Is censorship on social media going to reflect on game dev industry

Facebook, Instagram and others increasingly moderate content posted on their platforms, and they banned certain famous people. Are you concerned google play, ios store, steam etc will follow those steps and start removing games if they don't follow principles of certain political ideology?
Example: "characters in your game are not diverse enough"
Or: "your female character is to sexy".

Is this possible, or those fears are all overblown overreaction?

 

Simple answer: yes, those fears are an overblown overreaction.

Long answer: What you describe isn't "censorship". If Steam decides not to distribute your game they aren't restricting your right to speech, they're simply deciding not to help you spread your message. Those are two very different things. The fundamental difference is that a distributor can decide not to distribute your stuff, but they can't stop you distributing it yourself. With censorship, a government or some other body in power restricts what you are allowed to say in the first place.

On that note, personally I like the idea of distributors actively deciding what they will and won't distribute. Whether they see it or not, what they decide to distribute or not distribute determines the effect they have on the world. Most of the time that doesn't matter overly much, but other times it does, and I'd much rather that people think about that in advance rather than backpedal after they realise they've screwed up.

Again, when one distributor says no that doesn't mean that anyone's freedom is being infringed upon. If one says no then there are others who may better fit your content, and if nobody wants it then either a) consider distributing it yourself or b) consider why that might be the case and maybe modify things accordingly?

 

OMG that game!

This is obvious case where the game needs to be removed... But something idiotic like the game from your link wasn't point of my concern.

 

No.

 

It's not censorship but it's deplatforming at it's as dangerous and bad.

 

Deplatformation is a pretty interesting thing, it have happen to me many times. For example I'm a pretty extreme rightwinger in my home country, probably a lefty in the eye of a yank.

Anyway. I hang around on different none political sites, but sometimes articles do shift towards politics and offcourse I hold my right wing attitude. I get temp bans all the time. But the lefties with opposite ideas are never banned.

 

Considering the fact that the right to free speech is the spreading of ideas and that these are not mutually exclusive ideas, it is absolutely dumbfounding how you arrived at this conclusion.

 

On the contrary it's completely understandable why he would arrive at this conclusion as regardless of what a lot of people want to believe freedom of speech is not limitless. Below is a link to a blog post that explains what's happening and why it doesn't apply everywhere, but I've summarized the reason below the link.

https://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2...line-communities-the-delusion-of-entitlement/

Freedom of speech does not extend to private homes or businesses, and social media sites, online stores, forums like this one, etc are owned by businesses and thus you don't actually have freedom of speech with them.

If the business doesn't want you to discuss a topic on their site, they have the right to stop it. This is why moderators are able to close topics related to game engine comparisons, topics not related to game development (aka half of Arowx's topics), etc.

What you do have the right to do is take the discussion to where it is allowed to be discussed, and the moderators will often point this very fact out when closing a topic.

 

None of this had much to do with what I said.

You can refer to my post above to see.

Yet to reiterate (and to clarify):

Freedom of speech and the permission from social media authorities like The Washington Post, Facebook and Twitter to say things are not mutually exclusive ideas. They both fall under the category. They both involve the expression of ideas. Whats happening is really a number of technicalities.

This link shows what the The Washington Post's policies were in 1935:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...olicies-and-standards/?utm_term=.4c5c0f6f337e

Here's the policy in full:

One has to wonder even argue about whether today's modern publishing, ie. Facebook and even Google are really just enforcing arbitrary policies. in 1935 the WP did not permit obscenity or self-serving private publishing, yet today in social media people can post whatever they please, including those categories.

I'll have you know the US supreme court has ruled almost exactly the same as the policies enacted by the WP.

https://www.uscourts.gov/about-fede...ational-outreach/activity-resources/what-does

 

It already has changed the game industry although mostly from the inside out.

 

That's not true in my observation, but we are in a classic "pendulum swing" situations, you didn't notice up until it has happen to you or people like you.

But being still in a situation where we have "soft censorship" I can tells you it's still not true even now, for example my whole region can't sell apps or make money on the google stores on phones, we can't buy or access certain app, either, despite us being part of france, using the same currency and political system, being by law indistinguishable. We are basically cut for no good reason from the global numeric market, which is the one place where we could thrive (high level of education, good penetration of tech, etc ... despite high level of local unemployment). I'm from Martinique, and we need to jump hoops to bypass this, so yeah freedom, we are still not seeing it, guess what is the main difference we have

 

Freedom of speech: you're allowed to say anything you want as long as....

1) People aren't somehow forced to listen to it if they don't want to
2) It's not openly and unironically suggesting people should perform violence on others
3) Doesn't defame, spread groundless rumors/lies in order to attack someone

I just made those rules up, I can't think of more rules but I may add more after a nap

 

LOL, I usually laughing out loud when someone shout free speech when a company chooses whom to serve and who is allowed on their turf. The same people usually are applauding when some bakery refuses to make a cake for a lesbian couple.
Or when a city official refuses to hand out wedding-permits. Which I have a very serious problem with. You can have your own opinion on anything, but if you enter into public service (city, state or fed official, worker, doctor, etc), shut up and serve the people no matter what is your opinion about them. If you don't like it, you can leave and start a career in the truly private sector.

 

Considering the near-monopoly situation on many of those platforms, I don't know what to think. I have two opposite ideas fighting in my head.

