Censorship! Vile, disgusting CENSORSHIP!

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

Lets say in the grim darkness of the future, there are two media companies that control any and all news gaming related or whatever and all the websites people go to for discussion of issues. Lets say they both agree not to talk about a certain issue and delete all comments and discussion about them. The monopoly has decided to not let you discuss the issue.

Is that censorship?

 

[Fox12]

And if I were you I wouldn't be so sarcastic over some people's aversion to some forms of self-censorship. If you were set to make a speech somewhere and Mike Tyson came over to you and said you had to remove some sentences from the speech or he would punch you in the face, then you would be self censoring. Not based on any changed opinions or new state of awareness but because of a fear of the consequences of not censoring yourself. Which would make Mike Tyson a tyrant.

... that's not self censorship. That's just your garden variety censorship, since it involves coercion from an outside source.

I see what you mean, though, this is a rather dumb petition. I'm rather tired of all these self censorship debates. Everyone's doing it. Yes Gamer Gate, even (especially) you. It's not even about censorship debate anymore. It's just a battle between idealogues.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Lets say in the grim darkness of the future, there are two media companies that control any and all news gaming related or whatever and all the websites people go to for discussion of issues. Lets say they both agree not to talk about a certain issue and delete all comments and discussion about them. The monopoly has decided to not let you discuss the issue.

Is that censorship?

I'm curious what the relevance is. Shall we next speak of an ice cream man who controls all ice cream production and only produces vanilla?

Anything can be made to look scary if you give someone total control of an entire industry. I'm not sure what that is supposed to prove.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Lets say in the grim darkness of the future, there are two media companies that control any and all news gaming related or whatever and all the websites people go to for discussion of issues. Lets say they both agree not to talk about a certain issue and delete all comments and discussion about them. The monopoly has decided to not let you discuss the issue.

Is that censorship?

Only if other circumstances prevent people from starting a wordpress blog or something. Then again, the problem would be more "how did our Internet get messed up this very badly" rather than "these companies aren't talking about what I want to talk about"

 

[Redd the Sock]

Heh. The irony of this situation was just spelled out to me and I'm ashamed of myself or not catching it.

The complaints are about a perceived lack of Metroid elements, which given how few those are, and how this isn't something conceptional unfun by gamer standards, really means a visible lack of Samus. Gamers are upset about not just the lack of a female lead presented, but the apparent expulsion of the one that was there.

That really needs repeating: gamers are upset about the removal of a female gaming icon from her franchise.

And their reward for this step away from the woman hating stereotype is to be called Entitled Babies on Destructoid.

I don't know if that's bitterness that gaming fans caught this before the normal SJW crowd, or just that no matter the argument, gamers are always going to be wrong about it.

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

Lets say in the grim darkness of the future, there are two media companies that control any and all news gaming related or whatever and all the websites people go to for discussion of issues. Lets say they both agree not to talk about a certain issue and delete all comments and discussion about them. The monopoly has decided to not let you discuss the issue.

Is that censorship?

I'm curious what the relevance is. Shall we next speak of an ice cream man who controls all ice cream production and only produces vanilla?

Anything can be made to look scary if you give someone total control of an entire industry. I'm not sure what that is supposed to prove.

Because people claim only governments are capable of censorship. That any other non government organisations, groups or movements that attempt to blacklist, shut down and silence media and opinions they disagree with aren't censoring.

People claimed it wasn't censorship when Target Australia chose to stop selling GTA5 after pressure from a group using half truths and outright lies. But would it be censorship if you could legally buy GTA but nobody would sell it to you because every retailer followed Targets example?

 

[MonsterCrit]

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.

Yawn. Censorship? When did that word get so distorted.

Making changes to something is not censorship. It's modification, especially when you're making something you want someone to buy, listening to your proposed client base as to what their wants, needs and likes are. If you're going to cook for other people.. you'd be wise to take into account what they want to eat, not what you want to cook.

In the end nintendo will make the decision they feel will make the most money. For as much nobility exists in the starving artist ... no artist wants to bloody well starve.

 

[Zhukov]

People claimed it wasn't censorship when Target Australia chose to stop selling GTA5 after pressure from a group using half truths and outright lies. But would it be censorship if you could legally buy GTA but nobody would sell it to you because every retailer followed Targets example?

Soooo... if I'm trying to buy an obscure Japanese game and there isn't a single retailer selling it in all of Australia, they're censoring the game?

Deciding not to stock an item is not the same as censoring something.

In other news, my local supermarket is censoring pornography. They don't sell it anywhere! I even asked if they'd get some in and they said no. The cheek!

Oh, oh, and my local bakery stopped making my favourite pie. Fucking censorship man!

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

Okay... What about a rich man who finds out a journalist is about to run a story that hurts his business interests and he says: "if you run this story I will use my influence and power to blacklist you. You will never get an interview again, my friends will get you fired and I will sue you and drag the case out until you go broke." And the journalist agrees not to run the story. Censorship?

 

[Silvanus]

Heh. The irony of this situation was just spelled out to me and I'm ashamed of myself or not catching it.

