Itch.io is shadowbanning or deleting NSFW and LGBTQ content

[Not a Decepticon]

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.

Then you are way too optimistic, much more than I am.

 

[Staffan]

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

He did use the gay wedding cake as an example earlier, and given the circumstances I think I actually agree with the verdict there. The way I see it, if a gay couple goes to a bakery and says "We want to buy that cake", that shouldn't be an issue. The baker should not have the right to decline that. They may have to find a topper somewhere else though in case the baker doesn't offer same-sex toppers. But if they want the baker to make a custom wedding cake, I feel that he should have the right to refuse. That's not buying off-the-shelf or standardized stuff, that's asking the baker to go out of his way to make a special thing.

I mean, he's still a bleep-hole for refusing it, but it's within his legal rights.

 

[Argyle King]

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?

It's an example of compelled action versus banned action, which is what I was discussing.

Sure, I'm currently in Pennsylvania. Where I encountered that issue with the local govt was in Blair County.

As said, in recent years, they don't really try anymore, but they were kinda a-holes about it in the late 90s and early 2000s.

As for the price controls point, I guess it could be seen that way, except there was often very little way to know what the local authority felt the price should be or how they were even determining that. Hypothetically, they were using something like Kelly's Blue Book. In reality, it was just the local authority trying to milk some fees and taxes (which were based on sale price) out of someone.

Unrelated, but a similar practice was used to adjust property taxes a few years back. The county hired an outside agency to "update property tax values," which were seen (by the local tax authority) to be a seperate and independent thing from what a property would sell for in the real estate market. The agreement with the outside agency included provisions that some of what they got paid was based upon the amount of newly generated tax revenue. As you might guess, the criteria for how and why a particular property was deemed worth (as far as taxes go) a certain amount was based on somewhat nebulous criteria.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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.

That's not my understanding - could you elucidate why specifically, particularly with reference to part of the act if you have access to it, you believe that to be the case?

Here is Itch.io's statement:

Update on NSFW content

We have “deindexed” all adult NSFW content from our browse and search pages. We understand this action is sudden and disruptive, and we are truly sorry for the frustration and confusion caused by...

itch.io

It is incredibly clear. There is no question. The UK Online Safety Act isn't even referred to, and further, you still don't need any kind of age verification to purchase or download erotic material on Itch.io (or I sure don't, in the UK, with a UK IP address), so if that was the case, they're clearly non-compliant!

I mean, your demand here is that what, Itch.io and Steam explicitly list every single thing this plausibly might be because of but isn't? It's not enough for them to offer a positive statement of why, they have to also say why not?

Note Steam also doesn't require age verification, so again, if they're complying with the UK Online Safety Act, well no they aren't lol.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Unrelated, but a similar practice was used to adjust property taxes a few years back. The county hired an outside agency to "update property tax values," which were seen (by the local tax authority) to be a seperate and independent thing from what a property would sell for in the real estate market. The agreement with the outside agency included provisions that some of what they got paid was based upon the amount of newly generated tax revenue. As you might guess, the criteria for how and why a particular property was deemed worth (as far as taxes go) a certain amount was based on somewhat nebulous criteria.

Christ, tell me about it, I have a good friend in the US and they're dealing with some demented nonsense re: property tax. We have a ridiculous and outdated system here called Council Tax, which is basically a flat tax, and horribly unfair on poorer people and lenient on richer ones, but like, it doesn't have the sheer insanity of a lot of local US property tax systems, where two houses, in same street, which, if sold, go for the same price, have a 50% difference in the set rate of property tax, because the assessor is allowed to basically outright make up values in certain cities and states.

Sure, I'm currently in Pennsylvania. Where I encountered that issue with the local govt was in Blair County.

As said, in recent years, they don't really try anymore, but they were kinda a-holes about it in the late 90s and early 2000s.

Oh wow I shall have a look, thank you.

Hypothetically, they were using something like Kelly's Blue Book.

I was thinking the legendary Blue Book had to factor into this.

 

[Argyle King]

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:

Yes, I did ask if the govt has the position of "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"?

I acknowledge that you feel there is no difference.

I disagree.

