Search Amazon.com:
Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
«83 »
  • Post
  • Reply
Gau
Nov 18, 2003

ASK ME ABOUT THE KEYS TO KICKSTARTER SUCCESS

Idran posted:

Unrelated to the Pathfinder MMO talk: Gau, I saw that you said the OGL was unenforceable as written? I don't know much of the legal side of things, I was wondering what you meant by that?

The OGL has no teeth. The problem isn't so much that the license is liberal in interpretation (which it is, in many ways), it's that the license is unrevokable. There is no provision for Wizards to ask a publisher to cease and desist using their property. Such a clause would be easy to write, but then we'd get the "OMG WotC can take your money" poo poo that came out with the GSL.

What's more, there is no "penalty outside the law" written into the contract. If I were to write something like the OGL, and had even the slightest interest in protecting my brand, I would include a section that outlined the procedure and penalties for any failure to comply with the license.

As it sits, Wizards can't sue anyone for anything in regards to the OGL; even if someone violates the provisions of the OGL, you'd have to prove damages over and above if they HAD complied with the license in a civil court of law. This is practically impossible with a license as forgiving as the OGL, short of someone actually co-opting the mark and publishing a game called "Dungeons & Dragons" on their own.

Without the ability to anyone accountable by suit, the license becomes a useless formality.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Gau
Nov 18, 2003

ASK ME ABOUT THE KEYS TO KICKSTARTER SUCCESS

Vermain posted:

I'm a little dumbfounded that the licenses for Warcraft and World of Warcraft are separate things. Do you know any specifics as to why?

They are distinct properties under the law. Similarly, one could acquire a license to publishing material based in Faerun and not have any rights to Maztica, as they were separate product lines.

Maxwell Lord
Dec 12, 2008

I am drowning.
There is no sign of land.
You are coming down with me, hand in unlovable hand.

And I hope you die.

I hope we both die.




Gau posted:

The OGL has no teeth. The problem isn't so much that the license is liberal in interpretation (which it is, in many ways), it's that the license is unrevokable. There is no provision for Wizards to ask a publisher to cease and desist using their property. Such a clause would be easy to write, but then we'd get the "OMG WotC can take your money" poo poo that came out with the GSL.

What's more, there is no "penalty outside the law" written into the contract. If I were to write something like the OGL, and had even the slightest interest in protecting my brand, I would include a section that outlined the procedure and penalties for any failure to comply with the license.

As it sits, Wizards can't sue anyone for anything in regards to the OGL; even if someone violates the provisions of the OGL, you'd have to prove damages over and above if they HAD complied with the license in a civil court of law. This is practically impossible with a license as forgiving as the OGL, short of someone actually co-opting the mark and publishing a game called "Dungeons & Dragons" on their own.

Without the ability to anyone accountable by suit, the license becomes a useless formality.

I do recall at least one product (something like "Dungeon World") got pulped for going outside the SRD, because they included stuff that Wizards had kept as Product Identity (beholders, illithids etc.)

FMguru
Sep 10, 2003

peed on;
sexually

Vermain posted:

I'm a little dumbfounded that the licenses for Warcraft and World of Warcraft are separate things. Do you know any specifics as to why?
Simple chronology:
2000 D&D 3.0, D20 SRD released
2003 Warcraft D20 released
2004 World of Warcraft MMO released
2005 World of Warcraft D20 released

When Warcraft D20 was written and released, there was no World of Warcraft.