The complaints are about a perceived lack of Metroid elements, which given how few those are, and how this isn't something conceptional unfun by gamer standards, really means a visible lack of Samus. Gamers are upset about not just the lack of a female lead presented, but the apparent expulsion of the one that was there.

That really needs repeating: gamers are upset about the removal of a female gaming icon from her franchise.

And their reward for this step away from the woman hating stereotype is to be called Entitled Babies on Destructoid.

I don't know if that's bitterness that gaming fans caught this before the normal SJW crowd, or just that no matter the argument, gamers are always going to be wrong about it.

Well, no, D'toid is presumably criticising them for being purists, or for judging a game before they have any significant experience of it, which are both valid criticisms (not that D'toid chose to voice them in an enlightened manner, of course). D'toid's point is nothing to do with gender, so I don't really see the hypocrisy here.

 

[Ten Foot Bunny]

I wouldn't say this is censorship because the detractors aren't even taking a position, instead basing their entire case around "This isn't the game we expected!1!!1" This is more of a pointless consumer revolt, "pointless" because they're trying to stop the release of a product that's not even in stores and, therefore, a product that nobody can judge on its own merits.

If these misguided individuals were trying to stop the game's release because it doesn't align with their personal moral compasses, religious convictions, or social standards, then we'd be talking about censorship. What we have instead is a foundation-less kneejerk reaction to a TRAILER, not even the game itself. You can't make a point if you don't HAVE a point.

 

[runic knight]

In fact, some 12,000 and counting fans have signed in which they criticise multiple aspects of the game and demand for it to be cancelled.

Lets cut out the would-be gloating of that post and get to the center point... there we go.

A petition demanding for the game to be canceled? Seems stupid. And yes, would say it is censorship too since it is trying to get the product not created.

Granted the 12,000 signs are likely the customers the game is directed at and Nintendo may do well to acknowledge their title should not generate that much outrage from the fans who they are selling to, and thus might want to add something more to make it look and feel like metroid instead of just slapping the name on it. We all remember what happened last time they did that to a game, I am sure Starfox Adventures should shame them some.

They probably should have built the petition around the changes they wanted and as a voice from fans in a more constructive way and less a "end this now" thing.

 

[RikuoAmero]

It seems to me that the problem with the self-censorship debate is that hardliners tend to treat any and all censorship as an inherently bad thing. I self-censor while I"m at my job, as do many people and this isn't a bad thing. So, is circulating an online petition to have a game cancelled an attempt at creating pressure to censor the game? Sure. Is it ethically or morally wrong? Nope. People seem to do this all the time, where they take an idea like censorship, or various -isms and decry any and all incarnation of them regardless of context.

Context gives us a framework where we can make some sense of whether a bit of censorship is immoral or unethical or not. Threatening to punch someone in the face to get them to self-censor is immoral. Asking for changes in a game that's coming out is not immoral or unethical. Asking for a game to be outright banned because you don't like its content is unethical. Asking a developer to consider the feelings of a group of people is not immoral or unethical. Threatening or attempting to bury a company because you don't think they listened to the feelings of a group of people is unethical.

I could go on but I don't think it's all that hard to figure out in many cases. Some context might have grey areas and some are pretty clear. What we need not do is pretend as if this is a zero sum game where any and all censorship = bad or that government censorship is the only kind that should count or is worth discussing. We have the ability to make judgments on a case-by-case basis, so let's just do that instead. It's a lot more work but it's also far more fair and more worthy of society.

Does anyone else see the contradiction, or is it just me?

As for my opinion...there's a huge difference between saying "I'll boycott your game" and having a petition demanding that the game NOT BE MADE. Case in point - I'm a fan of Devil May Cry. I didn't like the look of Dante in DmC, so I didn't get that game (stupid reason really, but hey, I've lost interest in the series). Some people may have even started boycotting the company over this reason (I honestly don't know or care), and called for boycotts, but as far as I know, no-one actually demanded to Capcom "Don't make this game...or else!"
There's scanning for market interest into exactly what kind of games your customers want you to buy and then making decisions accordingly...and then there's having a metaphorical gun held to your head and being told not to make certain games.

 

[Gorrath]

It seems to me that the problem with the self-censorship debate is that hardliners tend to treat any and all censorship as an inherently bad thing. I self-censor while I"m at my job, as do many people and this isn't a bad thing. So, is circulating an online petition to have a game cancelled an attempt at creating pressure to censor the game? Sure. Is it ethically or morally wrong? Nope. People seem to do this all the time, where they take an idea like censorship, or various -isms and decry any and all incarnation of them regardless of context.

Context gives us a framework where we can make some sense of whether a bit of censorship is immoral or unethical or not. Threatening to punch someone in the face to get them to self-censor is immoral. Asking for changes in a game that's coming out is not immoral or unethical. Asking for a game to be outright banned because you don't like its content is unethical. Asking a developer to consider the feelings of a group of people is not immoral or unethical. Threatening or attempting to bury a company because you don't think they listened to the feelings of a group of people is unethical.

