What is the correct way to ban rape and anime CSAM games from Steam?
Because I don’t buy “freedom” and “none of my business” as reasonable moral positions.
I think it’s justified to want to prevent people from normalizing extreme content publicly.
I think one of the greatest moral failings of modern society is the obsession with allowing companies, rich folk, and the deranged to build systems and communities of harm because society should always be neutral for some reason.
I do agree that payment systems shouldn’t be the ultimate arbiters of what’s permissible, and general sexual content is a normal part of what it means to be human. But we should have limits.
This conversation is completely dominated by people focusing on the “censorship.” As if we don’t justifiably ban snuff or actual films of these sorts of activities.
Please think of the children? Yes, and think of the women these sorts of norms harm. Sometimes you really should care.
This conversation is always completely without nuance, as if all censorship is objectively wrong. Sex games should be legal, unless they are absurdly harmful. And yes, I realize that line is sometimes hard to draw, but we absolutely should find it.
Failing to have a reasonable way to remove something you find genuinely immoral, and defaulting to this “trick” I think is a respectable action for someone who is trying to be ethical to take, even if I don’t completely agree with all her views.
What is the correct way to ban rape and anime CSAM games from Steam?
I think the first step is defining terms and being transparent about your intent. Like, everybody’s on board with banning pedoshit until you find out the organization is targeting transfolk and covering for real pedophiles. I have run into people who think all anime is CSAM, I have run into people who think all sex is rape. There’s enough kooks out there, you can’t just take a political org like Collective Shout at face value.
You’d probably have to go game-by-game and point out that the game has certain elements, provide evidence that those elements are actually dangerous, then start a petition for Steam et al to remove individual titles.
No matter the argument for or against allowing a game, the role of deciding this should not fall to a payment processor basically holding a game platform hostage.
I mean isn’t this the gaming concept of scrub mentality? If I believe a specific moral act outweighs a minor dishonourable act, then shouldn’t I still do that act?
Say I know someone is being beaten in a locked room. It is an important government room, and only key holders elected by the community should enter.
I think it’s justifiable to kick down the door and stop the beating, because beating people up is against my morals so much more than ensuring proper procedure.
But when if someone does that, and everyone endlessly gripes about how “passerbys should not have authority to enter the special room” instead of “well at least I’m glad someone isn’t being beaten up anymore”, then I have to wonder if most people are fine with beatings?
Terrible analogy, non-equivalent etc, but do you see what I’m saying. Because I agree with you that card companies shouldn’t set the terms of what’s acceptable - I mentioned it in my first post.
Using the card company to stop the distribution of tape material is a cheap tactic, but if preventing harm is winning, then saying it’s never justified is scrub mentality, as if beating someone by spamming hadoken doesn’t count.
Patch the game later if it’s so unfair, this is the only way to get it removed right now. The deck is stacked against activists - usually the only effective options they have are disruptive and outside the system.
I think it would be different if the provocateurs in question weren’t, like, religious zealots or whatever. I have little confidence their aim is to move the needle in a direction I’d like it to go.
I’ve argued with plenty of do-nothing dip shits about Just Stop Oil who are concerned solely with getting to work on time and, apparently, the plexiglass in front of famous paintings. But the difference is, Just Stop Oil is a cause I can get behind. I’m not worried that supporting them would also lead to mandatory chastity cages, you know?
I mean, I will admit the first steam list I saw, I thought “This seems bad. Can’t imagine missing any of these titles, though.”
[edit] I actually forgot to mention this: The “right way” to do, like, CSAM counter-terrorism on the level of whatever is happening now will virtually always incense a bunch of libertarians—it’s not really avoidable.
To be clear, I’m talking about leadership. It’d be a bit like celebrating J.K. Rowling for her advocacy against spousal abuse, meanwhile, she’s still dumping hundreds of thousands of dollars into nazi anti-trans groups. More of a broken clock situation than a slippery slope.
Okay, devils advocate time.
What is the correct way to ban rape and anime CSAM games from Steam?
Because I don’t buy “freedom” and “none of my business” as reasonable moral positions.
