The group responsible is "Collective Shout", the same org has targeted Steam before.

There are calls on social media now to contact Mastercard, Visa and co. and file complaints.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -11 points 1 year ago* (13 children)

Yes, but.

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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 84 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    My line is these payment processors being judge, jury and executioner about what material they deem valid. So I am fundamentally opposed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -25 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    I agree, but they aren't.

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 27 points 1 year ago* (6 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago

    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?

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -17 points 1 year ago* (4 children)
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -13 points 1 year ago* (1 child)
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    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".

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent