Support NeoGAF

[SLoWMoTIoN]

Unless they pull a Sony next (this?) gen.

 

[infinitys_7th]

Even when Nintendo was censor happy they never censored Mara...JUST FIRE EMBLEM X WAIFONA WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

https://www.resetera.com/threads/ge...-recent-sony-regulations.77431/#post-14294054

https://www.resetera.com/threads/ge...-recent-sony-regulations.77431/#post-14294242

Look at this hypocrite with his persona underage avatar.

For some reason, Persona has always been exempt in their view of (as someone put it in the locked thread) "deviant Japanese developers".

That's an interesting phrase in itself, rather like how the alt-right call people degenerates.

 

[strange headache]

American prudishness is making a comeback and is being exported into other cultures via corporate edict. Does anybody know if European games are censored in the same way or do they go through a different verification process? Last time I checked, our mutual love for Beethoven's ode to joy and a nice pair of succulent boobies are what's keeping the old continent together. Would be a shame to see this all go to waste

 

[The Mad Draklor]

American prudishness is making a comeback and is being exported into other cultures via corporate edict. Does anybody know if European games are censored in the same way or do they go through a different verification process? Last time I checked, our mutual love for Beethoven's ode to joy and a nice pair of succulent boobies are what's keeping the old continent together. Would be a shame to see this all go to waste

I know that the UK ratings board barred Omega Labyrinth Z from releasing over there. IIRC, Germany also banned Valkyrie Drive Bhikkuni.

 

[Pot Meet Kettle]

Even when Nintendo was censor happy they never censored Mara

Well, Nintendo of Europe originally was to publish the English version of SMT IV in Europe and localize it to 5 languages, they even mentioned it in many interviews, but not too long after it's cancelled, Atlus releases it in English only in Europe two years later, and a later game in a very similar situation, Story of Seasons, has a NoE version with cut alcohol compared to the US version.

Perhaps it almost happened but Nintendo and Atlus wised up and decided against it.

On an unrelated note, that place is a shithole as always, but for fairness sake that poster was LARPing as a SJW. I did find genuine posts by others though in the other locked thread.

 

[CatCouch]

Even when Nintendo was censor happy they never censored Mara...JUST FIRE EMBLEM X WAIFONA WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

https://www.resetera.com/threads/ge...-recent-sony-regulations.77431/#post-14294054

https://www.resetera.com/threads/ge...-recent-sony-regulations.77431/#post-14294242

Look at this hypocrite with his persona underage avatar.

Good for Resetera, though. That's not a bad conversation. That user was clearly a troll that's been permanently banned.

Sure, there are a few "creepy" and "unnecessary sexualization" comments, like they get to dictate what art is "necessary", but the comments seem a lot more in favor of protecting games from censorship. A little bit of my faith has been restored!

 

[Vlaphor]

Yeah but this is where the regulated common carrier argument comes into play. If every single company that can provide the ability for you to host a website refuses to work with you, you are essentially having your ability to communicate denied.

It would be like saying "well they can always write a book or publish a newspaper" but then literally nobody allows you to have paper.

But again, nobody is guaranteed a platform or the right to communicate with the masses, just that the government won't interrupt your right to freedom of speech. He can say what he wants, and if he needs a place from which to spread his words out far and none of the current carriers wish to be associated with him, he is fully within his legal rights to start his own.

Those carriers have freedom of speech as well, and this extends to who they wish to have on their service.

 

[Zog]

Those carriers have freedom of speech as well, and this extends to who they wish to have on their service.

See, this is confusing. Can these carriers decide not to do business with people because of their race?

 

[Clear]

I know that the UK ratings board barred Omega Labyrinth Z from releasing over there. IIRC, Germany also banned Valkyrie Drive Bhikkuni.

This was what I meant about dealing with regional censorship issues, Sony giving the OK is just the start of the process.

 

[Vlaphor]

See, this is confusing. Can these carriers decide not to do business with people because of their race?

That would be illegal.

https://civilrights.findlaw.com/civil-rights-overview/public-accommodations-equal-rights.html

The important part, if you don't want to read all that is

"...Federal law prohibits public accommodations from discriminating on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin."

A public accommodation being a business that the public can use.

Also, each state has their additions to this law as well. Infractions against these fall under Civil Rights violations.

 

[Zog]

That would be illegal.

https://civilrights.findlaw.com/civil-rights-overview/public-accommodations-equal-rights.html

The important part, if you don't want to read all that is

"...Federal law prohibits public accommodations from discriminating on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin."

A public accommodation being a business that the public can use.

Also, each state has their additions to this law as well. Infractions against these fall under Civil Rights violations.

So there are rules about who businesses can't discriminate against. Maybe people like Alex Jones should be refused service from the electric company? Doesn't the electric company have freedom of speech too?

 

[Vlaphor]

So there are rules about who businesses can't discriminate against. Maybe people like Alex Jones should be refused service from the electric company? Doesn't the electric company have freedom of speech too?

