- cross-posted to:
- gaming@beehaw.org
- cross-posted to:
- gaming@beehaw.org
Collective shout seems to have expanded its scope: games like cult classic Fear And Hunger have been removed from Itch.io, while horror game VILE: Exhumed has been delisted from Steam just a week after launch.
I’ve heard this reasoning a few times. I don’t buy it. Illegal content is already illegal. You aren’t allowed to sell it. Policing particular content beyond that doesn’t cover your ass. In fact, it implicates you if you do process payments for illegal content.
I’ve never seen any argument from them that this is the reasoning. The only rule they need is that you aren’t allowed to sell illegal content on your platform. That covers everything. Going beyond that implies there’s a different reason. They’re being influenced by something else other than the law.
I think it actually is more complicated. There are anti obscenity laws in the United States where these companies (Steam and Itch.io, but also Visa, Mastercard, Stripe and Paypal) are based. The way those laws have been applied have been mostly permissive in the recent past, but I think there’s reason to believe that this could change quickly. We may find ourselves in a situation where the highest court decides that this has all been illegal this whole time. Procedural and legal norms are feeling a bit shaky these days. People wonder why payment processors would bend over backwards on behalf of some group of aussie weirdos, but maybe being on their good side isn’t the concern. Maybe it’s that they’re trying to self regulate to get ahead of any government action. Collective Shout may just be highlighting to them the most risky instances, making it so that they have no plausible deniability with regards to the content they are processing payments for.
What argument have you seen from them that is their reasoning?
We don’t know their reasoning. However, we do know their requirement, which is not “no illegal content.” It’s “no content involving rape or incest” or something like that. They have also stated publicly they do not want to be involved in regulating legal content, but, again, that isn’t what they required. If they only cared about illegal content then that’s what their requirement would say, but it isn’t.
Okay so none then.
And also none from the person above, but the logic doesn’t check out. Using basic inference, we know it isn’t about legal content. That already wasn’t allowed, so no changes needed to be made. There must be another reason. What is it? I don’t know. I’m not making a claim to knowledge of what it is. I’m only proving that it isn’t what the other person claimed. Burden of proof is on the person making a claim, not the one disputing it.
The point is “I haven’t heard them say this” is not a legitimate argument, because you haven’t heard them say anything about anything, because they haven’t said anything, and speculation is all we have.