One Book Shelf: Censorship Warfare

[crimson5pheonix]

And yet, it's still their business, their decision. Just because they were savvy enough to get that large of a share of the market and no one else tried very hard to keep up the competition with them doesn't mean that they therefore deserve to have control over their business taken from them and be forced to sell products that they do not want to sell.

This is where I came in, at you defending virtual monopolies.

Yes, that is certainly where you took me talking about how a business which was not a monopoly does not deserve to be treated like a monopoly and used that to pretend like I was defending monopolies. So, thank you for the admission that this is what you are doing, but should I take this as your answer being that this actually is all you're interested in doing?

You brushed aside concern that they were a monopoly saying that monopolies don't actually have to be forced to sell certain products. This is false statement no matter the situation.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

I dunno. These games on OBS but not removed would've been grumbled about then forgotten relatively quickly. These games begin removed from OBS probably boosted sales by the anti-SJW crowd to the extent that it probably eclipsed their normal potential sales.

And given it's the Internet, a wordpress blog and basic storefront is all you need to capitalise on it. Although I'm not sure if that would make them "Professional Victims"[footnote]tm[/footnote] or not.

EDIT: I mean, it's an Internet storefront selling megabytes. I don't think it's possible for them to become a Monopoly. There's literally nothing preventing a competitor from entering the market.

 

[Something Amyss]

I mean, after all, if a Walmart in the ghetto sudden stops selling food, and the only other store is all the way across town, when most people in the area don't have cars, they can just open a new store, right? Or if rent suddenly goes up, and a community can no longer afford to live in an area, they can just move, right? Who are we to question business or expect answers for such behavior?

Are you comparing aquiring food with no transportation to the possibility you might have to buy a book at a different web address?

You brushed aside concern that they were a monopoly saying that monopolies don't actually have to be forced to sell certain products. This is false statement no matter the situation.

More accurately, Zeconte brushed aside the notion that they were a monopoly and said businesses don't have to be forced to sell anything.

Far as I can tell, the first point is actually true. There is no evidence of a monopoly in any meaningful sense, and being the most popular does not equal a monopoly. As for the second point, I'm still missing why they should be forced to sell this book. Or any book.

Hell, Wal-Mart is actually a monopoly in some regions. Its business strategy involves anti-competitive practices deisgned to drive people out of a market, and this has actively affected the medical needs of people. They choose which books and movies and games and CDs to stock all the time. They've got a more active history of censorship.

Yet here we are, talking about a non-monopoly with a rather mild history of "censorship."

And I'm trying to figure out how we got here, especially when so many of the people complaining about this are people who have previously advocated consumer measures to enact changes in business practice. If one's censorship, they both are. IS this one of those "it'[s okay when we do it" things?

I dunno. These games on OBS but not removed would've been grumbled about then forgotten relatively quickly. These games begin removed from OBS probably boosted sales by the anti-SJW crowd to the extent that it probably eclipsed their normal potential sales.

In fairness, this likely only happened because publishers called it out and/or pulled their products.

A tactic that was actually okay until ToR got removed.

Would it have been a big thing? I don't know. I do't really think there's much point in speculating on that. I think that's a non-starter. What isn't is that this seems to be a very selective outrage.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

You brushed aside concern that they were a monopoly saying that monopolies don't actually have to be forced to sell certain products. This is false statement no matter the situation.

No, once again, you are confusing my argument for one of your own invention. I never stated anything about monopolies until you injected discussion of them into the topic on my behalf.

Well no, Redrhyno brought up monopolies and your post read like that, accepting them as a monopoly, they wouldn't be forced to sell certain products.

Just because they were savvy enough to get that large of a share of the market and no one else tried very hard to keep up the competition with them doesn't mean that they therefore deserve to have control over their business taken from them and be forced to sell products that they do not want to sell.

This is your actual quote responding to a post about OBS' virtual monopoly. I just pointed out that argument sounds like it was made by turn of the century industrialists to try and shoot down antitrust laws.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

I dunno. These games on OBS but not removed would've been grumbled about then forgotten relatively quickly. These games begin removed from OBS probably boosted sales by the anti-SJW crowd to the extent that it probably eclipsed their normal potential sales.

In fairness, this likely only happened because publishers called it out and/or pulled their products.

A tactic that was actually okay until ToR got removed.

Would it have been a big thing? I don't know. I do't really think there's much point in speculating on that. I think that's a non-starter. What isn't is that this seems to be a very selective outrage.