Gau
Nov 18, 2003

ASK ME ABOUT THE KEYS TO KICKSTARTER SUCCESS

I've updated with a slightly revised number based on the new pledge data! Also, snark and a link to an awesome post by another dude!

http://yourbusinesssucks.wordpress....business-major/

Gau
Nov 18, 2003

ASK ME ABOUT THE KEYS TO KICKSTARTER SUCCESS

This is a really good article, and outlines some of the ridiculously amateurish stuff that happens in regular publishing, and (I'm certain) in RPG publishing as well:

http://mandydegeit.wordpress.com/20...g-undead-press/

(An amateur writer submits to a writing journal, gets her story mangled by a really bad "editor" who also likes to add erotic scenes and such.)

lighttigersoul
Mar 5, 2009

Sailor Scout Enoutner 5:
Moon Healing Escalation


Gau posted:

This is a really good article, and outlines some of the ridiculously amateurish stuff that happens in regular publishing, and (I'm certain) in RPG publishing as well:

http://mandydegeit.wordpress.com/20...g-undead-press/

(An amateur writer submits to a writing journal, gets her story mangled by a really bad "editor" who also likes to add erotic scenes and such.)

I was just talking about this on another blog. Horrible story.

EDIT: On both sides. . . what the hell, I was reading summaries, but her blog doesn't make her out to be the better person.

lighttigersoul fucked around with this message at May 15, 2012 around 02:25

Gau
Nov 18, 2003

ASK ME ABOUT THE KEYS TO KICKSTARTER SUCCESS

I have proposed a Great Statistical Revolution! Free yourselves from the chains of your arcane-casting oppressors!

http://yourbusinesssucks.wordpress....e-the-industry/

InfiniteJesters
Jan 26, 2012


A friend of mine linked me to this and I don't even know what the gently caress, so I'm just gonna leave this here:

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects...-pop-miniatures

Note the FUNDING CANCELLED bit. Happened when Kotaku linked to the thing.

Gau
Nov 18, 2003

ASK ME ABOUT THE KEYS TO KICKSTARTER SUCCESS

Yeah, people were throwing stones over "CENSORSHIP," including Gabe of Penny Arcade. Can you imagine if the media had got ahold of "KICKSTARTER FUNDING surprise sex GAME" as a headline?

InfiniteJesters
Jan 26, 2012


Gau posted:

Yeah, people were throwing stones over "CENSORSHIP," including Gabe of Penny Arcade. Can you imagine if the media had got ahold of "KICKSTARTER FUNDING surprise sex GAME" as a headline?

That's awful. I'd expect Gabe to at least prioritize good taste over...This.

EDIT: On the other hand, I had nearly forgotten the whole dickwolves debacle over there.

Don't take this the wrong way but sometimes I have to wonder if these would-be civil liberties wonks ever step away from their computers and take a moment to reflect on what the Hell they're reading and posting. Or if they spend all their time and energy on an utterly braindead Batman-esque crusade against anything that could even remotely be construed as oppression.

A friend of mine theorizes the diehards are likely the same people who quit reading English-translated manga when That Anime Series That Must Not Be Named Here was cancelled.

Bah. I dunno. I don't know about anything any more. People are having civil liberties disputes over a cheeky but somewhat one-note parody of anime. People are BOYCOTTING KICKSTARTER over a cheeky but somewhat one-note parody of anime (or rather, about it getting discontinued on Kickstarter).

People are stupid and insane sometimes. I dunno what else to say anymore besides that. But the fact that such stupidity and insanity can be sanctioned at times is bothersome.

InfiniteJesters fucked around with this message at May 17, 2012 around 07:14

ProfessorCirno
Feb 17, 2011

The strongest! The smartest! The rightest!


Gabe has a lot of things. Taste is not one of those things.

Anyways, count me as someone who isn't heartbroken that the kickstarter that said "Give us a picture of your girlfriend and we will print her being molested by tentacles" was cancelled out.

adhuin
Sep 15, 2008

Life is a journey,
Time is a river,
The door is ajar.

Oh. You mean this tentacle surprise sex game:
http://girls.sodapopminiatures.com/...-tentacle-bento

No rapes/molestations included, but don't let that disturb the moral outrage.

$20k and counting.
Looks like they're going to beat their original fundraising by a lot.

Swagger Dagger
Dec 13, 2010

You are not machines. You are not cattle. You are men. You have the love of humanity in your hearts. You don't hate, only the unloved hate. Only the unloved and the unnatural.


The entire premise of the game is a tentacle surprise sex joke, it doesn't have to have surprise sex CARDS or some poo poo to be offensive.

