Censorship! Vile, disgusting CENSORSHIP!

[DrOswald]

The critical point is that censorship is about the suppression/attempted suppression of sensitive information, some point of view opposed to ones own, or content deemed morally objectionable. The point is that information or ideas are seen as dangerous or morally wrong and therefore should be eliminated.

This is not a call for censorship because no one is saying that this information is secret, dangerous, or morally incorrect.

The government saying "you cannot print the blueprints for our carriers, it is a military secret" is censorship. Secret/dangerous information is being suppressed.

The Motion Picture Production Code (and its enforcement) were censorship. Ideas were being suppressed for being morally incorrect/dangerous.

Jack Thompson trying to get games banned was attempted censorship. An attempt at suppressing ideas that he saw as both morally incorrect and dangerous.

Anita using her influence to sway the public into suppressing ideas she does not agree with is attempted censorship. She is attempting to cause the suppression of ideas she sees as morally objectionable.

A developer deciding a rape scene, even one that attempts to handle the subject with the respect and seriousness it deserves, is not a great idea in the current political environment is self censorship. An idea was suppressed to conform to societal norms.

People trying to change a game because they think it will be bad is not attempted censorship. No information, points of view, or ideas are being suppressed. No one is saying it is going to corrupt people who see it, or the information presented will be dangerous to anyone.

Your house cannot be that color by the terms of your ownership is not censorship. Dumb, perhaps, but not censorship.

NOW, to be absolutely clear, censorship (and especially attempts at censorship via public opinion) are not necessarily bad, and just because you avoided censorship does not mean you have the moral high ground. I do not agree with what these people are doing trying to get this Metroid game canceled. It is stupid and counter productive. But it is not censorship.

 

[Something Amyss]

There were a fair amount of people on these forums who were blatant hypocrites when they were upset about Pillars but were on the Take Mass Effect Back bandwagon.

There were also a ton of people who berated Retake, but then jumped onboard that recent consumer movement to bring ethics into games journalism. Might not be so bad if you didn't see people berating people making FTC and BBB filings on behalf of Retake, but supported and defended that other movement when they did it.

The difference between "stifling free expression" and "investigating possible misconduct" is apparently largely contingent on whether or not you like the people involved. It was actually kind of startling to see that in action when I logged back on here.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

The critical point is that censorship is about the suppression/attempted suppression of sensitive information, some point of view opposed to ones own, or content deemed morally objectionable. The point is that information or ideas are seen as dangerous or morally wrong and therefore should be eliminated.

I'd agree with this definition.

The problem I'm running into is that there's this "grey area" of criticism where the argument is being made that certain kinds of "charged" criticism will, due to the nature of public sentiment, "force" creators into self-censorship simply by being issued. I.E., I can criticize a game's shaggy dog storytelling or inept execution of mechanics, but if I point out they used a tired sexist trope or employed an overtly racist stereotype, I'm instigating "moral panic". I'm sure you've seen the debates around that point.

Do you believe such criticism to be a form of censorship? Do you believe attacking such criticism as morally objectionable in its own right and calling for its removal or suppression constitutes its own form of censorship?

 

[MechaSlinky]

People bitching isn't censorship. Nintendo changing something to please the bitching people isn't censorship. It's capitalism. It might also be completely fucking stupid, but it's still capitalism.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Just to be absolutely clear I am somewhat, but not entirely, taking the piss here.

So... Nintendo recently announced a 3DS Metroid game. It's called Metroid Prime Federation Force. Have a trailer [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGu3Xe1uUUg]. It looks very jolly.

It turns out that some Metroid fans are not happy about this. Take note of the likes to dislikes ratio on that video. (I run a browser plugin that hides Youtube comments, but I'm guessing they're not exactly flattering either.)

In fact, some 12,000 and counting fans have signed one of those awesomely potent online petitions [https://www.change.org/p/nintendo-petition-for-cancelation-of-metroid-prime-federation-force] in which they criticise multiple aspects of the game and demand for it to be cancelled.

