adult stuff had one of her models banned in an adult site because it was a full werewolf one.
I damn near spit out my coffee when I read that. lol
Absolutely.
I had a coworker who I talked to about being a furry (we’d worked together for years, so we’d talked about virtually everything, I didn’t just blindside a new person with it) and he genuinely couldn’t understand how I could look at a sexy wolf man and not think of him as an actual wolf.There was no amount of logic I could use that would make him see otherwise.
Some people just don’t understand the concept of anthropomorphism.
Based. Many kaiju, like Big G himself, are predominantly forces of nature, and should be characterized as such.
And I would posit that any measurable correlation still wouldn’t be a valid argument for not allowing those games, which count as art for the purposes of this discussion, to exist. Any disturbed person can watch a horror film (say, a slasher) for instance and be “inspired.”
Does this mean slashers should not exist due to the .0002% of individuals who would enjoy them for the wrong reason? Should art (whether you categorize it as such or not) be censored for the risks of how it may reflect upon reality?
It’s an interesting discussion for sure, but @Havenstone brought up a lot of valid points I was going to, and I veer on the side of making those lines as clear as possible, else “protecting people” quickly becomes “banning what I don’t want to see and spinning it as righteous.”
. I agree with this.
.
