Should the United States have it's own Steam Client?

[xBCxRangers]

I'm asking this, being i saw a couple of posts, of those concerned over our political landscape. What's happening in our states. Lawsuits, FTC, GAO and others targeting socio media and gaming companies.

Let me say from the onset, i myself have very good relationships, with my European friends here on Steam, particularly on the off topics.

As an elder, i have to say, we are almost literally, in no mans land right now, in regards to our politics, Supreme Court and other matters.

Which to say, in this case, Steam, may not have the liberties they have currently, to run their business here in the future in the way it's being run now.

Cases about children, extremism, adult gaming, and other matters, some states, jurisdictions and even nationally, may not soon except, as some other countries may.

Talks about moderation deficiencies, all too common on our fora. The "rights" of private property, as compared to the "rights" of free speech, may have had clarity in the past, but not so much now.

A former President, who was in fact, banned, that may not take too kindly to "property over free speech", in a court, that may not have near as much power than the executive, in the future.

I know China does have their own client. In that client, apparently not what we have here.

But moderation who are Americans, and games sold that can meet the standard of what our states determine, may just be the way it may have to go in the future.

Is this possible? Can it happen? Should it happen?

Enjoy,

Your Friend, as always, Ranger

[Boblin the Goblin]

RiO a écrit :

Boblin the Goblin a écrit :

Hate speech laws invalidate any 'freedom of expression' they claim to be protecting.

Well, that's intentionally part of the checks and balances - yes. The laws require that you take individuals' rights and freedoms into account. But something like hate speech laws would already delimit those rights and freedoms.

I imagine that's the same in any decent civilized country, whether that is somewhere in the EU, in the UK, in Australia, in Japan, in the US, or in lord knows how many other places. Laws in general are created such that your freedoms stop where you actively start to endanger those of others, or mess with their rights.

Except saying mean things doesn't mess with anyone's rights. Especially when it's enforced one-sided.

[RiO]

Boblin the Goblin a écrit :

RiO a écrit :

Well, that's intentionally part of the checks and balances - yes. The laws require that you take individuals' rights and freedoms into account. But something like hate speech laws would already delimit those rights and freedoms.

I imagine that's the same in any decent civilized country, whether that is somewhere in the EU, in the UK, in Australia, in Japan, in the US, or in lord knows how many other places. Laws in general are created such that your freedoms stop where you actively start to endanger those of others, or mess with their rights.

Except saying mean things doesn't mess with anyone's rights. Especially when it's enforced one-sided.

Except defamation, libel and slander are a thing, y'know. And there are laws wrt verbal abuse, various forms of threats of violence aimed at your person, etc. All of those are laws that protect your freedoms and rights - but as a corollary also limit how much of a douche you get to be to others.

If you want an actual example of that being pushed to its limits, look no further than the UK police working together with publishers offering multiplayer games to literally have the police come knocking on your door when you issue verbal threats over game voice chat.

[xBCxRangers]

Well, lets take what we know so far. We are inundated with threads about, 'woke", adult content, what happens if we go theocracy, 'free speech" the off topics inundated with this stuff.

These topics are not just those on the fringes. Our lawmakers, here in the US, believe this stuff. Laws in certain states, downright banning adult content, if the site cannot prove the creds of the ages of those entering the site.

And so, as far as "politics" and not wanting to further it, i'm sorry to say, it's already here.

Politicians, are lawmakers. And the more conservative the state, the more conservative the government, no matter where Mr Newell and Valve have their company located, they have to follow our laws.

And if those laws, change, either by state, or nationally, idk if our European and other friends, want to be held to the same standard, we will be here in the States.

Therefore, given China has it's own client, and we a large country with the amount of users, i think the question, a good one, and maybe even, an inevitable one. This has nothing to do with my own politics btw, but the realities we find ourselves in.

