First they came for the incest/rape games, which most people somewhat agree with (although the principle is still wrong) Next up is all nsfw games. After that, it’ll be mainstream and indie games altogether. This never stops with just one “victory” for these groups.
Everyone should read the open letter that’s linked in the itch statement, to have a fully informed opinion.
There definitely is a line. Everyone can choose were they draw it. You don’t have to draw it in a way where you end up defending things that are kinda messed up.
There is definitely a hill worth fighting on in that area. I don’t think it’s this exact one.
I am specifically saying this, because my democratic country has laws that would also cover these things the letter mentions and would also deem them wrong. The people normally charged with upholding that law, are just dumb, “not from the internet” and overworked with other stuff.
Please check what laws your country has around the topic of glorification of crime and violence.
We also don’t know what the payment processors told itch and steam.
Itch and steam are doing what they are doing as a blanket move, to create a situation where they can stay in business for now and deal with the problem at all.
My bet would be that they “allowed nsfw stuff”, turned a blind eye, and now suddenly noticed they actually have a really big legal problem, with actual laws and the fact that it was an NGO and not an official legal institution that started this, was dumb luck and now they mostly need time and cover their own arse.
And I fully support the opinion that it shouldn’t be the payment processors forcing these sorts of things. But reality is messy and if this was the path of least resistance to get something done, such is life.
If GTA V is allowed, I’m pretty certain most of what we’ve seen from NSFW games is as well. Regardless, a payment company should not be acting as judge for such things, just as media companies should not act as judge on copyright infringement on YouTube.
I feel like there is nuance that is really getting lost on some people and that is the way that people engage with these games. Let me try to explain: I like playing NSFW games - even with tags like Rape, Corruption or the occasional Incest. Without trying to go into too much detail, it’s simply erotic to me in the correct context.
Now, do I know that these topics are incredibly taboo and/or offensive in real life? Yes, of course. I keep these things private and never put them out in real life. I would rather noone knows about what I do privately in my own time at my own PC. The way I see it, I simply paid an artist to draw something erotic and write a good story and/or program some gameplay attached to it. And once I stop engaging with the videogame, I also do not have any desire to recreate anything in real life. The same way that I don’t go around killing people after playing GTA, I also don’t go around assaulting women because I played a videogame where these things happen.
And that’s exactly what worries me - the people pushing this narrative, genuinely think I would want to start reenacting something I’ve seen in a videogame happen. That is complete nonsense.
The idea that what you see online has an effect on what you do offline, is not that far fetched is it? I mean, I don't know if it's true and I guess you could argue it could work in both directions too. Do people blow off steam online so they don't have to enact their darkest fantasties IRL. Or does the online material encourage or normalize these things? It could also be so that this works different for different people. It let's one person blow of steam, while it pushes someone else over the edge to do something horrendous. And if that is the case, is it fair to take it away from those who are not negatively influenced by it, to prevent those in whom it inspires bad actions from seeing it. I guess we'd need research on the matter, I don't know if it exist or how reliable it is. But I don't think it's a nonsensical question to ask what the effects are.
Jesus Christ we can’t be back to this old chestnut.
We cannot, and do not, standardize society’s guard rails around the most extreme edge cases.
Leave it back with Jack Thompson in the late 90s-early 00s where it belongs. The horse has already been jellied by repeated blunt force trauma more than a decade ago. You’re just punching a horse shaped divot into the dirt at this point.
The question is if it's edge cases. People suffer sexual trauma in very large numbers and working in psychiatry has taught me how incredibly harmful it can be. If this kind of material could help prevent sexual trauma, we should definitely allow it. If research shows that it makes problems far worse, we should consider limiting access to it. I am not saying either is the case, I am saying I don't understand what is wrong with the question itself.
This restated question is not the problem directly.
The problem is the entire discussion/concept of “exposure to a dangerous idea in a pretend context maybe might maybe make someone more likely to emulate it in reality” when there has been little to no evidence found supporting that concept. Additionally the non-proportional amount of concern given to videogames in relationship to this concept as compared to literally any other form of media.