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

Why I used the speech example is because that is what the case came down to. Yes, I agree that is not directly applicable to the shadowbans. However, it does illustrate that there is a difference between compelled activity and disallowed activity.

How that does relate to this topic is in asking a question about how the EU views the situation; how they have written the laws.

Are the applicable laws written from the perspective of saying there is something you cannot do or are they written from the perspective of saying that there is something you must do?

While you may feel there is no difference, I'm of the mind that there is, and I would be inclined to believe that large corporations capable of hiring lawyers will also find that there's a difference.

 

[Gradine]

So, at the risk of leaning too far into non-gaming politics, but the way that platforms are treating NSFW-bans as bans on LGBTQ+ content is neither coincidental nor unintentional. The goal is, ultimately, to force all queer people back into the closet, a goal that is the explicit end of a variety of homo/trans-phobic interest groups and are bolstered by mal-informed takes such as this:

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.

Not to put Mr. Zebub on blast or anything, this is a distressingly common opinion in many places (not this one of course) and it's a take that is purposefully cultivated as part of the increasingly intense war on queer kids. LGBTQ+ people don't get to simply have the kinds of chaste romance that you find in, like... every Disney movie ever, for instance. It is saying that shows such as Steven Universe, She-Ra and Princesses of Power, or Owl House are NSFW adult-only content. Meanwhile holding heterosexual romance to the exact same standards would throw all of the following shows in as yet another part of a "NSFW" ban:

• Avatar: The Last Airbender
• Kim Possible
• Zoey 101
• Hannah Montana
• Boy Meets World
• Jimmy Neutron
• Pokemon
• Danny Phantom

And that's just an extremely small sample.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

How that does relate to this topic is in asking a question about how the EU views the situation; how they have written the laws.

Are the applicable laws written from the perspective of saying there is something you cannot do or are they written from the perspective of saying that there is something you must do?

While you may feel there is no difference, I'm of the mind that there is, and I would be inclined to believe that large corporations capable of hiring lawyers will also find that there's a difference.

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-con...— in services,of her family and acquaintances).

 

[TheSword]

That's not my understanding - could you elucidate why specifically, particularly with reference to part of the act if you have access to it, you believe that to be the case?

Here is Itch.io's statement:

Update on NSFW content

We have “deindexed” all adult NSFW content from our browse and search pages. We understand this action is sudden and disruptive, and we are truly sorry for the frustration and confusion caused by...

itch.io

It is incredibly clear. There is no question. The UK Online Safety Act isn't even referred to, and further, you still don't need any kind of age verification to purchase or download erotic material on Itch.io (or I sure don't, in the UK, with a UK IP address), so if that was the case, they're clearly non-compliant!

I mean, your demand here is that what, Itch.io and Steam explicitly list every single thing this plausibly might be because of but isn't? It's not enough for them to offer a positive statement of why, they have to also say why not?

Note Steam also doesn't require age verification, so again, if they're complying with the UK Online Safety Act, well no they aren't lol.

I read Itch.io's statement you're right it definitely talks about the australian pressure group being the reason. I guess these things all work in a climate and payment processors/websites will all be looking at this act and considering the ramifications. That said I fully accept that you know more about the law than me. I did a degree but never practiced.

Online Safety Act: explainer

www.gov.uk

Who the Act applies to
The Act’s duties apply to search services and services that allow users to post content online or to interact with each other. This includes a range of websites, apps and other services, including social media services, consumer file cloud storage and sharing sites, video-sharing platforms, online forums, dating services, and online instant messaging services.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I read Itch.io's statement you're right it definitely talks about the australian pressure group being the reason. I guess these things all work in a climate and payment processors/websites will all be looking at this act and considering the ramifications.

Online Safety Act: explainer

www.gov.uk

Who the Act applies to
The Act’s duties apply to search services and services that allow users to post content online or to interact with each other. This includes a range of websites, apps and other services, including social media services, consumer file cloud storage and sharing sites, video-sharing platforms, online forums, dating services, and online instant messaging services.

They do actually talk about payment processors:

In the most extreme cases, with the agreement of the courts, Ofcom will be able to require payment providers, advertisers and internet service providers to stop working with a site, preventing it from generating money or being accessed from the UK.

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".