Don't say "it was muh payment processors," they pulled the trigger but that is literally all they did.
Huh, I never heard of anyone call gaymergate a genocide.
If anything, it seemed like the anti feminist side saw it as a "genocide" of muh glorious manly video games.
Anyway, I'm glad degenerate porn games are finally getting the treatment they deserve. :blobcat-smug:
If you're an adult who can handle a porn game, you should be smart enough to be able to use alternative payment methods and distribution platforms to attain the games you want.
So, all this practically does is reduce the visibility of this type of content and make it difficult for kids to buy with the credit cards or PayPal accounts of their moms and dads.
Besides, go look at the statements made by the group responsible. Their objective isn't some nebulous goal about keeping payment processing clean, it's the *killing* of these games - similar to when chuds sent the IRS after OnlyFans girls, none of those people gave a fuck about unpaid taxes, they just wanted to stop the girls from doing what they were doing and harm them.
@druid More important to me is that it sets a precedent. This isn't just about "muh games" or "muh porn", it could be about anything and this is a means by which to exert control and terminate opposition.
In fact, I'm well acquainted with all of this as the company I'm affiliated started in the fallout of payment processors (CC companies, Stripe, PayPal, etc.) blocking service to politically and/or ideologically dissident personalities/journalists or other content creators online. We've recently started working with comedians as well because a lot of platforms are going after various comedians' hosted materials online or demonetizing their content and cutting off swaths of their income streams.
Payment processing cancellation and monetization blocking has long been a quiet means by which to terminate oppositional growth. Think of it like the government/societal equivalent of a "shadow-ban". It's no so much a "this could turn into a thing used against XYZ" it's that it's already been being used to go after XYZ and now they're using it to go after video games and NSFW creators (and, as I've said, comedians). They already achieved the major goal of stifling political and ideological threat from income generation, so now they're getting cocky with it and going after more trivial undesirables. @taylan
@dagda Journalists we've worked with have definitely been banned outright. And, of course, had their access to payment entirely stripped away. Comedians aren't getting banned but their content is getting demonetized or removed from propagation on shadow-banned, so they're moving to their own websites to host their own content behind pay-walls instead of relying on big-name websites that are shafting them. And, in doing so, now we're running into trouble with various processors like Stripe who won't allow these comedians to use their services to directly collect membership subscriptions or sell merchandise through their own websites/stores.
So, we got people getting screwed over and stamped out by places like YouTube (Google) and Hulu, etc.; People like @taylan would snarkily hiss out something like "if you don't like that then just build your own website and network". Then, these people literally do that, they build their own websites and networks (we build it for them) but then payment processors refuse service to them. Therefore, these people can't reliably make an income or run a business. What ought they do?
Taylan might suggest they go start their own payment processing services and charter their own banks and financial institutions. Oh, well, that might get push-back from governments who use those institutions and entities as instruments of control. Maybe the logical conclusion then should be creating our own governments or something?
Pseudo-academics like our feminist friends here ought know that, proven time and time and time again, repression breeds violence. 🥴 @druid
No, my suggestion to these problems would be very simple:
Outlaw large-scale payment processors (and other critical service providers such as large social media platforms) refusing service to people on the basis of those people's expressed political opinions.
It should literally just be illegal for companies to discriminate against people on the basis of political beliefs.
(Though maybe this should only be enforced for companies of a certain size, not sure. The whole "bakery refusing to make gay wedding cake" thing was apparently kinda cringe because it was like some small independent bakery and the couple had lots of other options? Dunno, but anyway my overall stance is that political censorship bad.)
It's really not that simple.
In theory it would be a good idea (and extremely emotionally gratifying) to just oppress the fucking assholes. But the questions you always have to ask are: who is doing the judging? what is their motive? (which is always hidden), and how can you trust them?
The answer to "who" would be government employees and politicians.
The answer to motive is that it's very hard to tell.
And the answer to how you can trust them is probably that you can't.
Power corrupts. Maybe you believe yourself to be completely incorruptible and won't start censoring criticism of you (or perhaps feminism or socialism or something else you like) if put in charge. But you have no idea when it comes to someone else. And no one else has any idea when it comes to you.
I guess that's a good argument for democracy. We can't trust each other to wield power so we compromise by sharing it.