Now I have at times engaged in some highly amusing discussions regarding what does and does not constitute censorship and violation of creative free speech in regards to video games. I wish to know from people who feel passionately on the issue whether or not they regard this stalwart effort by customers to be an act of censorship and a violation of Nintendo's right to free speech.

Oh, and before anyone points out that the people behind the petition are merely issuing demands and have no ability to actually enforce their will upon Nintendo, I feel it would be remiss of me not to point out that such actions are sure to lead to Nintendo applying the dreaded self-censorship, which is almost as bad as having their factories burnt down by rioting petitioners.

Discuss.

Ugh. Why do people say this stupid shit. I haven't seen the trailer and don't need to. Censorship has to come from the government by force of law or it's not censorship. We as citizens have every right, no we have a responsibility to police the things that we do and do not want in our society and communities. Legal bans are different from calling for a boycott. One of them is using the law to get your way and is wrong, the other is using the power of the dollar to effect change. If the other side feels strongly they will counter your boycott and buy more product. (Remember how much Chik-fi-la made off of being against gays?) That is how a free society functions and is supposed to function.

The thing that is being mistaken here is that freedom of speech means freedom from legal consequence it doesn't mean freedom from criticism nor does it mean I have to listen to your shit.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

Yes, it's an attempt by a group (exerting what meager "power" they have available to them) to censor a product they don't like. Just like the GTA/Target nonsense.

No, I don't agree with it.

Yes, they're idiots.

(I run a browser plugin that hides Youtube comments, but I'm guessing they're not exactly flattering either.)

This is so very sad to me, sir. Not that you should care about what I find sad, but eh.

The reason for the protest, rather than the usual "Just don't buy it" line, is because they're afraid of the possible misinterpretation that poor sales means that the fanbase lost interest in the series, therefore the company should not focus on that series.

And this right here nails why they're upset in the first place.

If I were a fan of the series, I'd certainly be upset too, but "signing a petition to cancel it, like a petulant brat" upset?

No.

 

[Don Incognito]

If I were to Tweet into the void "Game X sucks because Y, they should have changed it!" I would be merely critcising, apparently.
However, if I were to Tweet "@DeveloperX Game X sucks because Y, you should have changed it!" I am fostering self-censorship.

So the difference between lamentable censorship and legit criticism is in whether or not it is addressed directly at the creator?

Well first of all, like I've been trying to explain to Guppy and have said before literally all criticism is legitimate.
The criticisms "The Order 1886 has too many QTEs" is just as valid as "Pillars of Eternity contains a transphobic joke." There is no difference between them (I'm sure you already know this but I'm just clarifying).

Now bearing that in mind, if you were to tweet "@DeveloperX Game X sucks because Y, you should change it and if you don't I will try to harm you" could be seen as fostering self-censorship.

To put it another way, if you were walking down the street with a bundle of cash in your hand. On your way to a charity in order to donate the cash and the demon Baal materialised in front of you and said "donate that money to charity or I will smite you. You could forgive innocent bystanders for thinking that you had been forced into donating the money.

You really, really, really, REALLY need to work on your analogies.

Criticism, even threatening a boycott, does not in any way equate to physical assault. Physical assault is not part of the free market.

 

[Zhukov]

Well first of all, like I've been trying to explain to Guppy and have said before literally all criticism is legitimate.
The criticisms "The Order 1886 has too many QTEs" is just as valid as "Pillars of Eternity contains a transphobic joke." There is no difference between them (I'm sure you already know this but I'm just clarifying).

Now bearing that in mind, if you were to tweet "@DeveloperX Game X sucks because Y, you should change it and if you don't I will try to harm you" could be seen as fostering self-censorship.

Okay.

So what exactly is the harm being threatened?

Because so far all you've described (outside of analogies about being punched in the face by Mike Tyson and being smote by demons) is people inflicting harm by not buying the game, which is about as basic a consumer right as I can imagine, and people threatening harm by saying bad things about the game and thus potentially decreasing sales.

