Steam telepítése
belépés
|
nyelv
简体中文 (egyszerűsített kínai)
繁體中文 (hagyományos kínai)
日本語 (japán)
한국어 (koreai)
ไทย (thai)
Български (bolgár)
Čeština (cseh)
Dansk (dán)
Deutsch (német)
English (angol)
Español - España (spanyolországi spanyol)
Español - Latinoamérica (latin-amerikai spanyol)
Ελληνικά (görög)
Français (francia)
Italiano (olasz)
Bahasa Indonesia (indonéz)
Nederlands (holland)
Norsk (norvég)
Polski (lengyel)
Português (portugáliai portugál)
Português - Brasil (brazíliai portugál)
Română (román)
Русский (orosz)
Suomi (finn)
Svenska (svéd)
Türkçe (török)
Tiếng Việt (vietnámi)
Українська (ukrán)
Fordítási probléma jelentése
Hozzászólási szabályok és irányelvek
Hozzászólás jelentése
Except they can't and the law clearly excludes steam. They are just as likely to declare steam a pink elephant as they are a social media company....
The law already excludes online stores whose primary focus is selling goods and makes it clear they aren't a social media company.
It's not complicated, its clearly outlined that it doesn't apply to online stores which are not social media companies, so no changes need to be done, hence why you won't be seeing Steam do anything to accommodate the law.
"Steam" is a brand by Valve. Nothing more nothing less.
They offer a variety of services under that brand. A gaming store, a DRM system, and a social media platform.
Everybody who looks at Steam Community - something that is even seperated from the store with its own domain! - will be hard pressed to argue it's not a social media platform.
It features:
- a customisable profile page (like Facebook, MySpace of old)
- a friend network system (like ... social media sites)
- a forum system (like reddit)
- a group system with group chats (like WhatsApp, Telegram)
- a microblogging service (like Twitter)
- a platform to share UGC (aking to TikTok or Insta)
- direct messaging/chat to friends
- a "wall" for comments (like Facebook)
- it has an influencer marketing system in Curators
- it even features a system for content providers to easily get in contact with "influencers"
- a streaming system (like Twitch)
The Steam Community is a social media platform around gaming.
Even if somebody leniently decides Steam is not affected by this law (and face it, kids also spend a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ of time gaming, so willfully excluding gaming platforms nowadays with sucha propasal would be extremely shortsighted), it won't take too long until the legislation is changed to include gaming platforms as well.
I also don't understand why you need 100+ post of armchair lawyering about it. Ice Mountain mentioned they asked a lawyer and their representative. If others of actual authority decide this way, too, it doesn't matter what some forum dwellers think about it.
You can bet Valve is checking the implication this has on them already or soon.
And as long as Steam is also used by extremists and ahte groups in their more or less walled garden communities, legislation about it in social media, like the German NetzDG will also change to include gaming platforms sooner rather than later. And they will be continued to be used by those groups because they cannot efficiently moderate them.
Usually the people who are most up in arms about something like this are the ones who will be affected by it. E.G. people most critical of youth protection laws being overly broad is the youth. People most up in arms about gun control laws are gun owners.
Didn't expect that many children from Utah being among the forum users.
It's not complicated the law excludes any online stores whose primary focus is the selling of items or goods. So steam would be exempt as their primary focus is in what pays their bill. The majority of users on steam don't even use most of the social features.
So OP is just wrongly assuming that Steam would be classified as a social media company and ignoring the clearly labeled exclusion that says steam and other stores would not be effected by this law.
I just did a few quick searches for "list of social media" companies. Several different sorts of lists, some for branding (not especially relevant(, some for monthly active users, and so on.
A very curious detail is that Steam, with its (from data I can reference) 130+ million MAUs is not listed on a single one of them. Some Chinese site/app with 45M MAUs IS listed on a couple of them.
I wonder why that would be.
I mean is steam's primary focus
A. Interactive gaming
B. Social Media discussing non gaming related content
All the social media aspects reinforce the predominant function of Steam being an interactive gaming platform and store. That is their main function, the social media aspects reinforce that.
It doesn't matter if steam focuses on MULTIPLE area's as the law only cares about their singular primary focus. Considering that the entirety of Steam's revenue comes from their store and gaming and NOT from social media its impossible to argue that their SOLE source of revenue isn't their main focus.
The state the law is being passed it will have to decide if Steam qualifies as a Social Media Platform. A lawyer doesn't decide that, nor does a representative. It takes the courts to make a final decision and set a precedence.
I am sure Valve's lawyers are going to look into it and make inquiries as to the more specific definitions before taking any steps are taken, if needed.
Best to let Valve deal with legalities that effect their platform and not make assumptions about laws that are still not in effect and have not been tested.
It's aimed at social media sites, not gaming.
People read the bill, people comprehend the bill, it clearly states what doesn't count. No "armchair lawyering" about it, simple reading comprehension & reading the material.