[GoldenEldiablo]

Pierce Dalton a écrit :

With so many porn games on Steam, I'm pretty sure some conservatives would actually want that :lunar2019crylaughingpig:

Lmao

[Boblin the Goblin]

RiO a écrit :

Boblin the Goblin a écrit :

Except saying mean things doesn't mess with anyone's rights. Especially when it's enforced one-sided.

Except defamation, libel and slander are a thing, y'know. And there are laws wrt verbal abuse, various forms of threats of violence aimed at your person, etc. All of those are laws that protect your freedoms and rights - but as a corollary also limit how much of a douche you get to be to others.

If you want an actual example of that being pushed to its limits, look no further than the UK police working together with publishers offering multiplayer games to literally have the police come knocking on your door when you issue verbal threats over game voice chat.

Until you insult a government official. But I'm sure the government would never use that against citizens.

[cSg|mc-Hotsauce]

Pierce Dalton a écrit :

With so many porn games on Steam, I'm pretty sure some conservatives would actually want that :lunar2019crylaughingpig:

Some states have already put porn sites behind ID verification. It could happen for other services as well.

Arkansas, Indiana, Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina, Texas, Utah, and Virginia have all passed laws mandating age verification for accessing adult content.

[Boblin the Goblin]

xBCxRangers a écrit :

Well, lets take what we know so far. We are inundated with threads about, 'woke", adult content, what happens if we go theocracy, 'free speech" the off topics inundated with this stuff.

These topics are not just those on the fringes. Our lawmakers, here in the US, believe this stuff. Laws in certain states, downright banning adult content, if the site cannot prove the creds of the ages of those entering the site.

And so, as far as "politics" and not wanting to further it, i'm sorry to say, it's already here.

Politicians, are lawmakers. And the more conservative the state, the more conservative the government, no matter where Mr Newell and Valve have their company located, they have to follow our laws.

And if those laws, change, either by state, or nationally, idk if our European and other friends, want to be held to the same standard, we will be here in the States.

Therefore, given China has it's own client, and we a large country with the amount of users, i think the question, a good one, and maybe even, an inevitable one. This has nothing to do with my own politics btw, but the realities we find ourselves in.

Nothing you said is true.

[Boblin the Goblin]

cSg|mc-Hotsauce a écrit :

Pierce Dalton a écrit :

With so many porn games on Steam, I'm pretty sure some conservatives would actually want that :lunar2019crylaughingpig:

Some states have already put porn sites behind ID verification. It could happen for other services as well.

Arkansas, Indiana, Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina, Texas, Utah, and Virginia have all passed laws mandating age verification for accessing adult content.

:cool_seagull:

The sites in question must be oriented around adult content. Since Steam is not oriented around adult content, they do not apply.

[cSg|mc-Hotsauce]

Boblin the Goblin a écrit :

cSg|mc-Hotsauce a écrit :

Some states have already put porn sites behind ID verification. It could happen for other services as well.

The sites in question must be oriented around adult content. Since Steam is not oriented around adult content, they do not apply.

There's actually definition for it.

Mississippi - Websites with at least a third of their content considered "obscene" are subject to the law. McLemore says a standard called "The Miller Test" is used to define obscenity, and these two factors mean social media websites are likely safe from the new policy.

Although, and Indiana judge had this to say...

https://www.wfyi.org/news/articles/federal-judge-halts-indiana-law-that-would-impose-stricter-age-verification-on-adult-websites

It's still all very new and going through growing pains.

[veracsthane]

RiO a écrit :

veracsthane a écrit :

anti free speech laws in the eu and canada to try and push policy in the usa where we do have free speech.

Uhm.. I think you have that backwards.