You say all criticism is legitimate, but what exactly is "social media negative PR campaign" if not a concentration of criticism?

You cited the Pillars of Eternity thing. (Just to make clear my position clear on that: I was not offended by the poem, I did not regard it as transphobic, I have no problem with people complaining, I have no problem with the developer listening, I do not think anything of value was lost with its removal.) You say the developers were threatened with a "negative PR campaign" consisting of people saying the game contained a transphobic joke, yet you say the criticism of "PoE contains a transphobic joke" is as valid as any criticism.

I do not think your position is consistent.

 

[Don Incognito]

You really, really, really, REALLY need to work on your analogies.

Criticism, even threatening a boycott, does not in any way equate to physical assault. Physical assault is not part of the free market.

No I don't, especially considering I never even came close to equating physical assault with simple criticism.
Re-read the post or go back and read the full exchange.

Thus far, I've seen you compare boycotts/petitions/complaints to getting punched, getting punched by Mike fucking Tyson, and getting smited by a demon. I'm sure I've missed one or two others.

So, yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and disagree with you there, John. Again: physical assault is not part of the free market. Petitions, boycotts, and complaints are. The developers can respond or not respond to said petitions, boycotts, and complaints in whatever way they'd like. They aren't being censored.

 

[Zhukov]

(I run a browser plugin that hides Youtube comments, but I'm guessing they're not exactly flattering either.)

This is so very sad to me, sir. Not that you should care about what I find sad, but eh.

What is sad, the fact that I run that plugin or the hostile comments on the trailer?

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Thus far, I've seen you compare boycotts/petitions/complaints to getting punched, getting punched by Mike fucking Tyson, and getting smited by a demon. I'm sure I've missed one or two others.

Smote, Mr. President.

It was also compared to threats of murder and statutory rape, although in the latter case it was clearly facetious.

 

[Don Incognito]

Thus far, I've seen you compare boycotts/petitions/complaints to getting punched, getting punched by Mike fucking Tyson, and getting smited by a demon. I'm sure I've missed one or two others.

Smote, Mr. President.

My wife's the writer. I don't need to word good.

It was also compared to threats of murder and statutory rape, although in the latter case it was clearly facetious.

Clearly.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

What is sad, the fact that I run that plugin or the hostile comments on the trailer?

A little from Column A and a little from Column B.

 

[DrOswald]

The critical point is that censorship is about the suppression/attempted suppression of sensitive information, some point of view opposed to ones own, or content deemed morally objectionable. The point is that information or ideas are seen as dangerous or morally wrong and therefore should be eliminated.

I'd agree with this definition.

The problem I'm running into is that there's this "grey area" of criticism where the argument is being made that certain kinds of "charged" criticism will, due to the nature of public sentiment, "force" creators into self-censorship simply by being issued. I.E., I can criticize a game's shaggy dog storytelling or inept execution of mechanics, but if I point out they used a tired sexist trope or employed an overtly racist stereotype, I'm instigating "moral panic". I'm sure you've seen the debates around that point.

Do you believe such criticism to be a form of censorship?

That is a difficult question to answer, because ultimately we are talking about two different grey areas.

First we have a grey area in the truest sense of the word. Consider a continuum, where censorship charged criticism is on one side and non censorship criticism is on the other (we don't have a good word for non censorship). Say the censorship side is white, the other side is black. In the middle is the grey area - an area that is both censorship and non censorship in equal measure.

But then there is also the grey area in which it is not immediately clear if you are attempting suppression or not. Example: In the new SMTxFE trailer some of costumes we see the women wearing are uncomfortable for my tastes, I would prefer they not be in the game and my experience with the game will likely be damaged because of it. I would prefer the game to be different. However I am not judging it on a moral level, nor am I saying these things should not be. I am not suppressing the idea or attempting to. In fact, I think things like this should exist for those who want to consume them. I just don't like it personally.