If there was even one iota of connection between “exposure to horrible things in media” (or even “pretending to do horrible things in a pretend context”) and “doing horrible things in real life”, the world would already look considerably different than it does. Militaries would be using these games as “exposure therapy” for soldiers. We’d be seeing crime rates of all sorts shifting in accordance with the media industries. There would already be measurable impacts after the decades of these things existing.
And more so than any of that: This discussion has literally been happening for longer than any of us here have been alive. I’m tired of having it.
Please stop letting the vague idea of “but it might help” override the logic of “but there’s no evidence to support that except a vague gut feeling”.
The same way that I don’t go around killing people after playing GTA, I also don’t go around assaulting women because I played a videogame where these things happen.
Right. That’s fair and I’ll believe it.
Do you generally think there is any limit at all, in any type of media that crosses lines and shouldn’t exist? Think “liveleak” stuff from when that was around.
Or do you consider this game topic just not crossing that line?
My line is: any kind of fictional content is ok. If nobodies hurt, then there is no crime. And in practice being maniac in games doesn’t translate to being maniac irl. There might be some exceptions of crazy people being inspired by games to do crimes, but they should be dealt with on case-by-case basis using just regular law and law enforcement.
Moral judgement or suppression of fiction/artistic expression is deeply and profoundly unethical. How you or I or anyone else feels about something that isn’t “real” is inconsequential. If you allow any line to be crossed in this, then every line can and will be crossed.
I’m pretty sure I can find fictional things immoral? Why would it be unethical to have an opinion on fictional things?
Factually, all the lines that you allow to be crossed are crossed and all lines that are collectively defended are usually not crossed. That’s culture. It’s arbitrary and not absolute.
There are specific games in steam’s case I’m very ok with getting removed, but at the same time its very fucked up that we’re in a situation where the world is beholden to payment processors. Ideally this would be a case where they go directly to Valve and say “hey we think you should take a look at your content policy and at these specific games” and Valve makes the call from there on where they want to draw the line.
The main stuff I saw removed was related to incest and rape, not in a “it contains it” way. Somehow Corruption of Champions 2 escaped the ban hammer which makes me think those games probably took things pretty far, or were basically built to simulate assaulting people.
For reference, CoC2 is uh… Well when you lose in combat the enemy fucks you, and vice versa. It’s like a lot of fetish stuff too. So not that I know exactly what’s in the games, but I feel like you have to really be trying to outdo CoC2.
Edit: I’m not criticizing CoC2 btw, it’s fine. Its… I don’t wanna say tasteful but non con is like one of 90 things you can or cannot opt into. Idk how to put it. It’s an actual game that happens to have non con content I guess is what I mean.
In childhood and teenage years I played a lot of games like Carmageddon, Postal, Grand Theft Auto. In first two games slaughtering innocent people en masse is part of gameplay loop. Yet I somehow didn’t grow up to be maniac, and mostly didn’t even hurt anyone physically in my whole life. It’s games, fiction, you’re not supposed to take any of that seriously or to project it onto your real life.
I’m aware, I promise you that, I’m not saying games make you violent or awful. That argument has been annoying me to hell and back my whole life. To be honest I’ve not heard the argument for video games made for porn games before, but yeah, fair. So yeah. I don’t like those specific rape/incest games, they’re kinda yuck to me, but you do you.
Out of curiosity do you think there should be a line? Where would it be? Maybe like only explicitly illegal content is ever removed? (I wanna say thats how ao3 works) Or is steam having final say your preference? What if steam decided to make changes on its own?
If I had my way, I’d just have filters and tags, and let steam manage their storefront. I might disagree on how they do it, but that’s up to them(or it should be). It just feels weird and loopholey that a payment processor is making this sort of overarching decision.
Out of curiosity do you think there should be a line? Where would it be? Maybe like only explicitly illegal content is ever removed?