On one hand they can do whatever they want to their own demise, any company can rapidly become extinct no matter how big it is. They choose to alienate their customers, good for them. Or maybe they're just trying to adapt to what people want, and it's impossible to please everyone. There can always be two competing services with different styles and share the market.

But in the other hand... those platforms are working tools, it's people's livelihood, people put money, TIME, and work into those tools... by removing the tool without notice, you're also removing that work put in by the user... I'm having a hard time making up a good analogy, because it's not physical... it's all data, they can take it away with the press of a button, what real life example compares to that?
Imagine you buy the canvas... cheap, perhaps "free", and you spend years making a painting, and all of a sudden they take away the canvas, they de-canvas you... hmm. Nasty

 

If you're trading and you're trading only one good (using one company), and the company you're buying from stops trading with you you're in the same situation. This is why it's a bad idea to build your entire livelihood on one platform. If you get banned or the platform goes away, you're toasted.

 

No, I agree. But, this is why I pointed out the issue of monopolies. Maybe the real question is...what should we do with monopolies? I don't know

Maybe nothing, just sit back and see what happens lol

 

These aren't real monopolies in my opinion (although I'm in the minority with my view, that's true). Twitter and Facebook are competing. There are other companies too. Arguably smaller ones, but still.

 

But an oligopoly is still pretty bad, especially if Twitter and Facebook were to have similar views on free speech.

But ultimately I think companies should have the freedom to give the service they want to give, and if they aren't acting in people's best interests, they're just opening the market to new platforms. Is that naive of me to think that?

The only thing I would suggest is if these platforms for any reason decide they're going to choose customers based on, say, political views, they make it very clear, and do it openly. No fine prints. This should be very protected by law, always in favor of the weaker part. Just my humble opinion , I don't know I might change it later, I don't like to marry to points of view

 

I swear, the people some of y'all wring your hands over...

 

To draw an analog: what separates the WP from Facebook in terms of speech?

The WP like many other papers has permitted people to post ads and publish opinion pieces mailed in to them from the beginning in addition to the WP's own articles. Facebook does something similar: anyone can post things provided they aren't banned for arbitrary political reasons.

I'm asking what makes these two so different, and is it significant?

Facebook has 2.7 Billion users. For them to decide some viewpoints aren't acceptable on their platform is just wrong. Something I think we're all missing here is that these are for-profit companies. Their only stake is that they make $$$ form the content produced by their users.

If their users or outside pressure from political/social movements decide they don't like some kinds of speech then that is what Facebook will prevent from appearing on their platform. It doesn't matter what the 1st amendment says (hate speech/being a racist asshole is perfectly legal btw).

These are not expressions of free speech. There are plenty of bridal shops in the US who are sympathetic, can, and will bake a cake for the couple.

Wedding permits are a controversial topic and again, an different issue entirely.

 

My country is completely F***ed up, we are self censored like crazy. If you slightly move out of the predefined political corridor you are deplatformated or worse lose your job. Its really scary stuff.

 

We're entering an age where opinion and facts are less important than feelings so I'm not sure it matters or if people care any more.

 

Guess what, facebook membership and ability to write f***ed up posts on it has nothing to do with free speech. A company can or can not choose whom to serve. You need to decide. If they can, then okay, the bakery won't make the cake for the same-sex couples, facebook throw out the garbage, everyone happy.
If they cannot choose, then bakery should make the cake and keep their ignorance for themselves or shut the shop and feel free to communicate their pervert world-view. You cannot eat your cake and have it at the same time (pun intended).

Different, because public servants should serve the public. But the same group in general, who now shouting end of the world because an a**hole can't post on facebook applauds when a person with public office does not serve the public.

 

They only shut stuff down if its profitable to do so.

It's always and only about money.

There will always be money in sex and sexiness. You can count of that.

Private business can do whatever they want with their platform. You come into my house and I tell you not to kick my dog, but you kick my dog.... I am throwing you out the window.

If you limit the online interaction and have more human interaction, world won't seem like its one fire so much.

 

I think you're confused. Facebook and the things people write there are 100% speech. Its pretty much what Facebook is about, communication...

I agree that public servants should serve the public. Again that is a separate issue. You're comparing apples to oranges here. Wedding cakes != free speech. Additionally I have to ask you what makes you think Milo Y or Alex Jones are a**holes? How can you say that when you've not met them face to face? Are you going to call me an a**hole because my views don't match with yours? This is precisely what we're getting at. People get so aroused at ideas they disagree with that they get visibly upset and cannot have a discussion with anyone about it let alone listen or understand the other party.

I don't get too triggered about politics these days. That is precisely why I don't ID with the US left anymore. Yes at one point I was absolutely furious about the 2016 elections. That is exactly what lead me away from that perspective. What good does it do to be angry all the time? I watched a friend of mine be a negative prick to everyone he knew, including me, including his GF, because he was angry his side didn't win the election. I'm pretty sure he destroyed his own life, because he was so mad though I can't say because he blocked me.

The media loves to rile people up. Nonsense headlines like "its ok to not be ok about this" are awfully manipulative. It NOT ok to be angry all the time. Nothing good ever comes from that. The worst part is that millions of people lap this nonsense concerning being angry about politics up.

Life is too short to be angry.

 

Not appropriate for this forum.

--Eric