Itch.io is shadowbanning or deleting NSFW and LGBTQ content

[Morrus]

They do?

Do they? Who do what? I don’t know what this mean.

 

[Staffan]

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?

Sure, you'll find plenty of puritans who want to ban books and other media containing explicit descriptions or images of straight stuff. But that bar is set a lot lower for LGBTQ+ stuff. You won't find anyone trying to get a book with a kid with a mommy and daddy banned, but one with two daddies is definitely on the chopping block, even if we never see the daddies do the dirty with one another.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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.

Steam and Itch have both been clear that this is due to payment processors and has nothing to do with UK Online Safety Act. So yeah we can rule that out. But certainly that reminds us that there are other groups with similar goals lobbying the UK government among others.

Also worth noting that already the lobbying groups who demanded UK Online Safety Act are saying it didn't go nearly far enough and we have to outright ban/block this and that. It's all so much:

And what they actually literally want is:

Very much with a straight white cis-man on the right end of the boot and everyone else on the wrong. Especially anyone LGBTQ+.

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.

But what causes them to make the choices? Is it on the basis on being a protected class or a specific need? Because I'm guessing its the latter, and that will often coincide with being a protected class - particularly someone with a very serious disability, or who is a pensioner or the like, but isn't the same as being because of the class.

If it's not them being forced on the basis of being in a protected class - rather than having a specific need - then I'm sorry but that's not even a "sorta" example, that's an organisation making choices based on needs, which can coincide or overlap with protected class status but are not the same as that.

And let me assure you - this isn't just a US thing - every responsible, sane, decent government which is handing out resources will sometimes have to put someone ahead in a queue on the basis of need. People get annoyed about it, and I totally get why it would feel bad, but so long as the priorities are sane and sensible, and "specific need" is the decision-maker not simply protected class status with no regard for other factors, then that's okay, I would suggest.

I suspect in most cases with HUD housing, as I understand it (I'm not an expert on US federal housing policy I admit), the people being jumped over will likely also one or more protected class characteristics, no?

 

[CleverNickName]

Sure, you'll find plenty of puritans who want to ban books and other media containing explicit descriptions or images of straight stuff. But that bar is set a lot lower for LGBTQ+ stuff. You won't find anyone trying to get a book with a kid with a mommy and daddy banned, but one with two daddies is definitely on the chopping block, even if we never see the daddies do the dirty with one another.

Another example: two people kissing on-screen won't get flagged by censors...unless the people kissing are the same sex, same gender, or one of them is trans.

Cisgender and heteronormative content gets a pass where others do not.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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.

No, that's not an example of what we're actually discussing.

That's the government trying to set minimum prices for something, which may be dumb as hell at times, but has happened throughout history. Maximum prices for certain goods are even more common and exist today in many nations. Literally this goes all the way back to Babylon in 1800 BCE.

That's explicitly, by your own description, not the government trying to force you to sell something to someone else other than the person you intended to. It might accidentally have that effect, but that's clearly not the intended effect.

Also could you tell me what US state (or city) government tried to do this, and what approximate era it was in? The more details the better. I'd like to read up on it because it sounds fascinatingly insane to do that with cars in the US. It's got real "1970s decline era" vibes to it, but if you've experienced it presumably it's more recent? Or just stayed on the books I guess?

 

[TheSword]

Steam and Itch have both been clear that this is due to payment processors and has nothing to do with UK Online Safety Act. So yeah we can rule that out. But certainly that reminds us that there are other groups with similar goals lobbying the UK government among others.

Also worth noting that already the lobbying groups who demanded UK Online Safety Act are saying it didn't go nearly far enough and we have to outright ban/block this and that. It's all so much:

Have they said it’s explicitly not due to the Online Safety Act? My understanding was that Payment Providers as part of online infrastructure are still required to have the online safety risk assessments? I would be very surprised if that doesn’t include examining the companies they support and enable.