For me the line would be fictional-vs-non-fictional. So if a game contains photos or videos of actual people being hurt or abused IRL, that is illegal. But anything fictional is fine. For shocking/kinky stuff, there might be some special tags, and tag-based extra warnings like “this game contains scenes of …, do you want to open the page?”. So when you find and open any game with certain tag you get a warning corresponding to this tag. After confirmation it might remember your consent and enable some flags in the options to not bother you next time. But you can go into the options any moment and hide it all again if you decide you don’t want to see this kind of stuff in future. Also, before you enable/consent to this content, it probably shouldn’t be randomly recommended to you.
So I think that’s all pretty fair, of course including the fact that it should all be legal too.
Does the paradox of tolerance concern you at all? The idea that if you let shitty people have a say they’ll eventually use the bit of tolerance you give them as a tool to take away tolerance of others.
Basically, in theory if you let the nazis have a political party they might win and ban all the other parties, so to keep it fair arguably you should ban them first.
Now applying that to games that are pretty obviously hate games, like the ones the other commenter mentioned, the raping women into obedience game, or a game where you kill a bunch of gay people, the implication is that those games should be banned.
I kinda just wanted your thoughts on the concept. Like for example a game where you play as a school shooter. All good?
Sorry if this is a little philosophical, I just honestly wonder where the line should be for the least amount of harm.
Does the paradox of tolerance concern you at all? The idea that if you let shitty people have a say they’ll eventually use the bit of tolerance you give them as a tool to take away tolerance of others.
Basically, in theory if you let the nazis have a political party they might win and ban all the other parties, so to keep it fair arguably you should ban them first.
I personally feel the correct way to deal with this in current society is to counter propaganda takes instead of trying to silence them. But even better would be to move away from nation-states altogether to more decentralized forms of societies. Compared to even 100 years ago, nowadays we have a lot of technology that makes off-the-grid living much more accessible: efficient solars, modular building, biotoilets, 3d printing, starlinks, etc. The biggest thing that still requires a lot of infrastructure and governing is healthcare imo.
Now applying that to games that are pretty obviously hate games, like the ones the other commenter mentioned, the raping women into obedience game, or a game where you kill a bunch of gay people, the implication is that those games should be banned.
I kinda just wanted your thoughts on the concept. Like for example a game where you play as a school shooter. All good?
Those are not necessarily hate games, but they can be. Rape can be a crime and it can be a kink. And it’s a very popular kink among women themselves. There are whole genres of consensual noncon porn, where people roleplay rape for fun. Big part of BDSM is also all about enjoying those twisted power dynamics. Yet something like this can definitely be a hate game as well done by someone having strong feeling of hatred towards certain groups of people: be it women, gay, trans, black, etc. I’m not sure I’ve ever played actual games like that, and I also would expect them to be low-quality slop, but either way, if you think someone’s trying to push some hateful propaganda through the game, you’re free to call them out, leave negative review, write a post or record a video criticizing it.
I gotcha, I get it being a kink, and you have a fair point in that public feedback helps call out the sort of things that aren’t made in good faith. I think I still like the idea of obvious hate games being taken down, but its always going to be somewhat subjective, so its hard to enforce that kind of thing without screwing over games that don’t deserve it.
Definitely not something payment processors should be in charge of lmao
mention of sexual assaultnot OP, but for example the first game collective shout went after a few months ago (“no mercy”) was explicitly a game about raping women to make them obedient. this is bad not because its NSFW, it’s bad because it’s rape apologia, and a misogynistic hate game. to me, it’s not much different than “chad vs the gay nazis”, another hate game (with a pretty self-explanatory name) that was released around the same time and was also quickly delisted. I wouldn’t be surprised if other games that just got delisted were as bad as no mercy. but also, the blanket banning of anything NSFW (or even just kinky) sets a terrible precedent.
What kills me is in most cases you have to pay for the game, then you have to download the game, then install it and finally play it. It’s not.like the game is going to one day pop into your computer and then force you to play it.
Bottom line. If the game bothers ornoffends you just move on.
It’s going to come down to anything with even a whisper of LGBTQ+/minority/disability/etc representation, just like with books.
They start with the “egregious” content (not that it’s necessarily right to remove that either), then narrow it down until it shapes up into hegemonic conformity and systemic oppression via media (there’s a term for it, kind of like stochastic violence but not quite that I can’t remember atm).
it doesn’t even stop there - it will be used to punish people who do not exactly like it’s expected, with the mere accusation of playing/reading/watching/thinking something “unchristian” as reason.
