DTRPG Says 'Don't criticize us or we'll ban you'

[billd91]

Actually, that's a conflation of the legal definition with the broader principle that someone should not be retaliated against or otherwise attacked for expressing their opinion. That includes (threats of) economic harm or other attempts to financially punish them for saying something that other people don't approve of, and so is relevant to this discussion.

Wait. There's a broader principle that people shouldn't be held accountable for the things they say? That's not a principle - that's an excuse made by people being held accountable for the things they say.
Now, it may be that people shouldn't be held unfairly accountable or held accountable to a degree out of proportion to the offense. But that's a FAR cry from being immune to being held accountable.

"Freedom from speech does not mean freedom from consequences" is simply "blame the victim" dressed up in a more acceptable presentation. It holds that if you attack someone, they deserved it because they provoked you. It's historically been used as justification for oppression, ranging from "if they they didn't want us to raid their homes, they shouldn't have given aid to rebels" to "of course she wanted it, look at what she was wearing," and it's no less odious even when the stakes involved are far less serious.

WOW! That's a seriously offensive comparison.

 

[Alzrius]

Wait. There's a broader principle that people shouldn't be held accountable for the things they say? That's not a principle - that's an excuse made by people being held accountable for the things they say.

That's a misinterpretation of what I said: rather, that people shouldn't be punished, including financially, just because they said something someone else doesn't like. "Accountability" is not a blanket excuse to negatively impact someone else's life.

The power dynamics involved are nowhere close to equitable, in the case of DriveThruRPG and most of the publishers who use the platform, and so I'm of the opinion that it falls on DriveThruRPG to act in a way that benefits those publishers even if they don't personally like what some of them say.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Seems like some people are ready for a good 'ol book burning. I'll bring marshmallows but not sure if I can bring pointy sticks.

I don't think hyperbole helps the discussion. Venger was going around saying OBS was censoring his rights and defaming them. They ARE still a private business, so what business is going to engage in a partnership (because that's what we all are who sell things there) with someone who is slandering and defaming them?

It's that simple. No book burning or oppression going on.

 

[eyeheartawk]

Yeah, simply a case of biting the hand that feeds you here.

Though, given DTRPG's outsize market dominance it's a real sketchy line there between just that and something more odious.

 

[Jer]

I don't think hyperbole helps the discussion. Venger was going around saying OBS was censoring his rights and defaming them. They ARE still a private business, so what business is going to engage in a partnership (because that's what we all are who sell things there) with someone who is slandering and defaming them?

The very fact that OBS had to update their policies to actually codify a "hey publishers - we expect you to act like a responsible business partner and if you don't we're going to drop you from our site" into them is on the one hand something that shouldn't have to be said but on the other hand is utterly predictable the way that the Internet works. Especially with guys like Venger.

Ginning up an outraged twitter mob against your retailers is not good business sense, but expecting some of these guys to have good business sense is asking far, far too much.

 

[Sacrosanct]

The very fact that OBS had to update their policies to actually codify a "hey publishers - we expect you to act like a responsible business partner and if you don't we're going to drop you from our site" into them is on the one hand something that shouldn't have to be said but on the other hand is utterly predictable the way that the Internet works. Especially with guys like Venger.

Ginning up an outraged twitter mob against your retailers is not good business sense, but expecting some of these guys to have good business sense is asking far, far too much.

Guys like Venger are the reason why we have "Do Not Eat" labels on urinal cakes. You'd think it wouldn't be needed, but there's always someone who think they're entitled to push it.

Also, it's not just like he made a comment about them censoring him. He spammed every social media site and FB group he could, and on a weekly basis, about how horrible OBS is and how unfair and oppressive they are.

 

[Ovinomancer]

That's a misinterpretation of what I said: rather, that people shouldn't be punished, including financially, just because they said something someone else doesn't like. "Accountability" is not a blanket excuse to negatively impact someone else's life.

The power dynamics involved are nowhere close to equitable, in the case of DriveThruRPG and most of the publishers who use the platform, and so I'm of the opinion that it falls on DriveThruRPG to act in a way that benefits those publishers even if they don't personally like what some of them say.

As a 1st Amendment superfan, this is a bad take. The relationship between DTRPG and their customers, both providers and buyers, is contract driven. And that clause does not implicate the freedom of speech in any way.

As for your general argument about free speech and consequences, I'm almost 100% positive that you would not support that someone making strident racist remarks must be fully accommodated by a member of the race they are demeaning in all ways, including continuing to associate with them, do business with them, and refraining from saying anything bad about them in return. This is the outcome you're arguing.

I get your point, though, you think that a big company like DTRPG (heh, big) that has a large footprint in a market should not be able to say things like "don't defame us or we cut you off." To you, this feels like they're telling you what you can and can't say. They aren't. You can still say whatever you want. But just like you're free to say whatever you want, they are free to end their voluntary association with you. That you might or might not rely on income based on that voluntary association, or that you might or might not have other viable options for that income, is entirely beside the point. Your rights do not remove the same rights of others.

 

[Jer]

Also, it's not just like he made a comment about them censoring him. He spammed every social media site and FB group he could, and on a weekly basis, about how horrible OBS is and how unfair and oppressive they are.

Right - he's been actively trying to get his "fans" such as they are to mob OBS. No matter how small that fanbase is it's probably still overwhelming for the customer service folks. From what I understand OBS has fewer than 50 total employees - somewhere between a dozen and two dozen full time staff is what I last heard. They don't need to be putting up with that kind of abuse.

 

[darjr]

Venger is still talking about about OBS in bad faith, I’m hoping. Also he is still selling his stuff. His ability to make money isn’t stopped.

OBS just didn’t want to partake.

Edit: yea, I took out the dumb stuff.

 

[eyeheartawk]