I could go on but I don't think it's all that hard to figure out in many cases. Some context might have grey areas and some are pretty clear. What we need not do is pretend as if this is a zero sum game where any and all censorship = bad or that government censorship is the only kind that should count or is worth discussing. We have the ability to make judgments on a case-by-case basis, so let's just do that instead. It's a lot more work but it's also far more fair and more worthy of society.

Does anyone else see the contradiction, or is it just me?

As for my opinion...there's a huge difference between saying "I'll boycott your game" and having a petition demanding that the game NOT BE MADE. Case in point - I'm a fan of Devil May Cry. I didn't like the look of Dante in DmC, so I didn't get that game (stupid reason really, but hey, I've lost interest in the series). Some people may have even started boycotting the company over this reason (I honestly don't know or care), and called for boycotts, but as far as I know, no-one actually demanded to Capcom "Don't make this game...or else!"
There's scanning for market interest into exactly what kind of games your customers want you to buy and then making decisions accordingly...and then there's having a metaphorical gun held to your head and being told not to make certain games.

Well I can't speak to whether anyone else would call that a contradiction but it isn't one regardless. Asking a company to not make something is not at all the same as asking for that something to be banned. The first involves asking a company for self-censorship, the second is asking the government to take action and censor the company. While the final result in terms of the game are the same, the legal and and ethical concerns are leagues apart. There are myriad reasons why someone might not want a specific piece of media to be made and they are not doing anything ethically wrong by voicing those reasons and asking that a company not make it. In turn, a company is doing nothing ethically wrong by listening or not listening to that request.

 

[Something Amyss]

I wouldn't say this is censorship because the detractors aren't even taking a position, instead basing their entire case around "This isn't the game we expected!1!!1" This is more of a pointless consumer revolt, "pointless" because they're trying to stop the release of a product that's not even in stores and, therefore, a product that nobody can judge on its own merits.

If these misguided individuals were trying to stop the game's release because it doesn't align with their personal moral compasses, religious convictions, or social standards, then we'd be talking about censorship. What we have instead is a foundation-less kneejerk reaction to a TRAILER, not even the game itself. You can't make a point if you don't HAVE a point.

At the same time, not meeting the literal criteria of censorship is something that's true of a lot of gamers' cries of CENSORSHIP!!!!!!! that have gone around. I can't help but guess that the intent here is to compare apples to apples.

 

[Noblemartel]

I think my scissors broke from snipping this wall of text.

You have just perfectly explained what I have been unable to properly articulate throughout the past year. And most impressive of all you did it in a perfectly calm, concise(relatively), and polite fashion. I give all of my internets to you.

 

[RikuoAmero]

It seems to me that the problem with the self-censorship debate is that hardliners tend to treat any and all censorship as an inherently bad thing. I self-censor while I"m at my job, as do many people and this isn't a bad thing. So, is circulating an online petition to have a game cancelled an attempt at creating pressure to censor the game? Sure. Is it ethically or morally wrong? Nope. People seem to do this all the time, where they take an idea like censorship, or various -isms and decry any and all incarnation of them regardless of context.

Context gives us a framework where we can make some sense of whether a bit of censorship is immoral or unethical or not. Threatening to punch someone in the face to get them to self-censor is immoral. Asking for changes in a game that's coming out is not immoral or unethical. Asking for a game to be outright banned because you don't like its content is unethical. Asking a developer to consider the feelings of a group of people is not immoral or unethical. Threatening or attempting to bury a company because you don't think they listened to the feelings of a group of people is unethical.

I could go on but I don't think it's all that hard to figure out in many cases. Some context might have grey areas and some are pretty clear. What we need not do is pretend as if this is a zero sum game where any and all censorship = bad or that government censorship is the only kind that should count or is worth discussing. We have the ability to make judgments on a case-by-case basis, so let's just do that instead. It's a lot more work but it's also far more fair and more worthy of society.

Does anyone else see the contradiction, or is it just me?

As for my opinion...there's a huge difference between saying "I'll boycott your game" and having a petition demanding that the game NOT BE MADE. Case in point - I'm a fan of Devil May Cry. I didn't like the look of Dante in DmC, so I didn't get that game (stupid reason really, but hey, I've lost interest in the series). Some people may have even started boycotting the company over this reason (I honestly don't know or care), and called for boycotts, but as far as I know, no-one actually demanded to Capcom "Don't make this game...or else!"
There's scanning for market interest into exactly what kind of games your customers want you to buy and then making decisions accordingly...and then there's having a metaphorical gun held to your head and being told not to make certain games.

Well I can't speak to whether anyone else would call that a contradiction but it isn't one regardless. Asking a company to not make something is not at all the same as asking for that something to be banned. The first involves asking a company for self-censorship, the second is asking the government to take action and censor the company. While the final result in terms of the game are the same, the legal and and ethical concerns are leagues apart. There are myriad reasons why someone might not want a specific piece of media to be made and they are not doing anything ethically wrong by voicing those reasons and asking that a company not make it. In turn, a company is doing nothing ethically wrong by listening or not listening to that request.

Thanks for the correction. I was thinking of it in terms of talking to/demanding from the game studio alone. I didn't think of getting the law involved with getting a game banned.