BDSM games have been targeted as well for “sexual violence”. Only straight, vanilla PiV missionary for the express purposes of having children within the confines of marriage where nobody is enjoying it porn will be left.
And it won't happen because companies won't allow them to ban a trillion dollar industry, you knob. Banning adult games isn't remotely comparable. Most video games rely on violence and it's too big of an industry to fail, adult games have a tiny following and were an easy target.
They banned adult games?! That means they'll ban all violent media! They'll eventually come for all media, they'll come for our computers, they'll trap us in cages! It's a slippery slope!
Steam and Itch are both victims in this matter, their hands are tied. If the payment processors simply refuse to process any payments unless they comply, there’s no point in trying to put pressure on them. I’m pretty sure they were happy to take people’s money for these games and still would be, if they could so while saving face.
Local slang word that derives from “their brains are fried/not working” which also implies stupidity and fanatical adherence to things like religion, anti abortion, anti vax, and the like.
To be clear - “Collective Shout” both is and isn’t responsible. It’s the payment processors who actually enacted policies and are using them as the scapegoat for negative feedback.
How many times have people reported Twitter after Elon Musk took over for showing Nazi propaganda alongside their ads - with no response. An ‘open letter’ in July about a game already banned in April? DELIST EVERYTHING IMMEDIATELY.
Meanwhile, on my feed there’s a post directly below this one about a compiler that will give you BSDM messages for good and bad coding and can even be hooked up to a remote butt plug to pleasure you when you compile a successful program.
Some of the actual reasons people hate crypto are:
extreme volatility
many coins’ value can be easily manipulated by whales
most stablecoins are probably one step away of crashing down like Terra Luna
resource intensive - you can shout about proof of stake all you want, there are still gigawatts of energy being burned to “mint” bitcoin
no protections because “code is law”, even when the code is flawed
forking risk nearly every year
the coins that aren’t as resource intensive, have fast transaction times and negligible fees, are unlikely to gain traction or receive widespread adoption
you still have to go through the hoops of a heavily regulated exchange to get actual money from any crypto you have
You’re free to avoid those coins then… volatility doesn’t mean bad
many coins’ value can be easily manipulated by whales
Yes, just like for stocks and pretty much every product on the market
most stablecoins are probably one step away of crashing down like Terra Luna
Stablecoins are often centralized so they’re not what the goal of crypto was, but sure. Why not hate the coins instead of the technology instead? Stablecoins are a small part of crypto.
resource intensive - you can shout about proof of stake all you want, there are still gigawatts of energy being burned to “mint” bitcoin
If you know this is incorrect, why lie and say crypto is resource intensive when it’s only a few that are like that? PoW has its flaws indeed.
no protections because “code is law”, even when the code is flawed
Every software you use is not liable for any problems that occurs with it. Incidents will always happen. All recent incidents involved someone getting hacked by other means, being menaced into sending them crypto (so it could happen to anyone with a lot of cash as well for example, or through offshore bank accounts), or a company stealing people. I’m not aware of any code fail.
Pretty much all CEX are regulated currently. And with AML and KYC coming more and more (which is bad for crypto), the “no protections” claim is really false.
forking risk nearly every year
So? In case of a fork, you keep both coins… so you should still keep the value of both?
the coins that aren’t as resource intensive, have fast transaction times and negligible fees, are unlikely to gain traction or receive widespread adoption
Isn’t that the case of Solana? But yea currently there are problems with too many coins relying on PoW, but some just can’t do without it, like Monero. It’s the cost of having this system.
you still have to go through the hoops of a heavily regulated exchange to get actual money from any crypto you have
That’s because of regulation and the banking system, not the fault of crypto? It’s because people called crypto a scam that it became like that. You can still use the crypto to purchase stuff with it instead of getting fiat. Receiving money from P2P bank transfers is also similar to this, you’ll get asked questions as soon as you go out of the normal way.
