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.

top 76 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 195 points 1 year ago (38 children)

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.

  • source
  • hideshow 38 child comments
  • [–] 98 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    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).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    So what do I, a common shlub, do to resist this? Boycott Steam and itch.io until they reinstate the games?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Once they get rid of the sex they'll come for the violence.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    They're not going to ban 90% of video games, not everything is a slippery slope

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 24 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    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!

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [+] 12 points 1 year ago (9 children)
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -6 points 1 year ago* (7 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    The only line is depictions involving real people without their consent. A flexible line is a exploitable one.

    It is very clear that MasterVisa will use any and all excuses to eliminate queerness from existence, and my perverse games will be the excuse.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    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.

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

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    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

    Thanks for talking with me about this :)

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

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [+] -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
  • [–] 152 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    Puritanical US based payment processors need to stop getting their panties twisted.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 65 points 1 year ago* (7 children)

    I don't even understand how they give a shit. Seems like the perfect place for shareholders to want them to make as much money as possible, it's a limited market.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 45 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    People with a lot of money doesn't really want just money. They want power to impose their views over the rest. Money is just a mean to do so.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago*

    the payment processors didn’t randomly wake up this week and decide to ban NSFW video games on a power trip.

    they are being financially pressured in some way to threaten game platforms that they’ll remove their services completely. the implication of that is they’re worried about losing even more money than they make from payments on game platforms.

    from the payment processors perspective, they’re thinking, “okay this is not a hill we want to die on and it’s a small percentage of our business anyway.”

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

    You're still thinking within reason. Megalomania doesn't.

    It's not about money, but power. "The world bent its knee at our word." Simple as that. People can be and are that crazy.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    They give a shit because they are being pressured into giving a shit by religious nutjobs: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality_in_Media

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

    It's an Australian organisation pressuring the payment processors.

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

    It's not just happening recently with Steam and Itch.io, it's been happening for a while.

    Some smutty art creators on Patreon have been chased off that platform because of payment processors telling patreon they'd pull the plug if Patreon kept that type of art on the platform. Those same artists have then reported being unable to set up, for instance, Stripe for their paywalls.

    Porn stars have complained about being unable to set up accounts with payment processors.

    Same with ad companies that are deathly afraid of being seen next to NSFW images, so for instance Imgur has cracked down on them.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 62 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    I'm wondering who gave these credit card companies the moral authority.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago

    The fact that they hold the keys to the kingdom. Online retailers and businesses rely on credit card processors to be able to do business, which is all the leverage they need to exert tremendous pressure on the businesses they service.

    This is something that really should be getting legislated against, but good luck in the US under the current administration. Maybe the EU has a shot.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I'm sure this is no coincidence that cbristofascists are in control of all the top branches of US Government.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    It’s not about morals. It’s purely about money. Porn sites are labeled as high risks because things like chargebacks, stolen credit cards etc happen more often at these adult websites. Not to mention the thin line between legal and illegal content. Therefore payment processors charge companies in the high risk category a higher fee since they need to audit these companies more frequently and deal with these chargebacks etc. more.

    So either Itch.io goes into the high risk category and pay more for transactions or they remove porn. Maybe itch.io should just create a separate company to host these adult games.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    But wasn't that true before Collective Shite decided to piss on everyone else's day?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago*

    maybe it's because itch mostly sells non-porn games so they probably flew under the radar since they could have less fraudulent transaction or chargebacks as a porn site. Or the payment processors didn't care too much that itch broke the compliance rules until someone reminded them of their duties. Like PornHub was showing illegal content for years and the payment processors only gave a shit about it until someone went to the news.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 58 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 57 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    Those ladies are really unpopular at the moment.

    Still, it further highlights just how much power over law payment processors have - a worrying thought that the morality of a company (influenced by problem life nuts) dictates international law.

    Edit - autocorrect turned pro life into problem life. I am ok with this.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 53 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 48 points 1 year ago

    Can we force law banning money transactions to the churches and christian organisations?

    Fight fire with fire (not literally, at least not yet, even if they did that long time ago already).

  • source
  • [+] 41 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 29 points 1 year ago*

    First, fuck Visa and Mastercard. Second, fuck Collective Shout. Third, I feel for the itch forum mods.

  • source
  • [–] 26 points 1 year ago

    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.

  • source
  • [–] 25 points 1 year ago

    How the fuck did we get to the point where a company which literally only takes your money and gives it to someone else (and also gets paid for that) can decide what kind of content people consume?

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›
    2 comments in c/gaming@lemmy.world view that post