Gau
Nov 18, 2003

ASK ME ABOUT THE KEYS TO KICKSTARTER SUCCESS

Swagger Dagger posted:

The entire premise of the game is a tentacle surprise sex joke, it doesn't have to have surprise sex CARDS or some poo poo to be offensive.

I am confused, does this make it more or less okay in your eyes?

Chaltab
Feb 16, 2011

So shocked someone got me an avatar!


jammu posted:

Oh. You mean this tentacle surprise sex game:
http://girls.sodapopminiatures.com/...-tentacle-bento

No rapes/molestations included, but don't let that disturb the moral outrage.

$20k and counting.
Looks like they're going to beat their original fundraising by a lot.
Because clearly people throwing money at something means it's in good taste.

Leperflesh
May 17, 2007

Dwarf tits for the blood god!

SPERG FOR THE SPERG GOD


Gau posted:

I am confused, does this make it more or less okay in your eyes?

I'm not sure what the purpose of judging something "OK" is, really. Is it offensive and tasteless? Sure. So what?

It's clearly not illegal. We can have a discussion about whether depicting (or even suggesting) the surprise sex of innocent girls by tentacle monsters is harmful, but I doubt such a conversation would be productive.

Kickstarter (and any other organization) can and should determine the level of tastelessness that exceeds what they want on their site.

From a game business standpoint, if there's enough interest to sell the game, and its costs are low enough to make it, then it's not a terrible investment (although I sure wouldn't want my real name associated with such a product).

Dr Nick
Oct 16, 2008

This baby is off the charts

quote:

It's clearly not illegal. We can have a discussion about whether depicting (or even suggesting) the surprise sex of innocent girls by tentacle monsters is harmful, but I doubt such a conversation would be productive.

I'm confused a little by this. Are you saying that trying to convince people that what they're doing is harming other people and maybe they should cut it out isn't productive? In what way?

jmzero
Jul 24, 2007



quote:

Because clearly people throwing money at something means it's in good taste.

No, but it does remind us that censorship is usually not effective in preventing people from receiving the message.

Of course, that wasn't the point of what they did. The point was that they (Kickstarter) didn't want to be associated with this product. That seems fairly reasonable, and I don't think Kickstarter should feel like they have to carry the banner of freedom or something here.

That said, I've never understood the "censorship is OK if the thing censored is in poor taste" argument. That completely misses the point. This isn't about adding up positive artistic value, subtracting unpleasantries, and computing whether something should be allowed to be communicated. Judgement of artistic merit doesn't need to enter into it at all. It's about a general principle: if someone wants to say something, and someone else wants to listen, under what conditions is it OK to prevent that?

This game is obscene. Do you want to ban obscene speech? I don't. Not because I'm interested in this game, but because I don't think censorship helps, it often hurts, and because it upholds a kind of relationship between people that I think is wrong and abusive.

To me, censorship falls into the general category of people judging and restricting each other out of spite. To use a different example: lots of people want to ban MMA - not out of any real concern other than that they find it distasteful. Screw them. I don't want to punch or be punched. I'm scared and fragile. But if other people want to do it, it's their business - and if it doesn't affect me then I have no standing to object. Euthanasia? Their business. What drugs they want to take? Their business. Want to fantasize about balloon sex? Don't tell me about it. Not my business.

See the pattern? Society needs to get out of people's personal decisions except where those decisions cause real harm to others. Educate? Sure. Propagandize? Sure. It's good if people have honest information about possible harm they might receive from, say, taking drugs. But barring real harm to others, society should take a strong default position of not interfering with people's lives and desires.

In this case, I don't see harm to society. If tentacle-sex-based material increased the frequency of real sexual assault, we probably wouldn't expect Japan to have 1/20th the frequency of surprise sex we see in the US. Nor would we expect surprise sex rates to have fallen very significantly since the advent of the Internet. Ultra-available obscene material, if anything, appears to lower rates of sexual assault.