@taylan In a "perfect world" utopia system where everyone agrees with you and has the same ideas as you and the state is a benevolent entity and corporations aren't evil then sure, your "agreed upon collectively" determination of what constitutes art might work. But, here on Earth, we get feminists deplatforming people for video games and multimedia content while simultaneously having feminists in Russia getting flogged and thrown into prison for vulgar performances. @dagda @druid @light
political system hierarchy
liberal """democracy""" <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Socialism with chinese characteristics <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< dictatorship where everyone agrees with my opinions because they are objectively correct and everyone has finally acknowledged it (or else..)
Ok but what is your proposed approach?
As I explained, we already effectively have obscenity laws throughout the modern world, and most people seem fine with them, because they agree with the way they are currently applied / the way obscenity is currently defined (even if the word isn't used explicitly).
This means that my suggestion is already the one in effect: We as a society have deemed CP (CSAM) to be where the line is drawn, give or take, when it comes to what degree of obscenity is severe enough to warrant criminalisation. (Details depend on where you live, e.g. whether realistic virtual CP counts as well.) And based on that line, we generally seem fine with obscenity laws (even if they're not named as such in the law books).
Are you arguing against *all* obscenity law? So for example CP should be legal so long as you're not the one who produced it or paid for it to be produced?
Or do you agree with obscenity law in principle as most people do (even if they don't realize) but want the definition of obscenity to be eternally fixed to the current one, with CP being the place you draw the line and this never gets to be discussed?
The latter option is unrealistic and arbitrary: Culture inevitably changes, and people change their minds on where to draw the line with things like this. (E.g. blasphemy used to be considered obscene, too, but we eased up on that.) And you don't get to decide it alone, either.
In other words:
If you agree that CP should be illegal to possess or share even if someone wasn't involved in its creation (not involved in the original crime) then you agree with obscenity law in principle whether you acknowledge that or not.
And once you agree with obscenity law in principle (you just have to realise and accept that you already do this) then you can't really complain about people wanting to change the point at which the line is drawn between acceptable content and intolerably obscene content.
Me personally, I've very uncomfortably toyed in the past with the idea of CP being legal to possess (I'm *that* autistic, yes) but finally decided to embrace the concept of obscenity instead. There's various reasons:
- Obscene material can cause severe public unrest / emotional damage, justifying its censorship.
- It can be seen as evidence that the person in possession of the material has a criminal and psychopathic mind, justifying their arrest and questioning / monitoring.
- The sharing of such material can encourage heinous acts by making them appear attractive, thus justifying the punishment of someone disseminating the material, as it's arguably a form of gross negligence / reckless endangerment.
Those are some of the reasons I want CP to remain censored and illegal.
Which means I agree with obscenity law; something I wouldn't have easily admitted to before I thought about this deeply.
And having come around to that, I now think "Bitch Raper 3000" and "Kike Cooker: 1942" (imaginary video game titles) should also not be tolerated, because why should they?
Although I wouldn't go as far as making the owning of such titles illegal the way it is for CP, I think it's perfectly acceptable for e.g. a payment processor to refuse processing payments for them, and for a video game platform to refuse hosting them.
If I opposed such censorship based on an abstract principle of "nothing is ever too obscene to censor," then I would either be forced to argue that CP should be legal to own and share so long as you weren't involved in its creation, or I would have to be a hypocrite.
TL;DR: We should be debating what is and isn't too obscene to tolerate, instead of pretending that we're principally opposed to all obscenity laws, unless there's someone among us willing to defend CP because they really are against ALL obscenity laws.
@dagda @druid @light
Hmm, I'm not sure I understand what counter point you're making to my post, if it was even intended as such?
Let me summarise my positions for clarity:
Companies should never discriminate against political opinions. If the company's services are important enough (utilities, food supply, payment processing, etc.) and there aren't many alternatives, then such discrimination should in fact be illegal, i.e. the company is forced to offer their services to everyone.
On the other hand, when it comes to content that can be defined as "obscenity" rather than "political opinion or artistic expression," then it should be ok to censor that content, either by allowing companies to refuse a related service (e.g. refusing to process payment for obscene content) or, in case of extreme obscenity (e.g. child porn) it should be law enforcement intervening directly and criminalising the person responsible for its dissemination.
We just have to make it crystal clear that there's a difference between genuine opinions and artistic expressions, and pure obscenity without any intellectual or artistic value. This has to be agreed upon collectively; no central authority should get to draw the line between those.