I would like to have different people including law offices look into it, hence why I asked who those two people are. They also mentioned they read the bill when they didn't or are intentionally leaving out information contradictory to their personal desire of what to see from the bill while ignoring all to the contrary, so I'm hesitant to believe they asked either such party.
Numerous people or groups are called either of those, 99.9%+ of the time it's incorrect simply disagreeing with another persons personal politics.
That has no relevance to the subject either.
False.
People correcting misinformation don't put them in a supposed group, that's no better than the above of putting people into "hate group" or "extremist", which is not helpful nor conductive to a discussion, it's attempting to put people into an incorrect group or label to dismiss their factual statement of something when the truth is inconvenient to personal desire or interpretation of a subject, especially when the material is literally in the same bill.
Not really relevant nor is it in any logical form similar.
Trying to paint opposition as "children" is displaying bad faith instead of having a proper discussion.
If at some point in the future they DO decide to separate the social stuff and call it their "Steam Social" app or something, then the predominant function of this new app WOULD be social interactions, and it might then fall within this law.
a) There are no "social media company"s. (yes, wrong plural, bear with me).
If you had googled it I will bet you anything that you will find nothing but "social media marketing" or "social media agencies". Well, and a social media agency literally called "The Social Media Company", if they still exist.
What you found are most likely lists of social media SERVICES.
Why can't you find Steam on listings aimed at those type of companies? Because Steam is a niche interest group that has little to no effect on marketing for the vast majority of products.
You probably are not very interested in a series of beard conditioning products marketed to you by Commander Shepard (the curator).
Would you all be more happy if Valve would be more structured and consists of
Valve Holding as a parent company,
Valve Interactive as the game development branch,
Steam LLC as the gaming store,
Steam S.a.r.L for their European business,
Steam GmbH for their hardware shipment,
Steam Community LLC as the social media branch,
SteamWorks LLC for all the DRM and Middleware stuff, and
Aperture Labs for the incubator stuff like Steam VR, Proton, SteamOS, or Steam Link?
Also again:
completely irrelevant discussion. The law comes with a defintion of its terms. If Steam happened to fit these definitions, it will be affected by it. Wether it does is not up to us to decide nor by some random lists.
Fun Fact:
Eel is not kosher.
Why? Because the Kashrut defines fish without scales as non-kosher.
Fun Fact 2:
Eels actually have scales.
Conclusion:
Eels are still not kosher.
Why? Because the definition of scales as a kosher sign in Torah law doesn't apply to them.
Definition in law as interpreted by those whose job it is to interprete the law trumps everything else.
Actually your example further solidifies the point that steam isn't a social media company. There is a clear exception in the jewish faith that for the scales to count as kosher they must be easily removable. So for eels even though they have scales they are part of the eels skin and not removable without tearing the skin, thus they are exempt from the rule.
Just like while steam does have social media aspects, its not their predominant function, hence steam is also exempt from the rule.
The entire thing hinges on what a companies predominant function is. Facebook, twitter, etc are about the social media aspects, its what drives all their revenue, and you can't use their sites without engaging in social media.
Steam on the other hand you can use it without ever posting on forums, communicating with anyone else, etc. Its because steams predominant function is its store and its primary source of revenue.
So thank you for the good example showing why a clearly labeled exception such as the one already mentioned excludes steam from that classification.
Nobody is saying the law doesn't apply to social media companies. They are saying that there is an exception, which Steam falls under.
Fun fact:
Eel is not kosher. Neither is a large variety of seafood. Amphibians, shellfish, crustaceans, etc are right out. But when it comes to water dwelling animals, there is an exception if they have fins and scales. Mackerel shares many aspects of eels and shrimp, one of the biggest being that they live in salt water! But mackerel IS allowed because it has fins and scales.
You seem to be getting confused. Google isn't synonymous with youtube. They are two totally separate companies. Google owning youtube doesn't make youtube google or vice versa. I mean companies can have hundreds or thousands of subsidiaries, each one is a unique company and its own entity subject to the rules that apply to that specific company.
I mean Sony pictures doesn't follow the same regulations as Sony's TV or game division... Each one is separate. That is why its important to understand how businesses work.
Again google and youtube are two different companies. Google in turn is owned by Alphabet Inc which owns other companies as well. Your mistakenly thinking its all the same company.....
The CEO of google is Sundar Pichai
The Ceo of YouTube is Neal Mohan
Each is seperate legal business entity....
Fun fact, Facebook and their VR company (which is reality labs) are also two different companies both owned by a larger company.
You really need to understand the concept that a company will create subsidiaries and have other companies under their umbrella. Each company is a distinct entity that reports their profits and losses and pays taxes separately.
Nope, they would create a new subsidiary and that company would be under the requirements of the Utah law. It wouldn't roll up and effect every company EA owns. That is the entire point of creating subsidiaries.