That's true, forgot about that. Although I think it's telling that publishers, plural, were willing to pull their stock off of a site with a "monopoly" on digital distribution over this.

Almost like said publishers weren't that concerned over being able to sell their stuff, which would be weird if OBS was close to having a monopoly on the distribution market.

 

[Something Amyss]

Thank you for demonstrating how easy it is for one to accurately address my actual argument if they cared to try. And yes, I fully agree that Wal-Mart and its practices are actually a legitimate concern in regards to the dangers of monopolistic practices. It has literally laid waste to various small towns' entire economy through such practices. Though even in the case of Wal-Mart, I would not decry its ability to pick and choose what items it stocks on its shelves, because I have no reason to believe they would do something as drastic as ensuring they are the only store selling food in an area, then suddenly deciding to stop selling food entirely while still managing to bar anyone else from starting a business that sells food.

Yeah, that example was certainly...dramatic.

And I mean, it's one thing for people to say that they would rather a company continue selling an item. It's quite another to make emotional appeals about morality and monopolies and censorship to intentionally make a run of the mill trivial business decision sound like it's the worst thing to ever happen and signals the beginning of the end of freedom and justice and everything right and good in the world. Last I knew, the last great moral panic over reddit's decision to shut down a couple of subreddits never resulted in the mass culling that was screeched about over it, Anita Sarkeesian still hasn't managed to take away all our games, the Honey Badgers still haven't even attempted to pursue any kind of legitimate action against the Calgary Expo (though they certainly pretended to when they hired a disbarred lawyer who can't actually do anything for them other than help them convince their gullible donors that they really weren't suckered out of their money), Hatred and GTA are still alive and well and available for sale, and I'm sure there are a few other moral panics over censorship that I'm forgetting because they have equally amounted to absolutely nothing as well.

Hell, I can see the benefit of complaining. It's just this "moral panic" thing, as you mention. Less "this is a problem and why you should take action" and more "end of the world" stuff. You disagree with their practices, don't like their large marketshare? Well, great. Don't buy from them. But the over-the-top language and response makes me shake my head. And anything you don't personally care about being a non-issue.

That's true, forgot about that. Although I think it's telling that publishers, plural, were willing to pull their stock off of a site with a "monopoly" on digital distribution over this.

Almost like said publishers weren't that concerned over being able to sell their stuff, which would be weird if OBS was close to having a monopoly on the distribution market.

It seems the publishers still have some level of sway within the illuminati of gaming, then.

 

[Redryhno]

Anyways, talk about yourself wanting "freedom", but you and I both know there's more than a bit of difference here. You can get Pepsi at every third store in the world. This RPG stuff? OBS has the same kind of monopoly that Steam has on video games, in that if you don't have Steam-cred, your game is going to sell a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of what you could get with Steam.

And yet, it's still their business, their decision. Just because they were savvy enough to get that large of a share of the market and no one else tried very hard to keep up the competition with them doesn't mean that they therefore deserve to have control over their business taken from them and be forced to sell products that they do not want to sell. In other words, no, there really isn't more than a bit of difference here. Just because they're the biggest retailers in the market doesn't mean they're obligated to sell someone's product. They do not somehow owe that to the publishers of Tournament of Rapists. If they want their products to sell on that platform, then they can come out with a product that the platform is willing to sell. If you don't think that's right of the platform to do, then don't buy from that platform. If enough people disagree with the decisions that platform makes and someone offers an alternative they find more agreeable, they can go and buy from that alternative platform, make it successful and eliminate the problem of the original platform having too big of a presence on the market. If the only solution you can think of is to strip a business that becomes too successful of its freedom, I'm not really going to believe you care much about freedom at all.

And I have no problem with the game being unavailable, provided there's an actual answer that doesn't open up bullshit to abuse the storefront, so would you maybe mind NOT doing that little narrative you've got spinning for half your paragraph?

Which is all well and good, except you're not owed an answer, so I'm not sure why you expect to be given one.

Uhhh...so...which is it? You're for freedom, or you think monopolies are a good thing? You can't have it both ways chicabuddie.

 

[Redryhno]

Uhhh...so...which is it? You're for freedom, or you think monopolies are a good thing?