To be super clear: I don't think there's an issue with this particular case. Kickstarter doesn't want to carry this kind of project; they don't have a monopoly on distribution or funding - they don't have to carry everything, it's fine that they don't.

But if this were about really trying to prevent funding or access to this kind of content, I'd be solidly on the side of the producers here. I don't like what they have to say, but I'd fight for their right to say it.

Dr Nick
Oct 16, 2008

This baby is off the charts

quote:

That said, I've never understood the "censorship is OK if the thing censored is in poor taste" argument.

Nobody I know thinks actual, real censorship is okay. The version of the argument I hear (and agree with) is that people who associate themselves with (or create!) tasteless or otherwise terrible things should be called out on it. There's a pretty big gap between "you are allowed to say a terrible thing" and "you should say a terrible thing", you know?

There are people who try to conflate the two. Those people are building a straw man.

Leperflesh
May 17, 2007

Dwarf tits for the blood god!

SPERG FOR THE SPERG GOD


jmzero said most of what I wanted to say, better than I was able to say it.

I have little interest in trying to convince people that tentacle surprise sex games are "harmful" (I'm not convinced they are, anyway). Not even harmful to "the game industry".

At best I can imagine a scenario where some game store decides to stock this, and it brings more creepy people into the store, and that's vaguely harmful to gaming because more creeps. But it's kind of a drop-in-the-bucket scenario, to me, so I'm not very convinced by this line of thinking.

InfiniteJesters
Jan 26, 2012


Yeah, I think you all put it more eloquently than I did.

I have far more concernicus with the people screaming and ragequitting Kickstarter over this ridiculous thing than I do with the game itself. The game itself elicted a mix of "Meh/WTF" and a single chuckle from me. Then I moved on.

Unfortunately the die hard wankers didn't and so once again net culture deadlocks itself for the sake of proving a point in the wrong arena for it.

Rulebook Heavily
Sep 18, 2010

I have an unhealthy fixation with a children's cartoon. Discuss.

"Free speech" or whatever doesn't equate to immunity from criticism. If I want to mock a thing for being mockworthy, I am not somehow infringing on someone's rights by doing so. The idea that this somehow equates to censorship is ludicrous.

Free speech does not mean that you must accept everything you hear someone say or tolerate everything you hear. In its original meaning, it means the opposite - freedom to criticize openly, without fear of official punishment or reprisal. If they're allowed to make a tentacle anime game, I'm allowed to point out their spectacular creepitude. If it's being discussed on a site I own, I'm also free to not allow discussion of it in the same way that I'm legally allowed to eject unwanted visitors from my house or to do business only with people I choose to do business with. Is that censorship? Still no, not even remotely. Calling criticism or the simple termination of a business relationship censorship is a false equivalence.

Do you seriously want to try to force Kickstarter into a business relationship they don't want because of "free speech"? I don't think you do, and I think you understand perfectly well why that's silly. Tentacle Bento's right to exist has nothing to do with that.

InfiniteJesters
Jan 26, 2012


And at any rate tentacle surprise sex jokes at this point in time come across as cheap humor at Japan's expense.

Tastefulness nothing - find new material!

Megaman's Jockstrap
Jul 16, 2000

What a horrible thread to have a post.


InfiniteJesters posted:

And at any rate tentacle surprise sex jokes at this point in time come across as cheap humor at Japan's expense.

Tastefulness nothing - find new material!

Perhaps if Japan didn't keep making tentacle surprise sex stuff?

(have they?)

Dr Nick
Oct 16, 2008

This baby is off the charts

Leperflesh posted:

At best I can imagine a scenario where some game store decides to stock this, and it brings more creepy people into the store, and that's vaguely harmful to gaming because more creeps. But it's kind of a drop-in-the-bucket scenario, to me, so I'm not very convinced by this line of thinking.

If there were no drops in the bucket then the bucket would be empty.

InfiniteJesters posted:

I have far more concernicus with the people screaming and ragequitting Kickstarter over this ridiculous thing than I do with the game itself. The game itself elicted a mix of "Meh/WTF" and a single chuckle from me. Then I moved on.

