Profanity Filter and Censorship

[♪Bardlord Lutemaster]

I get why Steam has a profanity filter, but I disagree with the lack of an option to disable it. I would even be OK with the filter being enabled by default, but I view the complete inability to disable it in any form as an unnecessary form of censorship. What if I want to read the original message as the author intended? What if I don't find all the same words offensive that Steam has deemed inappropriate? Why should Steam get to make that decision for me? Many, many games operate like this, with a profanity filter that is enabled by default but the user can decide if they are mature enough for 'strong' language and can disable it if they so choose. Why has Steam taken such a firm stance on forcing this form of censorship upon its users?

[76561198001062896]

you seem to forget something

their platform and therefore their rules. If the lack of swear words really makes your steam experience somewhat worse, feel free to go to reddit or any other sites

its not about being mature or not mature enough but rather to make a forum where not every second comment is full of sweard words, f and n words

btw freedom of speech doesnt exist on a private service. also have you thought about people who dont feel like having to read through countless amount of swearings?

[imelman]

Remember why it's censorned? For kids? For making the forums clean? To make this place less of dump? The latter two.
If the forums were full of it and spam virus sites, then you wonder how it would affect the users...

[♪Bardlord Lutemaster]

I'm not sure what you think I'm forgetting. It just seems to me that a perfectly acceptable solution already exists in many other games and platforms and I am simply curious why Steam chose to take such a heavy-handed approach and give the users no choice in the matter.

Censoring language and filtering spam are two separate subjects.

[Black Blade]

These was talked abut many times before
Over all seeing that it bothers you that you can't see these words I think means the system works

If users can't see it after they post, then over all I think there less likely to do it
I can't see a game or discussion benefiting from someone swearing
I mean what good will it give?

And if it bothers users so they do it less, I think it will get a more clam and friendly dissection going on

Why may you ask? Same reason that if someone smile even if his not happy will make him feel more happy
That is how the mind works in human beings

[Lily]

There's no toggle for the filter because they'd actually rather you didn't use harsh language at all. Adding a toggle would be a tacit endorsement of such language.

It's not censorship because you're perfectly free to start up your own niche community of people who like to use that sort of language. Valve, on the other hand, wants to appeal to as many people as possible (after all, that's just good business), so it tries to accommodate minor children and prudes on its own forums.

[Estriel]

Wow, a censorship thread that hasn't been locked yet. Amazing.

Censorship in the forums is a given. Steam most likely has some legal liability regarding forum contents, so it's not really an option considering minors can access the forums.

What is more disturbing is the censorship of games. But again, this is mostly due to our legal environment in the USA which is the result of repressed cultural background.

You'll find that some developers will provide uncensored games outside of Steam, but even then the potential for social and legal backlash or loss of their right to distribute on Steam curtails most developers in this area.

If you want to loosen the censorship restrictions, change the culture in the US.

For now, your stuck with:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obscenity

As noted even the supreme court refuses to codify what obscenity is. Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote:
"The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."

Pretty vague right?

Corporations are artifical entities driven by the three objectives of growth, profitability, and pain avoidance. (Thanks Charles Stross)

Vague rules are anathema, because pain (lawsuits) must be avoided, so the average american media corporation will err on the side of caution. US obscenity laws are about as vague as you can get, thus voluntary censorship by a normally sociopathic entitity.

[Watermelon {JESUS IS LORD}]

You can read the words that get censored that the author intended. You go to quote someone and it shows you the original word. So technically, you can disable the filter.