Opinions on upcoming censorship/ban of violence and sexual content in video games?

[Tacitus Killgore]

I don't care about political ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ but one thing that genuinely does worry me is trump's goal to censor or ban games. I'm just wondering what are your opinions on this?

[videomike_Ultimate_Plushie]

Crystal Sharrd님이 먼저 게시:

I remember it constantly being used as an example in school whenever the First Amendment was the subject. 😅

I understand, as far as explaining it in a school setting to children it's close enough to the concept for it to kind of stand, similar to yelling Bomb on an airplane, but the reality isn't quite that simple. Stuff like this is actually funny. It stops being funny when people start doing things like demanding fictional under 18s be called child porn, or discussing details of a surgury you had is gorephilia and sadism. I have some stories for that one.

[bluesky66621]

Crystal Sharrd님이 먼저 게시:

goyankees2023님이 먼저 게시:

Go troll elsewhere, reported.

But they're right. There are exceptions to the First Amendment, in the interest of public safety. The common example is you can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater when there's no fire.
Also, to respond to your quoted post with the quote, while the United States does have a video game rating system, it's not like Germany or Australia where the government is responsible for the rating system, it's self-regulation by the video game industry itself in response to the government's witch hunt when Mortal Kombat released.

Wrong, the user is known to harass other users. His statement purpose is to troll. He claims child porn is protected as well.

My statement is that the federal government has regulations for gaming including child porn. So I was correct in this matter.

[Stranger]

9/10 of steam's moderation team has cp on their computers, and they tend to have conspicuous enforcement patterns regarding the subject.

I don't really see why they wouldn't sell the platform to their cp suppliers, in exchange for the 'shadow banning' protocol they wanted so badly.

Given their past history I hope they don't appear in my court a second time.

[bluesky66621]

Stranger님이 먼저 게시:

9/10 of steam's moderation team has cp on their computers, and they tend to have conspicuous enforcement patterns regarding the subject.

I don't really see why they wouldn't sell the platform to their cp suppliers, in exchange for the 'shadow banning' protocol they wanted so badly.

Given their past history I hope they don't appear in my court a second time.

If true then you need to report it to proper authorities. CP is federal offense as well state offense.

[bluesky66621]

videomike_Ultimate_Plushie님이 먼저 게시:

Crystal Sharrd님이 먼저 게시:

But they're right. There are exceptions to the First Amendment, in the interest of public safety. The common example is you can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater when there's no fire.
Also, to respond to your quoted post with the quote, while the United States does have a video game rating system, it's not like Germany or Australia where the government is responsible for the rating system, it's self-regulation by the video game industry itself in response to the government's witch hunt when Mortal Kombat released.

Actually incorrect. You can in fact go to a theatre and yell fire, the word itself isn't illegal. What you can't do is try to convince people there is a present danger to their lives and knowingly start an uncontrolled stampede. That can be through yelling fire in an indicative way alongside the use of gestures and the like to indicate direction and location. That's how specific incitement is, you need material not just saying words.

You are right about the ESRB though and thats how it should be. An information board which does nothing but help inform the customer of his choices and have no involvement in legality of any kind.

Edit: Dammit two people beat me to saying this, now I look stupid

Good call, I hope you report the user for trolling. Thank you.

[Adversary]

Project 2025 is a neoliberal psyop on par with Qanon. Trump himself has disavowed it outright. Also, he didn't ban video games or ramp up censorship when he was in office previously. He's not going to do that now.

If anything, one of the first planks to his platform was an internet bill of rights and fighting against tech censorship.

[Silverlight]

Adversary님이 먼저 게시:

Project 2025 is a neoliberal psyop on par with Qanon. Trump himself has disavowed it outright. Also, he didn't ban video games or ramp up censorship when he was in office previously. He's not going to do that now.

If anything, one of the first planks to his platform was an internet bill of rights and fighting against tech censorship.

Homeland security was caught funding video game consultancy firms. They are working together to curb extremism in gaming spaces.

Trumps rampage through the fed will free video games as an unintended side effect.

Not to mention the points you mentioned.

[Adversary]

Silverlight님이 먼저 게시:

Adversary님이 먼저 게시:

Project 2025 is a neoliberal psyop on par with Qanon. Trump himself has disavowed it outright. Also, he didn't ban video games or ramp up censorship when he was in office previously. He's not going to do that now.

If anything, one of the first planks to his platform was an internet bill of rights and fighting against tech censorship.

Homeland security was caught funding video game consultancy firms. They are working together to curb extremism in gaming spaces.

Trumps rampage through the fed will free video games as an unintended side effect.

Not to mention the points you mentioned.

I mean the Federal Reserve shouldn't exist to begin with. I'd like it if he went all Jacksonian and just went scorched earth on that particular bureau. Plus the establishment is indeed in bed with consultancy firms like Sweet Baby, but then again they're also in bed with Blackrock and Vanguard. Thus they're in bed with the people who fund them to begin with.