 

[Argyle King]

Steam and Itch have both been clear that this is due to payment processors and has nothing to do with UK Online Safety Act. So yeah we can rule that out. But certainly that reminds us that there are other groups with similar goals lobbying the UK government among others.

Also worth noting that already the lobbying groups who demanded UK Online Safety Act are saying it didn't go nearly far enough and we have to outright ban/block this and that. It's all so much:

View attachment 412266

And what they actually literally want is:

View attachment 412267

Very much with a straight white cis-man on the right end of the boot and everyone else on the wrong. Especially anyone LGBTQ+.


But what causes them to make the choices? Is it on the basis on being a protected class or a specific need? Because I'm guessing its the latter, and that will often coincide with being a protected class - particularly someone with a very serious disability, or who is a pensioner or the like, but isn't the same as being because of the class.

If it's not them being forced on the basis of being in a protected class - rather than having a specific need - then I'm sorry but that's not even a "sorta" example, that's an organisation making choices based on needs, which can coincide or overlap with protected class status but are not the same as that.

And let me assure you - this isn't just a US thing - every responsible, sane, decent government which is handing out resources will sometimes have to put someone ahead in a queue on the basis of need. People get annoyed about it, and I totally get why it would feel bad, but so long as the priorities are sane and sensible, and "specific need" is the decision-maker not simply protected class status with no regard for other factors.

I suspect in most cases with HUD housing, as I understand it (I'm not an expert on US federal housing policy I admit), the people being jumped over will likely also one or more protected class characteristics, no?

Not everyone applying for HUD housing is a protected class, no.

Also, it wasn't the organization making the choice. The "choice" was mandated.

That's an example of compulsion to do something versus being told you cannot do something.

There is a difference, and that is an example that exists.

Whether sane, moral, or whatnot was not my position. My position was simply that there is a difference between an action being banned and an action being compelled. More accurately to the context of this exchange, there is a difference between an action being banned and that action's corresponding anti-action counterpart being compelled.

Most of the time, the difference may be negligible. But even a mostly negligible difference still exists as a difference.

 

[The Firebird]

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.

Some US states have put age verification in place for pornographic sites. Typically the sites stop service in those areas rather than use age verification. So they at least see it as a death sentence.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Not everyone applying for HUD housing is a protected class, no.

Also, it wasn't the organization making the choice. The "choice" was mandated.

That's an example of compulsion to do something versus being told you cannot do something.

There is a difference, and that is an example that exists.

Whether sane, moral, or whatnot was not my position. My position was simply that there is a difference between an action being banned and an action being compelled. More accurately to the context of this exchange, there is a difference between an action being banned and that action's corresponding anti-action counterpart being compelled.

Most of the time, the difference may be negligible. But even a mostly negligible difference still exists as a difference.

But you still haven't produced a single example of what we're actually discussing - the government intervening in a transaction on the basis of someone being in a protected class, which you previously claimed to be concerned about.

Let me quote you:

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"?

First off, let's be real - in "layman's terms", i.e. a simplified explanation, there's no difference. The layman doesn't care about the tiny niceties you're trying to draw out. A serious legal scholar or much, much worse, a filthy philosopher, bane of civilization, might.

Second off, you still haven't produced an example of the bolded part.

Let's review. Your examples to date are:

1) The government makes choices about who gets low-income housing.

My response - They all do, that has nothing to do with this.

2) The government of some unnamed city or state at some unmentioned date apparently set a minimum price for cars and failed to enforce it.

My response - Fascinating story, I desperately want to know more, but sadly not actually relevant to compelled selling, and the reverse is surprisingly commonplace.

You're really succeeding very well in proving my point that there simply isn't an actual practical or legal difference here.

 

[gnarlygninja]

Sure, you'll find plenty of puritans who want to ban books and other media containing explicit descriptions or images of straight stuff. But that bar is set a lot lower for LGBTQ+ stuff. You won't find anyone trying to get a book with a kid with a mommy and daddy banned, but one with two daddies is definitely on the chopping block, even if we never see the daddies do the dirty with one another.

This is definitely true, and that's why my defense of the book banners is very mild.