I think it’s justified to want to prevent people from normalizing extreme content publicly.
I think one of the greatest moral failings of modern society is the obsession with allowing companies, rich folk, and the deranged to build systems and communities of harm because society should always be neutral for some reason.
I do agree that payment systems shouldn’t be the ultimate arbiters of what’s permissible, and general sexual content is a normal part of what it means to be human. But we should have limits.
This conversation is completely dominated by people focusing on the “censorship.” As if we don’t justifiably ban snuff or actual films of these sorts of activities.
Please think of the children? Yes, and think of the women these sorts of norms harm. Sometimes you really should care.
This conversation is always completely without nuance, as if all censorship is objectively wrong. Sex games should be legal, unless they are absurdly harmful. And yes, I realize that line is sometimes hard to draw, but we absolutely should find it.
Failing to have a reasonable way to remove something you find genuinely immoral, and defaulting to this “trick” I think is a respectable action for someone who is trying to be ethical to take, even if I don’t completely agree with all her views.
I think the first step is defining terms and being transparent about your intent. Like, everybody’s on board with banning pedoshit until you find out the organization is targeting transfolk and covering for real pedophiles. I have run into people who think all anime is CSAM, I have run into people who think all sex is rape. There’s enough kooks out there, you can’t just take a political org like Collective Shout at face value.
You’d probably have to go game-by-game and point out that the game has certain elements, provide evidence that those elements are actually dangerous, then start a petition for Steam et al to remove individual titles.
No matter the argument for or against allowing a game, the role of deciding this should not fall to a payment processor basically holding a game platform hostage.
I mean isn’t this the gaming concept of scrub mentality? If I believe a specific moral act outweighs a minor dishonourable act, then shouldn’t I still do that act?
Say I know someone is being beaten in a locked room. It is an important government room, and only key holders elected by the community should enter.
I think it’s justifiable to kick down the door and stop the beating, because beating people up is against my morals so much more than ensuring proper procedure.
But when if someone does that, and everyone endlessly gripes about how “passerbys should not have authority to enter the special room” instead of “well at least I’m glad someone isn’t being beaten up anymore”, then I have to wonder if most people are fine with beatings?
Terrible analogy, non-equivalent etc, but do you see what I’m saying. Because I agree with you that card companies shouldn’t set the terms of what’s acceptable - I mentioned it in my first post.
Using the card company to stop the distribution of tape material is a cheap tactic, but if preventing harm is winning, then saying it’s never justified is scrub mentality, as if beating someone by spamming hadoken doesn’t count.
Patch the game later if it’s so unfair, this is the only way to get it removed right now. The deck is stacked against activists - usually the only effective options they have are disruptive and outside the system.
I think it would be different if the provocateurs in question weren’t, like, religious zealots or whatever. I have little confidence their aim is to move the needle in a direction I’d like it to go.
I’ve argued with plenty of do-nothing dip shits about Just Stop Oil who are concerned solely with getting to work on time and, apparently, the plexiglass in front of famous paintings. But the difference is, Just Stop Oil is a cause I can get behind. I’m not worried that supporting them would also lead to mandatory chastity cages, you know?
I mean, I will admit the first steam list I saw, I thought “This seems bad. Can’t imagine missing any of these titles, though.”
[edit] I actually forgot to mention this: The “right way” to do, like, CSAM counter-terrorism on the level of whatever is happening now will virtually always incense a bunch of libertarians—it’s not really avoidable.
That’s just about how I feel.
Although I do wish we could take action on obviously terrible media without fearing slippery slopes to mandatory chastity cages.
I have to assume there are many non-zealot feminists who exist and are happy to see this gone. But all I see online is grumbling- it’s disturbing
To be clear, I’m talking about leadership. It’d be a bit like celebrating J.K. Rowling for her advocacy against spousal abuse, meanwhile, she’s still dumping hundreds of thousands of dollars into nazi anti-trans groups. More of a broken clock situation than a slippery slope.
Never thought I would be finding common ground on a controversial topic with a guy named petrol_sniff_king but here we are