Itch.io is shadowbanning or deleting NSFW and LGBTQ content

[MGibster]

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.

And from what I can remember from when I was in school, there was plenty of explicit material of a heterosexual bent as well. Naughty words too, but not a whole lot of people bring any of those up. Sorry, but I do not believe a significant portion of my fellow citizens complaining about gay content in books are doing so in a good faith effort to prevent explicit material from getting into the hands of children. They're doing it because they're bigots.

 

[TheSword]

So it may just be a coincidence timing wise but does the UK Online Safety Act about to launch have an impact on this? I know sites will need to provide proof of age to view pornographic content, and a lot of NSFW stuff is pornographic. I get the impression the bar is pretty low.

It doesn’t explain non-pornographic material but if it’s close to the bone (no pun intended) they may just be cautious while they work stuff out. Or put in place age verification software/policies. They may also feel that providing ID would spell death for their platforms.

I’m pretty sure the fines can be as high as 10% of worldwide revenue so no company is likely to take risks with this.

Might be nothing to do with this in which case wiser folks than me can tell me to get back in my box.

 

[Morrus]

And from what I can remember from when I was in school, there was plenty of explicit material of a heterosexual bent as well. Naughty words too, but not a whole lot of people bring any of those up. Sorry, but I do not believe a significant portion of my fellow citizens complaining about gay content in books are doing so in a good faith effort to prevent explicit material from getting into the hands of children. They're doing it because they're bigots.

Exactly. That argument only works if people seeking to exclude pornographic material also exclude any material containing heterosexual people. After all, lots of porn features heterosexual people, does it not? But strangely, nobody is banning books which contain heterosexual people. What could the difference be, I wonder?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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.

There is not a difference in practical or legal terms, and you haven't explained one. Please explain a real, literal, actual non-ridiculous non-fantasy situation where there is a practical difference. Speech and goods are not the same thing. The example you pointed to is for speech, not selling goods. Different laws and legal approaches apply to speech.

Like I said, I don't believe you can, because only weird fantasy scenarios where the government intervenes in private transactions or similar would seem to be "You must do X". But maybe I'm wrong, maybe you can come up with a real-world example?

 

[BrokenTwin]

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.

I can't claim to have looked to hard into this (not my country, not my monkeys), but I've seen plenty of people claiming this, but I've never actually seen a verified example of that happening. Especially not at a higher rate than it happening with hetero examples. Or being anywhere near as bad as anything you'd find in a bible, which seem to always be prominently available in the schools those book bannings happen in.

 

[Argyle King]

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.

Not exactly, but sorta...

Currently, I work for an agency that deals with HUD subsidized housing. In some cases, yes, there actually are times when I have been required to give an available apartment to a particular person over someone else, even when the someone else was -by the normal rules of how things work- higher on the waiting list.

In the federal govt's eyes, there are times when banning discrimination against someone is seen as a different and distinct thing from compulsion that I must do something for someone over someone else.

In most cases, the difference is a very small one. Though, in cases where the difference matters, that small difference can matter quite a lot.

 

[FrogReaver]

Exactly. That argument only works if people seeking to exclude pornographic material also exclude any material containing heterosexual people. After all, lots of porn features heterosexual people, does it not? But strangely, nobody is banning books which contain heterosexual people. What could the difference be, I wonder?

They do?

 

[Theory of Games]

 

[gnarlygninja]

And from what I can remember from when I was in school, there was plenty of explicit material of a heterosexual bent as well. Naughty words too, but not a whole lot of people bring any of those up. Sorry, but I do not believe a significant portion of my fellow citizens complaining about gay content in books are doing so in a good faith effort to prevent explicit material from getting into the hands of children. They're doing it because they're bigots.

In these people's very mild defense, ime as someone who grew up around and of them, they do want explicit hetero stuff banned too.

 

[Argyle King]

Like I said, I don't believe you can, because only weird fantasy scenarios where the government intervenes in private transactions or similar would seem to be "You must do X". But maybe I'm wrong, maybe you can come up with a real-world example?

Another example:

Let's say, for example, I decide to sell a car to you. If the local govt here feels that the amount that you and I have mutually agreed upon is below what the local govt feels I should sell the car for, they can try to force me to charge you more.

Thankfully, most attempts they have made to do so have been challenged and shot down. At this point, I'm not sure that they even really try it anymore. You may still have to fill out a form that explains why you are selling the car for less than the value they've deemed it to be, but I just wrote "that's what I agreed to sell it for" the last time and that was enough.

Even so, that is an example of the govt attempting to step into a transaction and compel behavior. The attempt fell flat and has ended up not really having teeth at this point, but it's still a real and tangible example with which I've interacted.