Unfortunately the die hard wankers didn't and so once again net culture deadlocks itself for the sake of proving a point in the wrong arena for it.

What, in your mind, is the correct arena for me to criticize a game for having its central theme be tentical surprise sex? Doing this at it's source of funding seems perfeclty appropriate to tell you the truth.

Dr Nick fucked around with this message at May 17, 2012 around 17:28

Evil Mastermind
Apr 28, 2008

You pick up the nugget of URANIUM and...

Oh that was so stupid. Why would you do that?


I just want to say that following Postmortem Games' G+ feed will provide plenty of material for this topic.

InfiniteJesters
Jan 26, 2012


Megaman's Jockstrap posted:

Perhaps if Japan didn't keep making tentacle surprise sex stuff?

(have they?)

Well, they make non-porn things too.

And at any rate tentacle surprise sex is only the tip of the vomit-inducing iceberg.

Dr Nick posted:

What, in your mind, is the correct arena for me to criticize a game for having its central theme be tentical surprise sex? Doing this at it's source of funding seems perfeclty appropriate to tell you the truth.

No no no. I meant that the problem was that the fanatical supporters of the game are taking their libertarian-flavored stand in the comments section of a game about tentacle surprise sex. As opposed to a more formal venue like, say, the ACLU.

InfiniteJesters fucked around with this message at May 17, 2012 around 17:31

NorgLyle
Sep 20, 2002

You think I posted on this forum because I value your companionship?


Rulebook Heavily posted:

Do you seriously want to try to force Kickstarter into a business relationship they don't want because of "free speech"? I don't think you do, and I think you understand perfectly well why that's silly. Tentacle Bento's right to exist has nothing to do with that.
I don't think anybody really wants to do that. My problem with "The Tentacle Bento Controversy" is that, as jammu pointed out earlier, the ultimate result of all of it is that the game will be more successful, get more eyes on it, find more press and free advertisement than it would have if it had been left alone to come together without anybody getting involved. The Kotaku story and the twitter and message board stuff had the effect of making Kickstarter a slightly better place at the cost of making the world a slightly worse one.

I mean yes, the people who are shitheads were still going to be shitheads regardless of whether they heard about the game, but now you've added in a layer of people with wrongheaded but at least defensible opinions about artistic expression and, of course, a sizeable group of adolescents who will buy it just for the shock value and who, without the internet outrage, would most likely never have even been aware of this.

Rulebook Heavily
Sep 18, 2010

I have an unhealthy fixation with a children's cartoon. Discuss.

Well, humanity being generally terrible is a whole separate issue isn' it.

Gau, your new project is looking great. And you are going to catch so much crap for it, too. Good luck!

Dr Nick
Oct 16, 2008

This baby is off the charts

NorgLyle posted:

I don't think anybody really wants to do that. My problem with "The Tentacle Bento Controversy" is that, as jammu pointed out earlier, the ultimate result of all of it is that the game will be more successful, get more eyes on it, find more press and free advertisement than it would have if it had been left alone to come together without anybody getting involved. The Kotaku story and the twitter and message board stuff had the effect of making Kickstarter a slightly better place at the cost of making the world a slightly worse one.

I mean yes, the people who are shitheads were still going to be shitheads regardless of whether they heard about the game, but now you've added in a layer of people with wrongheaded but at least defensible opinions about artistic expression and, of course, a sizeable group of adolescents who will buy it just for the shock value and who, without the internet outrage, would most likely never have even been aware of this.

The problem with this line of thinking is it doesn't really work. Covering something up and not talking about it because it's terrible just allows it to fester under the surface. That's kind of the whole point of fighting out against surprise sex culture.

Meanwhile, if we ignore it, it will just be one more drop in the bucket, right?

NorgLyle
Sep 20, 2002

You think I posted on this forum because I value your companionship?


