Itch.io is shadowbanning or deleting NSFW and LGBTQ content

[Morrus]

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.

That’s not what we were talking about.

 

[Nikosandros]

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.

I don't own it and it looks like I can buy it.

 

[The Firebird]

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.

Still for sale as far as I can tell.

 

[CleverNickName]

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.

Ah geez, I didn't even think of that. I've purchased three charity bundles from them to support LGBTQIA+ charities...and now it looks like they might not be able to do those drives anymore. That will directly impact a lot of nonprofit organizations that protect and serve the LGBTQIA+ community. I remember one charity drive raised hundreds of thousands of dollars that year.

That couldn't have been an accident. The people putting pressure on itch.io's payment processors had to know this. Charities depend on online transactions these days.

 

[Jd Smith1]

That’s not what we were talking about.

Ah. I though that was the thrust of the comment I quoted. Should I delete?

 

[Argyle King]

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.

Yes, but the mechanism of how they do that differs. As such, the approach to how they would be legally challenged or enforced would also differ.

I don't see the relevance to this conversation.

That's an example of how something was worded making a difference because an entity took advantage of small differences in wording.

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.

And that's your opinion. It's no less valid than mine, just different.

For me personally, my own opinion is that having a better understanding of how a hateful group may try to manipulate the law against me has value in being prepared and understanding what steps I might take so as to not be blindsided by something down the road.

Stateside, we're seeing some of that now. There were rulings back in 2011, blown off as unimportant, that are being used to detain people in 2025.

 

[Argyle King]

You keep saying this but I must keep tapping the sign which says "You have provided no real-world examples".

Specifically re: what the second one would look like, in practical, real terms. How that would work differently to the former.

Non-discrimination

Non-discrimination is laid out in the chapter on equality of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

commission.europa.eu

If you scroll down the actual directives are there.

And here's a bit of an explainer which refers to customer rights on EURLex for you: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52014SC0005#:~:text=Know your rights — in services,of her family and acquaintances).

I missed this when you posted it earlier. Thank you for the information. That is very helpful.

The answer to my own question appears to be (as is the case here) that the presiding authorities take the position of prohibiting action rather than compulsory action.

From a cursory glance, it looks as though "indirect discrimination" would apply to the shadowbans.

However, the last two sentences of the Indirect Discrimination section are worded in such a way that... well, I'll just post what it says:

"Indirect Discrimination may be justified in some situations if it has a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary. This needs to be assessed on a case-by-case basis."

Having some fluidity in how that is applied is good because it allows for covering a lot of different situations. At the same time, there's enough wiggle room that an organization wanting a 'justified' reason to allow discrimination has ways to push for getting it.

The nuances of determining things like "appropriate and necessary" matter.

This is a community that discusses tabletop roleplaying games. Conflicts of RAW (rules as written) versus RAI (rules as intended) are not unusual.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Do you consider all instances of sexuality NSFW? ...

Whoah....don't make this personal. I'm not taking a stand here, just asking about what's going on.

 

[Bill Zebub]

At least here in the United States, we have a fairly long history of relegating stories about gay people into the adult category. Years ago, I remember Roger Ebert complaining about a movie he reviewed being rated R. He noted the lack of foul language, nudity, violence, and explicit sex scenes, the hallmarks of an R rated movie, and concluded it received the rating because the story centered around two gay boys. And of course in our current cultural climate we have a lot of people trying to excise books with gay characters from our public and school libraries. It really isn't about sexual content, as even stories with gay characters are challenged.

Agreed. Which is what I was saying in the part of my post you didn't quote:

"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."

 

[trappedslider]

At first I thought it was just the Payment processors doing what they have done a couple of months ago with Civitai: The Home of Open-Source Generative AI which lead to the removal of it's NSFW content as well, but then I saw the press release from CS.