The US doesn't have free speech on privately owned platforms. And it's the EU which recently enforced a modicum of it on privately owned platforms via the Digital Services Act, by legally requiring all moderation applied to be done with due diligence for the rights and freedoms of the individual involved, including freedom of expression; freedom of opinion; and protection of the neutrality of the media.

who do you think is actually pushing the censorship clown? its not users and they constantly tell you its wef state approved investors/advertisers

i have nothing backwards let alone wrong you simply dont understand what was said because you dont read anything. i read endlessly because of my heart problems i cant go outside and party like a moron whod rather dull the pain instead of dealing with problems.

you do know its public knowldge of who told youtube and facebook among others to censor the right correct? it was the fbi and cie based on politcal garbage and they use socail media because they can leverage forigen opinion to push unamerican thoughts and practices. it was literally obama era policy and the obama admin that made those changes.

there is a reason the meme of the left on this is "okay so it is happening and its a good thing"

so ill remind you when a right wing business refuses to hire women or minorities or gays its a private business and can do what it wants. when they censor leftests for speech they are a private business that can do what it wants. quite being an anti white, anti straight, and anti right bigot. <- im not joking this is how you act to shut down discourse because you dont like it.

thats where this ends with your policy out of necessity not wants. the famines no one wanted and was avoidable. the racism and sexism youll see no one wanted but was necessary due to policy you push and avoidable. the rolling black outs. believe it or not avoidable. all the legacy monoplies we are seeing that are all state approved. avoidable.

all of it was avoidable and the only way to do anything about any problem is always speaking about it and properly organizing based on practicality not feelings. it can feel good but be a catastrophic failure and we are seeing that in quite alot of places thanks to leftest policy in particular forcing it.

[veracsthane]

xBCxRangers a écrit :

And so, as far as "politics" and not wanting to further it, i'm sorry to say, it's already here.

Politicians, are lawmakers. And the more conservative the state, the more conservative the government, no matter where Mr Newell and Valve have their company located, they have to follow our laws.

this is what people dont get its never about what you want. the goverment sets the laws and the actions any person or company takes are based around the laws aka policy which dictate the process and thanks to the internet email phones and zoom like apps policy does change within about a month of any policy change.

if there is a problem with a market or policy its imperative you can speak about it and attempting to shut down speech has and will always be evil as a result.

[The nameless Gamer]

Boblin the Goblin a écrit :

Hate speech laws invalidate any 'freedom of expression' they claim to be protecting.

No they don't, Your freedom is not unlimited, it ends where others' freedom begins. There's not ONE modern society which guarantees any kind of absolute freedom

[davidb11]

I'll admit I was panicking when I wrote that message, Rio.
And it sure seemed like an odd choice for the EU to do it. And the way you phrased it, helped my panic.

I'm not immune to panicking. The downside of my form of Autism.

But we'll see how things play out.
What I said might have been in Poor taste, but who gets mad about that particular part of Russian history?

[ZonixsGame.exe]

United States?

[RiO]

davidb11 a écrit :

I'll admit I was panicking when I wrote that message, Rio.
And it sure seemed like an odd choice for the EU to do it. And the way you phrased it, helped my panic.

I'm not immune to panicking. The downside of my form of Autism.

But we'll see how things play out.

Don't worry about it. No harm done.
And yeah-- we'll have to see how this whole thing pans out.

davidb11 a écrit :

What I said might have been in Poor taste, but who gets mad about that particular part of Russian history?

FWIW - the poor taste wasn't in the mentioning. It was in the equating to. It kind of 'goes hard' to compare a cooperative federation of sovereign states based on elected democratic representation like the EU, to the Bolsheviks and their USSR.

veracsthane a écrit :

you do know its public knowldge of who told youtube and facebook among others to censor the right correct? it was the fbi and cie based on politcal garbage and they use socail media because they can leverage forigen opinion to push unamerican thoughts and practices. it was literally obama era policy and the obama admin that made those changes.

Right-- so what you're saying is: it was the US itself doing that to itself. And it had nothing to do with the EU or Canada, like you initially claimed with:

veracsthane a écrit :

it will make it a lot harder for the bad actors to exploit anti free speech laws in the eu and canada to try and push policy in the usa where we do have free speech.