Dr Nick posted:

The problem with this line of thinking is it doesn't really work. Covering something up and not talking about it because it's terrible just allows it to fester under the surface. That's kind of the whole point of fighting out against surprise sex culture.

Meanwhile, if we ignore it, it will just be one more drop in the bucket, right?
There's a great episode of The West Wing, from the first season before the show got strange, titled "A Proportional Response" where President Bartlett, outraged by what he perceives as a weak military slap on the wrist to an enemy, demands to know what the point is and what the virtue there is to such an action. Fitzwallace responds "It isn't virtuous Mr. President, it's all there is sir." I flash back to the episode a lot when I'm spending time online because I don't think culturally we've figured out why that is yet. We haven't figured out a proportional response.

The game is going to be more successful because of the reaction to it. I don't see how that can be perceived as a good thing but I suppose that you could argue that a larger group of people were exposed to Tentacle Bento and were turned off and appalled by it and are going to be more aware of this kind of manifestation of surprise sex culture. I don't feel like I agree with that, though.

I don't know what we should do, honestly. I don't feel like ranting on the internet helps and I'm sure not interested in getting into internecine purity wars with people who I agree with because I don't want to do something that I perceive as hurting more than helping.

Dr Nick
Oct 16, 2008

This baby is off the charts

There are clearly cases where ignoring something is the right call because giving it credance would legitimize it. It's really tough to make this case with surprise sex though. Primarily because we already ignore it and it's endemic.

HazCat
May 4, 2009



jmzero posted:

It's about a general principle: if someone wants to say something, and someone else wants to listen, under what conditions is it OK to prevent that?

But if person A wants to say "I think we should boycott company X, because they are making a game about the sexual torture of women" and person B wants to listen to them, you are against it?

Unless we are discussing government censorship (which we are not), none of your arguments apply. 'Censorship' in the form of negative press and risk of financial favour is just free speech. Companies are free to listen to it or not, and people are free to use their freedom of speech to combat it (by, for instance, raising a larger group of people to tell the company "it's okay, we'll financially support your decision to exploit the suffering of women for profit"). It's all just words, after all.

Your argument basically boils down to "I don't want to silence obscene speech, but I do want to silence critical speech".

I don't think it's bad that this game got attention, even if that means it sells more. Because now we can discuss why it was successful, and the implications that has for gaming culture and for women in gaming, and all sorts of interesting topics. Just because this one company makes money in the short term doesn't mean that nothing good can come out of it in the long term.

Network42
Oct 23, 2002


Megaman's Jockstrap posted:

Perhaps if Japan didn't keep making tentacle surprise sex stuff?

(have they?)

One word replies are bad, so I can't just say "LOL" here, but no, Japan is still going full steam ahead with horrible disgusting things on all fronts.



Kickstarter is a private company, not a public square. Anyone boycotting Kickstarter for declining to support this game is stifling Kickstarter's free speech! I don't understand how this is a free speech or censorship issue at all. No one is saying they can't make their weird hentai game, they just don't want to help them make it.

Network42 fucked around with this message at May 17, 2012 around 18:44

jmzero
Jul 24, 2007



quote:

But if person A wants to say "I think we should boycott company X, because they are making a game about the sexual torture of women" and person B wants to listen to them, you are against it?

No. Obviously, obviously not. Read the post.

quote:

Your argument basically boils down to "I don't want to silence obscene speech, but I do want to silence critical speech".

No, it doesn't boil down to that. At all. Read it again.

quote:

Unless we are discussing government censorship (which we are not), none of your arguments apply.

Non-government agents can and do perform censorship. Sometimes it's harmful, sometimes it isn't.

If no TV company would broadcast a show with gay characters, that would be censorship and it would be harmful.

If the only way anyone played games was on Steam, and Steam wouldn't allow games with blood, that would be censorship and it would be harmful.

When gangs in Mexico kill journalists who talk about them, that's censorship. It's harmful.

If Kickstarter doesn't allow surprise sex games, it's censorship. But it's not terribly harmful. This is because there are plenty of other ways for that communication to happen (as the producers of this game are demonstrating).