I believe you do not understand what monopolies are if you honestly believe Steam and OBS are examples. I also believe you have not made a compelling argument as to why these items are owed being sold by OBS as your argument seems to hinge on the erroneous claim that OBS has some kind of monopoly on the market. I further believe that even if it did have a monopoly on the market, these items would still not be owed being sold by OBS, but the government should be expected in that case to step in and break OBS's monopoly on the market so that other businesses could enter the market and compete with them. The creators of these items would not be owed being sold by any of these other platforms either, and if they could not convince any platform to sell their product for them, then they should either create their own platform to sell it on or alter their product so that others would be willing to sell it. They are not, under any circumstance, entitled to have their product sold by another business against the will of said business, even if you personally find their justification or apparent lack thereof not to sell it insufficient.

And I don't think you really read my posts...I explained how they had an effective "monopoly" in a way I believe was quite thorough and forgive me if I don't feel like retreading ground from two posts ago I assumed you read. You're swapping between using literal and colloquial terms when it suits you, so can we maybe stick to one?

Also, I never said they had any obligation to sell them, I said they had an obligation to explain better than "I know it when I see it". I said I didn't care if it was being sold or not, because I don't think it's my kinda thing, but I do care when things are hidden, destroyed, forgotten, etc. with an explanation that a child hiding their ball from other kids regularly uses.

 

[The Lunatic]

Umm, what part of "it happens, it can suck, but how do you propose to stop it?" translates into "it doesn't exist and never happened"?

Actually, gentrification seems to be the product of "people have taken an interest in this particular area and have gone out of their way to invest money into restoring it, driving property values up and with it, rent for said properties, displacing the people who cannot afford the increasing rent in the process". I'm not exactly sure how this is not particularly moral, or at least, how it's any less moral than the capitalist/consumerist economy we are forced to live in that makes such a thing possible in the first place, not to mention how society treats the poor in general.

And no matter how you frame it, you still haven't exactly given a good reason why businesses making decisions about their business should be met with concern or why they should answer them. I mean, I'm sure there are cases where there is a legitimate cause for concern, but an online retailer pulling 2 items from their inventory of thousands in all their years of operation isn't one of them.

Sounded a lot like "This is unrealistic" when it actually happens.

Ah yes, what could possibly be immoral about the wealthy elite displacing racial minorities? Yeah, that just "Sucks" real shame. But, I mean, who are we to question this business, that's just business right?

Really? Yeah, displacing people of certain races is just "Taking an interest".

I figured it'd be kinda obvious, but, anyway, if a company has more or less a monopoly on a certain corner of the market, the ability to be featured in this market place has a significant affect on the ability for this product to be sold.

So, I mean, unless you're okay with companies deciding on seemly a whim what can and can't be successful, rather things being sold based on merit, then... Well, that's not very pro-freedom is it?

Your final paragraph basically seems to be "I don't agree with it, therefore it isn't a real concern", so, that can't really be addressed, as it's basically "I'm right, you're wrong", but, do try to understand that other people feel differently about things than you do, and you're not more correct than anyone else.

 

[Mazinger-Z]

I would be very curious to see how this thread would have gone if it'd been about denial of service for a gay wedding rather than denying service as a store front...

Oh wait...

I'll let others do the digging to find where inconsistencies lay...

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.876768-Reddit-Bans-Subreddits-about-Making-Fun-of-Fat-People-Neogaf-and-others?page=9

 

[Fox12]

I would be very curious to see how this thread would have gone if it'd been about denial of service for a gay wedding rather than denying service as a store front...

Oh wait...

I'll let others do the digging to find where inconsistencies lay...

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.876768-Reddit-Bans-Subreddits-about-Making-Fun-of-Fat-People-Neogaf-and-others?page=9

They're not denying service as a storefront. They just don't carry every item. So it would be more like a caterer serving a gay wedding, but not carrying ice cream. They're still doing business with you, they just don't carry that item. Except replace ice cream with a game about rape.

 

[Something Amyss]

Fucking Glorfers. The mentality that because you personally don't find something to your taste, that it should be wiped off the face of the earth, is disgusting. There are tons of games that offend me in some way, shape, or form, but you don't see my harassing the owners into removing it.

These people seriously need to grow the hell up.

Yes, people who seek to eliminate something solely because they don't like it do need to grow the hell up. But seeing as how that's not happening here, that's kind of an irrelevant point.

 

[BarrelsOfDouche]

Heheheh. Maybe this is slightly off topic, but when an American brings it upon himself to censor stuff from, lets say, Japan (lookin' at you, tentacle porn) it kind of amuses me.

It's nice to see the gears slowly turning in some douchebag's head and then stopping when he realizes he doesn't have control.

If OBS has an issue, it's their decision to take whatever action necessary for their own company...but somebody else will fill the power vacuum.