On the other hand, and I only bring her up because she provides such a great example, Anita has repeatedly called out games on a moral level and made the claim that some ideas should be partially or totally suppressed. And Anita is open about her intentions. She wants to eliminate certain content she finds objectionable, first and foremost on a moral level. I respect her frankness about this, it allows a more open and transparent discourse on what was always going to be an issue muddled by high emotion and poor understanding.

It can be very hard to tell the difference between these three possibilities, especially if the writer tries to obfuscate the issue. For example, a person might say "I have no problem with homosexuality, but I would rather not see a gay romance film." The person may actually not have a problem with homosexuality, or they might be a raging homophobe. Impossible to tell.

Do you believe attacking such criticism as morally objectionable in its own right and calling for its removal or suppression constitutes its own form of censorship?

Yes. As I said not all censorship is bad, and I would like to add that not all censorship is even avoidable. Often ideas are fundamentally opposed to each other - by advocating for one you necessarily advocating for the suppression of another. Sometimes you have to pick a side to say anything meaningful.

While I am for feminist ideals and the like, I am opposed to people like Anita on a more fundamental level. I personally believe that ideas and information, whenever possible, should not be suppressed unless we can prove significant harm will come of the idea. People like Anita try to suppress ideas based on being objectionable alone. This is highly apparent in some recent tweets she made about violence in games. For example:

"This level of extreme violence shouldn't be considered normal. It's not an excuse to say it's expected because DOOM. That's the problem"

Now, as I pointed out in another thread, she can only mean that this level of violence should not be socially acceptable in games, because it is not normal in games (that is the entire point of the violence) and Anita is no idiot. Her objections are on moral grounds first. She does not want such things to exist because she finds them morally objectionable.

I oppose this moral based model of censorship. I am, myself, engage in attempted censorship against that idea. I attempt to suppress and counter it at every turn. I believe it causes real damage, curtailing freedom of both the censored party and those who want to experience or explore the idea. Now, as a key point, I do not think the idea should not be discussed. It needs to be discussed so everyone can understand it for the bad idea it is.

I would also like to introduce a key idea - the difference between hard and soft censorship.

Hard censorship is where ideas are suppressed by force, typically by some regulatory body (though not necessarily so) with harsh penalties attached to violations of the censorship policy. We have all seen organized instances of this before, but I would also include things like an internet mob calling for someones job. The key here is force - if this is not changed we will force it to change or be destroyed/greatly damaged. When the gearbox employee said "girlfriend mode" and thousands of people called for him to be fired, that was attempted hard censorship.

Soft censorship is when censorship, or the suppression of ideas etc, is accomplished by persuasion or by swaying public opinion against the idea. The suppression is not accomplished by force or drastic penalty, but by making the idea prohibitively unappealing, such as by reducing the audience for a game about boob physics or even by just making the person not want to make a game about boob physics.

Now, while I will not say hard censorship is universally bad (there are some cases where information should be kept secret on penalty, for example privacy laws or military secrets) it is always bad when a mob engages in it. And soft censorship is not universally good for many reasons, not the least of which is that people will always take the ideas you espoused in soft censorship and try to enforce them with hard censorship. But generally speaking soft censorship is the route we should take when opposing ideas.

Anita engages in soft censorship against things she sees as objectionable. Many of her followers engage in hard censorship. Many of the people anti Anita engage in hard censorship. I engage in soft censorship against the idea that objectionable material should be censored simply because it is objectionable.

Sorry for the wall of text and any typos.

P.S. Incidentally, I see hard vs soft censorship as the primary difference between Jack Thompson and Anita, and that difference is why I respect Anita and not Jack Thompson.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Sorry for the wall of text and any typos.

P.S. Incidentally, I see hard vs soft censorship as the primary difference between Jack Thompson and Anita, and that difference is why I respect Anita and not Jack Thompson.

There's absolutely no way I'm ever going to have time to properly respond to this, but I wanted to sincerely say thank you for the thought and effort you put into that. I don't know if we're universally in agreement (I'd have to give it a second, even more careful read), but we're certainly in agreement on a great many points.