I thought I was very clear about this before; hopefully I'm more clear now.

Red_Mage
Jul 23, 2007
I SHOULD BE FUCKING PERMABANNED BUT IN THE MEANTIME ASK ME ABOUT MY FAILED KICKSTARTER AND RUNNING OFF WITH THE MONEY


jmzero posted:

If Kickstarter doesn't allow surprise sex games, it's censorship. But it's not terribly harmful. This is because there are plenty of other ways for that communication to happen (as the producers of this game are demonstrating).

No it isn't. Kickstarter is a business, not a political entity. If they choose not to do business with you because they don't like what you are selling, that is not censorship, its risk management.

ImpactVector
Feb 24, 2007

HAHAHAHA FOOLS!!
I AM SO SMART!

Uh oh. What did he do now?


jmzero posted:

Non-government agents can and do perform censorship. Sometimes it's harmful, sometimes it isn't.

If no TV company would broadcast a show with gay characters, that would be censorship and it would be harmful.

If the only way anyone played games was on Steam, and Steam wouldn't allow games with blood, that would be censorship and it would be harmful.

When gangs in Mexico kill journalists who talk about them, that's censorship. It's harmful.
Most of those are not the same as government censorship though.

TV broadcasts are a little fuzzy because the airwaves are protected by a government-backed monopoly. If that wasn't the case then if enough people wanted different programming somebody would step in to supply what they want.

The Steam thing is a bad example because it isn't actually the only way to play games and if you want to play games that aren't on Steam you vote with your dollars and buy other games. The only way your example works is if we go back to the government-backed monopoly thing, otherwise people would make new software/hardware to do what they want.

And I'm pretty sure killing people is illegal. If Mexico is having trouble enforcing that then I think there's a bigger issue than censorship going on.

HazCat
May 4, 2009



jmzero posted:


Being barred from using someone else's private property does not equal being censored. Unless you have a reasonable expectation to use of their property (as is the case with government-owned property), you cannot be censored by being disallowed from using it.

Murdering someone to prevent them using their free speech is also not analogous to using your free speech to the same ends, and you're being incredibly intellectually dishonest to conflate the two.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

jmzero
Jul 24, 2007



quote:

No it isn't [censorship]. Kickstarter is a business, not a political entity.

So what? As before, you don't have to be a political entity to engage in censorship. The Wikipedia definition seems pretty good to me:

quote:

Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body. It can be done by governments and private organizations or by individuals who engage in self-censorship

Censorship is naturally most harmful when there's a monopoly on a given form of speech - and that kind of monopoly is often associated with government, so there's a significant overlap. But that doesn't mean other people or organizations can't engage in censorship (for good or bad).

quote:

The Steam thing is a bad example because it isn't actually the only way to play games and if you want to play games

I was clarifying a point by using a hypothetical situation. Yes I know Steam is not the only way to play games, and thus they couldn't effectively censor the industry. I feel really weird that this needed to be clarified further.

quote:

Murdering someone to prevent them using their free speech is also not analogous to using your free speech to the same ends, and you're being incredibly intellectually dishonest to conflate the two.

I'm not arguing against anyone speaking out against something. Where did you get that? To clarify: I'm saying that censorship can be wrong, even if the thing being censored is in bad taste or isn't good art or is really awful or whatever.

quote:

Being barred from using someone else's private property does not equal being censored.

Normally, and in most realistic cases, we wouldn't call this censorship, but it certainly can be. Again, if some private company owned all the TV broadcasting equipment and wouldn't let gays on, that would clearly be censorship. To clarify for the guy above: I don't actually think that is the case anywhere. I'm, again, using a hypothetical situation to clarify my position.

quote:

And I'm pretty sure killing people is illegal. If Mexico is having trouble enforcing that then I think there's a bigger issue than censorship going on.

Well, I think both the killing and the censorship are both very serious problems. In any case, my point in bringing them up was simply that non-government entities can be very effective censors.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply
«83 »