Itch.io is shadowbanning or deleting NSFW and LGBTQ content

[Morrus]

There is a difference between an authority saying you must do something and an authority saying you cannot do something.

But authorities say both. You must not murder. You must pay taxes. You must not steal. You must obey roadsigns. The only difference is semantic. They're all just different ways to phrase "these are the rules". You could easily phrase each the opposite way--you must not evade taxes, you must pay for things. It's all the same thing.

 

[TheSword]

They do actually talk about payment processors:


You can search on that text if you like.

So payment processors are seemingly not being given a new duty of care beyond existing ones, according to this official UK government explainer anyway. Only with both Ofcom (the media regulator here, they're profoundly incompetent idiots and lost all their best people over the last few years, I know some people who used to work there) AND the courts involved can they be compelled to not do business with a site and only when the site is being blocked in the UK. Which is a pretty formal process, not a duty of care.

It looks like the government is actually going out of their way not to mess with payment processors. So that's the "ramifications".

I guess with these things, enforcement isn't required if there is a 'chilling' effect.

If itch.io think that it might become an issue it becomes easier to delist.

Look at the effect of the Data Protection Act? How much enforcement actually took place vs how much companies spent trying to prepare or alter their systems to account or it.

To be clear, I'm not disagreeing with you, and as a gay man I don't want to see SFW stuff taken down just because its LGBT. I have no problem with NSFW stuff being gated behind an ID based age verification system though.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I guess with these things, enforcement isn't required if there is a 'chilling' effect.

I don't believe that's how payment processors (specifically Visa and Mastercard) behave because that's not how payment processors behave, including right now. Indeed, by acting as they have done with Steam and Itch.io they're directly breaking existing EU laws which are a lot more serious than the UK Online Safety Act. So I don't for one second believe the UK Online Safety Act, worthless rubbish as it is, is the cause. Nor do I believe this is a "chilling effect" thing. Companies that cautious don't casually break a bunch of EU laws because some Aussies yelled at them. They're just a pair of "too big to fail" morons who are more afraid of theoretical bad press than actually breaking real, long-established laws because they believe they're immune to legal consequences. Look at how the UK is tiptoeing around them and see they're probably right.

 

[Argyle King]

But authorities say both. You must not murder. You must pay taxes. You must not steal. You must obey roadsigns. The only difference is semantic. They're all just different ways to phrase "these are the rules". You could easily phrase each the opposite way--you must not evade taxes, you must pay for things. It's all the same thing.

In most cases, I agree, but not always.

And maybe it is semantics, but sometimes semantics and how something is worded actually does matter.

Example: When I was a college student, the State made the college promise not to raise tuition if they were given more State money. The college technically didn't raise tuition, but they did raise various fees that effectively had the same financial burden for students, it just wasn't "tuition," so the college got paid more from both ends.

Given that there are groups with a vested interest in banning (shadow or otherwise) LGBTQ+ materials, I feel that looking at potential avenues through which those anti-LGBTQ+ groups may seek to further their agenda (by manipulating the letter of the law) has value.

It may be that those avenues do not exist. I don't know. I am an outside observer trying to better understand the situation. As such, I asked about how the EU approaches the issue.

 

[Morrus]

And maybe it is semantics, but sometimes semantics and how something is worded actually does matter.

Does it though? What matters is the effect. And the effect is the same whether you phrase it as a must or a must not. The distinctintion is practically meaningless. Both are a rule which governs your behaviour.

Example: When I was a college student, the State made the college promise not to raise tuition if they were given more State money. The college technically didn't raise tuition, but they did raise various fees that effectively had the same financial burden for students, it just wasn't "tuition," so the college got paid more from both ends.

I don't see the relevance to this conversation.

Given that there are groups with a vested interest in banning (shadow or otherwise) LGBTQ+ materials, I feel that looking at potential avenues through which those anti-LGBTQ+ groups may seek to further their agenda (by manipulating the letter of the law) has value.

I think diverting attention from the actual conversation with semantical 'but actuallies' which have no actual manifestation in the real world is the opposite of "having value". It's just internet guff for the sake of it. Just noise.

 

[Jd Smith1]

I disagree. We don’t extend electric companies the courtesy of not doing business with anyone because of their beliefs.

Credit Card companies and processors should be similar today.

So far as I know, no one is publicly saying that what they are doing is because of anyone's beliefs.

The USSC ruled that companies have the right to refuse service in '22 or '23. And yes, private electric companies can in fact do just that in the USA. Utilities operated wholly or in part by tax dollars cannot without extenuating circumstances.

And in unrelated, but important, news, I became a father again today.

 

[FrogReaver]

So far as I know, no one is publicly saying that what they are doing is because of anyone's beliefs.

The USSC ruled that companies have the right to refuse service in '22 or '23. And yes, private electric companies can in fact do just that in the USA. Utilities operated wholly or in part by tax dollars cannot without extenuating circumstances.

And in unrelated, but important, news, I became a father again today.

Congrats!

 

[Jd Smith1]

I think diverting attention from the actual conversation with semantical 'but actuallies' which have no actual manifestation in the real world is the opposite of "having value". It's just internet guff for the sake of it. Just noise.

In the USA, from the 90s to just a couple years ago, what you said was as important as what you did.

For example, if you said, 'I will not do business with you', that was fine, but if you said 'I will not do business with you because you are Albanian', that was actionable.

Now either one is is fine so long as you are not directly supported by tax dollars or a taxing entity.

Sometimes it feels like the appearance is more important than the action.

 

[Faolyn]

Is LGBTQ+ material being blocked because it's LGBTQ+, or is just that some of it is also being considered NSFW?

I don't know how one would identify content as LGBTQ+...or as heteronormative, either...without there being some element of sexuality in it. In other words, if all anybody is doing is fighting monsters and taking their stuff, what would identify it as LGBTQ+? So I wouldn't be surprised if a high percentage of LGBTQ+ content gets flagged as NSFW, compared to a random sampling of content.

However, I also wouldn't be surprised if the sort of people who go out of their way to flag NSFW content have different reactions to the same activity depending upon whether or not it's heteronormative.

There's an unfortunate trend of people to mark anything LGBT+ as being more "pornographic" then it actually is. A heterosexual couple kissing or holding hands is usually considered OK and non-sexual while a homosexual couple is often considered to unacceptable. This may mean that a game that calls itself LGBT+ inclusive or friendly, has a picture of a same sex couple in it (such as D&D's Strixhaven) or a trans individual (such as Daggerheart), or was written by an LGBT author, or is about exploring LGBT+ themes (and a lot of indie games I've gotten in itch bundles are about that) would and could be marked as unsafe.

 

[Faolyn]

I did just go to Itch and did a search for Thirsty Sword Lesbians and it's still there, accessible by search, and I could download it. OTOH, I already owned it; I have no idea what would happen if someone who didn't own it tried to buy it. Or maybe they're only deindexing video games and not tabletop games.

So I hope that this remains the case and only actually NSFW stuff is gone and they're not going to go beyond that. Considering how many LGBT+ charity bundles I've gotten from them, I really hope they're being extra careful.