People calling crypto a scam don’t think this much through. It’s just more hard and complex than there is to the eye. Most people interface with crypto solely for trading, and people want quick profit through shitcoins, which is a very bad idea, then complain on the system. You should think twice before investing in stuff you don’t understand: whether it’s crypto, stocks, NFTs, in game items…
No one pays in shares because no one accepts this and it’s annoying to do?
Sounds like crypto
volatility with crypto is annoying, but it will happen with a currency that works in every country, even fiat is volatile
True, but countries have means to keep money more or less stable. Most countries also have laws that are supposed to ensure big money owners don’t collude to play insider trading and pump’n dump every other week
Yea, it is a bit of a pain as well, but it has some benefits compared to traditional payment methods, unlike paying in shares
Pretty sure crypto pump and dump criminalization is still a thing. In the end, you’re asking for someone to invest in something you benefit from, which is illegal in some places
The bitcoin boom turned any crypto currency into just a volatile means of investment. None of them are seen as currencies to buy things anymore, and I don’t think that’s changing.
Not to mention the many other issues with crypto currency as a concept. But those don’t really matter in the face of, well, not being viewed as a currency anymore.
I’m completely fine with certain content being delisted because it is considered essentially on par with hate speech or something like that.
However, I really do not like that it is payment processors making that call. If someone makes that call, it should be the store in question (itch.io, Steam, whatever) or it should be the government.
Since our launch in 2010, we have achieved many wins: billboards objectifying women pulled down, sexualised childrens clothing withdrawn from sale, sexually violent games banned, Andrew Tate’s pimping courses removed from Spotify, and an age verification trial underway to help protect kids from exposure to porn. Last year saw a record 34 wins.
On one hand, they help tighten the grip of economic fascism, on the other hand they also piss off Tate… #confusedboner
How’s this confusing? They’re a Puritanical group. They do Puritanical things. They want people to live a Puritanical life. Literally nothing deep about it.
They are a dangerous cult fueled by a ton of repressed feelings. But so is Tate! If they wanted to fight each other for a while that would be pretty sweet.
These are the sort of people who actually ban Christmas. And that’s what scares me. They can’t tell the difference between cheeky yet harmless fun, basic human variation, and evil, and they will make that your problem it they get enough power
not really. Russia made their own payment processor because of being kicked out from SWIFT but using their system would be immoral.
it would be interesting if the EU makes their own payment processor.
some people were peddling crypto as a way to regain autonomy but most consumers don’t have the skills to buy it using cash and sideline Visa/MasterCard. it’s also not as accessible to people without technical skills.
excluding SEPA, it’s impossible to buy most things using them in my EU country.
SEPA also doesn’t have disposable credentials using randomized credit cards. i don’t want the stores I buy from to have my bank account info and potentially be charged by them randomly.
SEPA payments are push. Not pull. A vendor could request recurring payments, but you have to specifically authorize them. They are very rarely used, except maybe for monthly utilitiy payments.
It’s not supposed to be a secret. Most companies here publish it on their invoices, so you can pay them. Some nonprofits even display it on their websites to accept donations.
Even the some governments publish the treasury account numbers for anyone to see.
While both men and women can be sexualised, it is primarily women who are being objectified, and women who are far more likely to be negatively impacted by it as demonstrated earlier.
When men are sexualised in media and advertising, they are not typically demeaned, portrayed as decorative objects or posed as vulnerable and submissive in the ways that women are. Men are also rarely dismembered and presented as a collection of sexualised or individual body parts. Instead, men are depicted as hyper-masculine and strong. The sexualising and objectifying treatment of men may serve to enhance their power and status rather than to reduce it.
Having said that, we do not support ‘equal opportunity’ objectification. We encourage individuals to speak out against objectification including when men and boys are subjected to it.
I kept wondering why their focus was only on “girls, girls, girls” all over the place and everything was pink.
So media involving the dehumanization of men is totally cool with them. A game about raping men would be totally fine and no issues there because it’s not “typical”. Just don’t do anything to the girlys.