Course that's not counting nations like Norway who outright fund the production of propaganda masquerading as video games like Dustborn. But then again the European Union writ large is, in my opinion, a foreign adversary and should be treated as such. Then again, that's another subject entirely.

[Moogal™]

Minor compared to all good things senor Trump can do, and i am not american so not affected. Anyway i dislike most censorship overall.

[videomike_Ultimate_Plushie]

Moogal™님이 먼저 게시:

Minor compared to all good things senor Trump can do, and i am not american so not affected. Anyway i dislike most censorship overall.

Sadly no, the way the world is right now that's becoming difficult. Take this for example: Recent JD vance said he and Donald discussed pulling Nato support to any country which tries to sensor american social media. That sounds a bit off until you realize how serious it is for say, the U.K. to basically walk into an american company building, steal files off the hard drive by force, and demand their right to damage property and steal money from american citizens based on U.K. law. Would that not be a major diplomatic incident? Well it's happening online. And I'll be fair it's not like the U.S. doesn't do it as well in some areas out of necessity. We'll demand extradition to terrorists who operate outside U.S. borders but who do post on Twitter or Facebook. The nature of the highly multi-national services like the one's were talking in now makes this all rather complex.

And keep in mind this effects situations like Live a Live where it takes researhc to figure out what changes were made by japanese national censorship boards and what was censored by modern localization standards

[Boblin the Goblin]

goyankees2023님이 먼저 게시:

Crystal Sharrd님이 먼저 게시:

But they're right. There are exceptions to the First Amendment, in the interest of public safety. The common example is you can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater when there's no fire.
Also, to respond to your quoted post with the quote, while the United States does have a video game rating system, it's not like Germany or Australia where the government is responsible for the rating system, it's self-regulation by the video game industry itself in response to the government's witch hunt when Mortal Kombat released.

Wrong, the user is known to harass other users. His statement purpose is to troll. He claims child porn is protected as well.

My statement is that the federal government has regulations for gaming including child porn. So I was correct in this matter.

I never claim child porn is protected In fact, I literally said it isn't.

[Bamford]

Tacitus Killgore님이 먼저 게시:

Bamford님이 먼저 게시:

They already have.

The people who ban mods are the left.

The ones with censoring/banning video games entirely in their agenda are the religious extremist right. Who gives a ♥♥♥♥ about mods if there's nothing to even mod anymore.

Blue anon fiction, never happened.

Back when they were banning things it was Tipper Gore, wife of the democrat vice president to Clinton that was getting rap music banned.

Its telling the left is ignorant of history, and where are video games banned, your most leftoid countries democrats love to look up to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banned_video_games_by_country

The blue hair karen menace has been responsible for more censorship across all platforms than anyone else, they have always been the new church ladies, its just proven fact.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8b9V_ZhIZn0

[videomike_Ultimate_Plushie]

Bamford님이 먼저 게시:

Tacitus Killgore님이 먼저 게시:

The ones with censoring/banning video games entirely in their agenda are the religious extremist right. Who gives a ♥♥♥♥ about mods if there's nothing to even mod anymore.

Blue anon fiction, never happened.

Back when they were banning things it was Tipper Gore, wire of the democrat vice president to Clinton that was getting rap music banned.

Its telling the left is ignorant of history, and where are video games banned, your most leftoid countries democrats love to look up to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banned_video_games_by_country

I think he was referring to the moral majority and stuff like the hayes code and comics code authority

[Bamford]

videomike_Ultimate_Plushie님이 먼저 게시:

Bamford님이 먼저 게시:

Blue anon fiction, never happened.

Back when they were banning things it was Tipper Gore, wire of the democrat vice president to Clinton that was getting rap music banned.

Its telling the left is ignorant of history, and where are video games banned, your most leftoid countries democrats love to look up to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banned_video_games_by_country

I think he was referring to the moral majority and stuff like the hayes code and comics code authority

Yes I know, they did jacksquat in reality, and hayes was before video games were ever a thing, and one can make an argument for film based on the subversion that happened. Plenty a black pilled video on the agenda that led to the taking down of Hayes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYBt6J0mZgo

[Morkonan]

DarkCrystalMethod님이 먼저 게시:

Thats why rating systems were created, so that you would know and could choose games that have certain content. The market has spoken loudly... nonviolent games tend to be boring and don't sell well. Sexy games sell really well, but maybe don't tell your friends you buy them.
Interference with this delicate balance will probably make some people very violent or very sexy.

What "ratings" were created?

The ESRB is an industry sponsored, staffed, and directed self-regulatory body... It was, though, truly formed to prevent the government from forcing "Ratings" on the industry.

It works... swell, especially for publishers who's directors form the majority of it's board.

The problem is control and authentication for purchasing, which is nearly impossible to be reliably enforced online. If it can't be reliably enforced, then it becomes a liability for potential lawsuits... That's why it's not really enforceable, now. (Steam can't take on that responsibility by saying some adult-only policy exists when its too easy to circumvent.)