Itch.io is shadowbanning or deleting NSFW and LGBTQ content

[Jd Smith1]

I haven't kept up with this much, so could anyone explain how this all started? (I heard there was a group in Australia that contacted credit card companies, but haven't heard if it was a legal threat or appeal to morality)

(A link to the answer is fine, if a direct answer would be considered derailing)

EDIT: See post #202.

 

[trappedslider]

I haven't kept up with this much, so could anyone explain how this all started? (I heard there was a group in Australia that contacted credit card companies, but haven't heard if it was a legal threat or appeal to morality)

(A link to the answer is fine, if a direct answer would be considered derailing)

so it all started with a game called No Mercy. The game allowed players to take on the role of a male protagonist who was encouraged to “become every woman’s worst nightmare,” with content that included themes of sexual violence, domination, and incest roleplay.

It was listed on both Steam and Itch.io, and the game's (and other games) content caught the ire of an Australian Activist group who called up/emailed Payment Processors (credit card companies) and pressured them into telling Steam and Itch.io to remove and in the future prevent some NSFW content from being put back into their market places.

I'm not sure what Steam has done,but Itch.io took down all NSFW games because imo it was quicker and easier to have games be resubmitted in order to meet the new guide lines.

And the internet being the internet has naturally taken this to the worst case scenario.

 

[Ferrousbones]

So, is there no info about legal threats by this activist group? If not, do they have a history of legal threats?

Given what has been said about payment handlers & European law, it doesn't seem like there would be outright rejection by these companies unless there is some Australian law or lawsuit aspect.

@Morrus If this comment is too close to the law aspect for this thread, I apologize, and ask if there is a better thread to discuss it.

@trappedslider @Jd Smith1 Thank you both for answering (or trying to) my question.

 

[billd91]

I haven't kept up with this much, so could anyone explain how this all started? (I heard there was a group in Australia that contacted credit card companies, but haven't heard if it was a legal threat or appeal to morality)

(A link to the answer is fine, if a direct answer would be considered derailing)

Lin Codega has been covering this on their posts on Bluesky. They were able to determine that Itch.io, without notice, shadowbanned a lot of titles including anything marked "adult" with its codewords by blocking them from search results. A term like "adult" covers a lot of territory well outside of the guidelines they eventually posted (and included in posts above), including an awful lot of LGBTQ+ material.
Lin also brought up some questions about some of itch.io's clarifications. For example, itch.io wants to suppress appearance of minors or "minor presenting" in a sexual context. What does "minor presenting" really mean? How would creatures that appear young like faeries or hobbits interact with this? How about materials exploring your coming of age or discovering your sexual preferences or identity as an adolescent?
While worrying about "minor presenting" and fantasy properties may be a bit of a minor case, the potential effect on coming of age and discovering sexual preferences before the age of 18 is definitely going to tend to land heavier against a lot of LGBTQ+ material.

 

[Staffan]

So, is there no info about legal threats by this activist group? If not, do they have a history of legal threats?

My understanding of Collective Shout is that they are primarily, for lack of a better term, shame-based. They know they don't have a legal leg to stand on, so their primary means of influence is to say "How dare you make money off of this filth!?" I think they have unsuccessfully tried to get individual games banned or age-restricted in Australia.

 

[trappedslider]

My understanding of Collective Shout is that they are primarily, for lack of a better term, shame-based. They know they don't have a legal leg to stand on, so their primary means of influence is to say "How dare you make money off of this filth!?" I think they have unsuccessfully tried to get individual games banned or age-restricted in Australia.

They got both Target and K-Mart to pull Grand theft auto 5 from shelves at least for a time.

 

[Ferrousbones]

I honestly can't see shaming over "nsfw"/"adult" content, itself, being enough to get the card companies reacting like this.

Perhaps they made the card company leadership concerned over liability or class-action lawsuits related to pedophilia or content that "encourages" violence.

That or they convinced said leadership that "morally conservative" individuals/groups are growing in power, and could be forming laws related to said content, where said leadership would either be ally or enemy.

Or, possibly threatening allegations of an Epstein connection?

 

[FrozenNorth]

Well, its a size issue. Obviously whoever owns the company decides what it does. On account of owning it. I own ENP, and I decide what it does. Investors buy shares, so they own the company. Therefore, they get to decide what it does. If investors can't decide what the things they own do, then is it OK if you can't decide what happens to your car or your house?

Ironically, while your comment is certainly true for ENP, the larger the company, the less true it is in practice.

In a publicly-owned company, do the shareholders make the decisions for the company? Not really, the management does.

Well, do the shareholders select the management? Again, not really, the company’s directors do, and they are also supposed to supervise the actions of the management.

But the shareholders select the directors at least? Not really. The management puts forward a slate of directors that the shareholders vote on. In principle, a shareholder with an enormous amount of money could put forward an alternative slate, but this is pretty far from shareholders of the company deciding what it does.

And that is not even considering popular dodges like certain shareholders having shares that give them multiple votes each or other legal workarounds that subvert the intent of shareholder democracy.

 

[Jd Smith1]

I honestly can't see shaming over "nsfw"/"adult" content, itself, being enough to get the card companies reacting like this.

Perhaps they made the card company leadership concerned over liability or class-action lawsuits related to pedophilia or content that "encourages" violence.

That or they convinced said leadership that "morally conservative" individuals/groups are growing in power, and could be forming laws related to said content, where said leadership would either be ally or enemy.

Or, possibly threatening allegations of an Epstein connection?

As I understand it, it was more along the lines of, "your service supports this game", and whomever was assigned to handle the matter at the credit providers passed the complaint along to Steam & Itch with the note that it was bad PR, and Steam & Itch simply adjusted their product policies.

Not a lot of drama, just everyone washing their hands of a potential for bad press. I don't know about itch, but porn is not a major Steam revenue stream, and the credit corps mentioned are of such size that the loss of revenue was completely insignificant.

 

[Muh]

As I understand it, it was more along the lines of, "your service supports this game", and whomever was assigned to handle the matter at the credit providers passed the complaint along to Steam & Itch with the note that it was bad PR, and Steam & Itch simply adjusted their product policies.

Not a lot of drama, just everyone washing their hands of a potential for bad press. I don't know about itch, but porn is not a major Steam revenue stream, and the credit corps mentioned are of such size that the loss of revenue was completely insignificant.

The bolded text illustrates the problem with the whole situation.