As if the sexualization of men doesn’t have a negative impact on men as a whole…telling men that the only way to be sexy is to be masculine and strong isn’t at all damaging to them? How does that make any bit of fucking sense? Not all men can live up to those unrealistic depictions with a 6 pack and big muscles nor should all men aspire to be that.
The thing is, I actually appreciate the idea of “de-objectifying” people in terms of fictional design; but I want that to be encouraged as part of the creative expression. A sexy female character with an identity and story behind her is a lot more fun to me than one just created to have big boobs. Heck, those same design principles can help design sexy men that appeal to female/gay groups.
But needless to say, forcing those views as part of these acts isn’t helping anyone. It’s just exerting forceful control, and we know how well that works for art.
Why not just call visa and matercard just like that stupid lobbying company. Obviously it is harder to change company’s minds, but maybe might accomplish something.
I hear shout has 1000 people on staff calling businesses, regular people could easily quadruple that.
Those people (Mastercard et al) do not listen to people, they listen to money.
Show them guillotines and molotovs so they understand they might not live to use their money, and they’ll pay (regardless of if you pardon my pun) attention.
as you may or may not be aware, indie video game and ttrpg marketplace itch.io has recently been pressured by payment processors like Visa Mastercard to remove and delist “explicit content” from their site. this has resulted in, effectively, the mass erasure of works published by lgbtqia+ artists. this is the stated end goal of targeted action against payment processors by the group Collective Shout which angles itself to be “protecting children” by erasing adult content from existence.
obviously that’s bullshit. but there’s some stuff we can do as a community to try and fix this!
payment processors do not give a single shit about the content their products are being used to buy. they only care about liability and shareholders. Collective Shout was able to get Visa Mastercard to act with barely over 1,000 calls that’s less than half of the people in this discord. i know it’s a lot to ask every single person to make a call to their card holder, but if you have the energy i highly highly recommend doing so at either of these numbers
Visa Headquarters: (650) 432-3200 Mastercard Headquarters: (914) 249-2000
here’s a little script to follow if you’d like!
“Hello, my name is _____, and I would like to file a complaint. I find it troubling that Mastercard is blocking content on (the platforms you use) and making it difficult for me to make legal purchases. I am going to stop using Mastercard if this isn’t rescinded and fixed."
if you don’t have a call in you, you can send an email to the addresses below and add your signature to this petition from the ACLU
Visa Support: askvisa@visa.com Mastercard Support: b2b.mastercard.com/contact-us/
this quote has been rattling around my head all morning: “They’re not worth your fear, but they are worthy targets for your rage.” - Chase Carter, Rascal.news
This is one of the big use cases I could see for a crypto like Monero. If someone made a Patreon-style site that used XMR, I’d be all over it.
It’s one of those network effect catch-22s though. There’s probably not enough people using Monero to justify creating a site like that - but we’ll never hit a “critical mass” of Monero users if there aren’t ecosystems that encourage its use.
I have the impression that the American government is doing all it can to delegitimize the American Dollar. Between that and the cultural impetus of sexuality, there is going to be a huge opening for Monero and friends to establish themselves as genuine currency.
Payment processors should not get to police what kind of legal transactions people use their services for. No matter how much you dislike the particular product. And especially since they have an effective monopoly. If we let them go through with this, it would open the gateway for them to enact the kind of control over our consumption that should be exclusive to elected officials.
While i agree the notion its not that black and white.
Payment processors are companies. Where you would draw the line when company can and cant decite how they want to manage their product? In the end its their decition.
We already do it for utilities. A financial company should not be deciding what its users are allowed to spend their own money on except within the confines of law.
This has been happening forever in the adult video space. Certain kinks are verboten and disallowed by payment processors, which leads to a kind of underground gray market where you have to use certain euphemisms to avoid getting flagged.
Tbf it should be banned for being ridiculous but not from a morality standpoint from the payment processors, just bc it’s cringe and has nothing to do with that social media format. That being said, Twitter is getting worse and worse
Hell, if extwitter gets banned, it’d be hilarious because then there would probably be laws changed to ensure only the government can select what gets banned. Though, not so hilarious in the current state of the world.
itch.io
Aktywne