Itch.io is shadowbanning or deleting NSFW and LGBTQ content

As an individual, I totally can. I can spend my money wherever I choose.

As a business, I have an obligation not to discriminate based on various things. I can't refuse service to black people, for example, or relegate them to a separate part of my business.

And if I'm running a business that performs a vital infrastructure service, such as facilitating payments for e-commerce, I should be required to provide those services to all comers unless otherwise prohibited by law (e.g. money laundering).

I would also argue that something being in poor taste doesn't mean it should be illegal.

I agree with the majority of that.

I both understand and support measures that protect people from discrimination.

Though, I would also add that -from my own point of view- there is an important difference between a govt saying that you cannot do something (i.e. discriminate against a protected class) and a govt having the power to compel you to do something (i.e. per mandate, you must engage in an activity with someone).

I do not currently live in the EU. So, gaining some clarity on how things are approached (ban vs compulsion) is helpful.

In layman's terms, does the govt say "you cannot deny sale of a requested item to X group" or does the govt say "you are mandated to sell a requested item to X group"?

In regards to the original post, I oppose shadow bans of the nature described.

By default*, I am of the belief that two consenting parties (adults) should be allowed to engage in a transaction, as long as what they're doing doesn't harm or infringe upon others. Whether I or anyone else likes the activity in which parties engage as part of mutually agreeable transaction should be largely immaterial to whether or not they're allowed to do it.

*I say "by default" because I find that sometimes real life and tangible problem solving doesn't neatly align with theory.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Yea I don’t know. I don’t want child rape games on platforms my children can easily access. I don’t feel bad saying that, and if cutting out payment services is the only real way to force companies whose primary purpose is the ever increasing accumulation of money, then so be it. No real amount of hectoring is going to change that. Even if legislators did make a move, the reaction would be nearly the same, and then you would have real conflict with government forcing speech codes. It reminds me of when the US government banned what ultimately was Backdoor sex trafficking ads.

Probably people should wait until more details come out, tho.
I just flat out reject the argument this is the only real way to force companies to do that. If this is really something you're concerned about your kids coming across (I have never come across any of them in all the years I've been on Steam), doesn't Steam already have parental controls?
 

I see your point, but the correct avenue to attack that would be to try to influence Steam to change their policies, not to influence Mastercard and VISA whose job is to enable people to pay for things they want to buy. In the long run, this is the kind of thing that will influence platforms to accept crypto payments and customers to use crypto payments, and crypto is bad-and-evil in and of itself.
I can't help but think of the Nicholas Kristof article from 2020, which explicitly called for credit card companies to stop doing business with exploitative sites. As I recall that was successful on a very quick timescale. (I don't know if the ban is still in effect?)

I think given the existence of that kind of content, and the potential for deepfakes now, credit cards cutting off access has to be an option.

At the same time @Alzrius makes an excellent point that these payments are so widely used that they are a de facto public utility and it is dangerous for them to have this much power.

And you make an excellent point about crypto. It is an environmental disaster and this will encourage it.

I don't know much about the steam games @Divine2021 mentioned. I believe it when people say the bans are far too extensive. Part of the risk imo is that too aggressive bans deligitimize the credit card companies from taking action in cases where it is merited, like the Kristof one. With all that said I am opposed to the steam and itch changes, and hope they can work out a way to moderate only genuinely harmful content.
 

I have posted link to at least one petition in one of my previous post. If you are living in EU you can also try to contact Central Bank of Europe, which is supposed to enforce regulations that make the practice used by Visa and Mastercard illegal, but are not enforcing them. If we get EU to step in maybe they can put the opposite pressure on them.
I've been looking around for maybe half an hour and I can't find what regulation that is supposed to be? Most regulations I can find regarding payment processors have to do with technical issues like fees, not being forced to provide equal access. I'd love to have something I can point to when telling people they're doing wrong.
 


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.

There have been numerous examples of explicit gay sexual content slip into school libraries. Most of it couldn’t even be read in the meetings or on TV as it was to explicit for those avenues. So please don’t lump the people against just that with people against a gay character.
 

This tactic by Visa/Mastercard isn't new. Been going on in the US for several years. Discover has long been the card of choice in such situations but Discover was recently bought by Capitol-One(What's in your Wallet?) so that may change. Don't think Discover works in the EU/GB since it has not worked on several non-US KS. The expansion to LGB products is new as that group generally has significant political cover in the US, unlike porn groups.

But yes, I agree that I don't want the payment networks acting as a gateway censor as to what products are acceptable. Imagine the chaos in the RPG business if a repeat of the 'Great Satan' scare were to happen and the payment networks decided to go along?

I’m really happy to this sentiment expressed so strongly by so many here. It wasn’t all that long ago the banks and credit card companies were being politically pressured to refuse to process payments for guns.

I’m for if the item is legal the payment processors must stay neutral toward its purchase.
 

There are Lgbtq+ creators reporting their sfw works are being delisted solely for being labeled lgbtq+

IMO it’s going to take a bit for companies to straighten out what the line is between sfw and nsfw especially in light of far reaching terms of service changes. I’m confident in the long term you aren’t going to see bans just because of a gay character being in a work. Though in the short term I expect utter chaos.
 

Though, I would also add that -from my own point of view- there is an important difference between a govt saying that you cannot do something (i.e. discriminate against a protected class) and a govt having the power to compel you to do something (i.e. per mandate, you must engage in an activity with someone).
I mean, that's a distinction without a difference. You may think they're different things, but fundamentally, legally and practically, they're not.

In layman's terms, does the govt say "you cannot deny sale of a requested item to X group" or does the govt say "you are mandated to sell a requested item to X group"?
There's not a difference between those two things. It's unclear why you think there is. You haven't explained why think there is.

Do you think the government forces people to go around looking to sell their stuff to people? Because if so you may be relieved it does not, but if you say you are selling X, and you see a black guy coming and say "Nah I won't sell this to you", and he realizes this is because he's black, then yeah, you're going to get in trouble, aren't you? And rightly so.

But there's no difference in what you're describing. You seem to be maybe indulging a fantasy where you're privately selling your bike to a friend and the government kicks down the door with armed police and some official says "NO, YOU MUST SELL IT TO THIS ASIAN PENSIONER WITH ADHD INSTEAD!!!!!", but like, obviously that's nuts. That's not a thing that's ever happened anywhere, is it? But on the other hand, if advertised it for sale, and then you decided not to sell it to someone because they were Asian, or a pensioner, or had ADHD or w/e, that would be bad.
 

I mean, that's a distinction without a difference. You may think they're different things, but fundamentally, legally and practically, they're not.


There's not a difference between those two things. It's unclear why you think there is. You haven't explained why think there is.

Do you think the government forces people to go around looking to sell people to stuff? Because if so you may be relieved it does not, but if you sell X, and you see a black guy coming and say "Nah I won't sell this to you", and he realizes this is because he's black, then yeah, you're going to get in trouble, aren't you? And rightly so.

But there's no difference in what you're describing.


There is a difference. As was explained by someone else upthread, it was ruled that the govt cannot compel speech.

That is an example of there being a tangible and legal difference between saying "you cannot do X" versus "you must do X."

Obviously, the shadowbans mentioned are not a speech issue (well, not currently anyway). However, I used that example because it is a readily available example of when the difference between ban and compulsion was/is important.
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top