While I'm not totally versed on what laws utilities have to follow (other than asking the local governments if they can raise rates due to being a state-sponsored monopoly), I suppose if they want to, they can. It's their choice. They do indeed have freedom of speech, and that includes which people they service, provided it doesn't discriminate against the roles set in place by the Civil Rights act.

Also, this is always good to share in discussions such as this.

 

[Enygger_Tzu]

That would be illegal.

https://civilrights.findlaw.com/civil-rights-overview/public-accommodations-equal-rights.html

The important part, if you don't want to read all that is

"...Federal law prohibits public accommodations from discriminating on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin."

A public accommodation being a business that the public can use.

Also, each state has their additions to this law as well. Infractions against these fall under Civil Rights violations.

Doesn't the Constitution have also rights of association and dissasociation as well?

I know the Greek one does...did at one point.

I am not sure about the US one.

 

[Xmengrey]

Is Sony just trying to get us to hate them because Microsoft is looking really good rn
Sony is acting cocky now and it could bite them in the ass in the future.

 

[Vlaphor]

Doesn't the Constitution have also rights of association and dissasociation as well?

I know the Greek one does...did at one point.

I am not sure about the US one.

It exists at a Governmental level, not a public one.

https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1/annotation12.html

This was enshrined in the 1950's when the state of Alabama wanted to prevent the NAACP from operating in their state, and the NAACP took them to court over it. The Supreme Court said that what the NAACP did fell within the right to assembly and was part of their first amendment protection.

It says nothing about who a company has to do business with.

 

[Enygger_Tzu]

It exists at a Governmental level, not a public one.

https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1/annotation12.html

This was enshrined in the 1950's when the state of Alabama wanted to prevent the NAACP from operating in their state, and the NAACP took them to court over it. The Supreme Court said that what the NAACP did fell within the right to assembly and was part of their first amendment protection.

It says nothing about who a company has to do business with.

I see, I see.

Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Zog]

While I'm not totally versed on what laws utilities have to follow (other than asking the local governments if they can raise rates due to being a state-sponsored monopoly), I suppose if they want to, they can. It's their choice. They do indeed have freedom of speech, and that includes which people they service, provided it doesn't discriminate against the roles set in place by the Civil Rights act.

Also, this is always good to share in discussions such as this.

Yes, it's only wrong when the government does it except, of course, when the government says it's wrong and then it's illegal. Your cartoon is meaningless since the government has made rules about discrimination. I bet you agree with those rules too. If the government made it illegal to discriminate against people based on their political views, I'll bet you would agree with that rule too.

 

[Vlaphor]

Yes, it's only wrong when the government does it except, of course, when the government says it's wrong and then it's illegal. Your cartoon is meaningless since the government has made rules about discrimination. I bet you agree with those rules too. If the government made it illegal to discriminate against people based on their political views, I'll bet you would agree with that rule too.

So what exactly is it that you are asking then? That companies be forced to do business with toxic people that they disagree with, regardless of whether they want to or not (in violation of their freedom of speech)?

If someone says something racist and their parent company wants to no longer be associated with them, should firing that person be illegal?
If a hosting platform doesn't want to be associated with someone using their platform to spread ideas they find distasteful/horrific, should removing that person be illegal?
Should banning on NeoGaf be illegal?

Yes, the government passed laws that prevented discrimination before, it was called the Civil Rights act, and it was needed due to massive and ingrained discrimination against those people that the federal government needed to step in and help. Also, yes, I do agree with the Civil Rights act,

As for the last point you made, about the government making rules...that's one of their jobs. The government makes and interprets laws, in accordance with the constitution.

 

[Zog]

So what exactly is it that you are asking then? That companies be forced to do business with toxic people that they disagree with, regardless of whether they want to or not (in violation of their freedom of speech)?

If someone says something racist and their parent company wants to no longer be associated with them, should firing that person be illegal?
If a hosting platform doesn't want to be associated with someone using their platform to spread ideas they find distasteful/horrific, should removing that person be illegal?
Should banning on NeoGaf be illegal?

Yes, the government passed laws that prevented discrimination before, it was called the Civil Rights act, and it was needed due to massive and ingrained discrimination against those people that the federal government needed to step in and help. Also, yes, I do agree with the Civil Rights act,

As for the last point you made, about the government making rules...that's one of their jobs. The government makes and interprets laws, in accordance with the constitution.

I don't know what I am saying but completely disenfranchising one side of the political spectrum seems wrong.

If someone says something racist and their parent company wants to no longer be associated with them, should firing that person be illegal?

Interestingly this isn't currently enforced equally. For example, shitting on white males is not considered racist or sexist.

 

[a multicultural team of v]

But again, nobody is guaranteed a platform or the right to communicate with the masses, just that the government won't interrupt your right to freedom of speech. He can say what he wants, and if he needs a place from which to spread his words out far and none of the current carriers wish to be associated with him, he is fully within his legal rights to start his own.

Those carriers have freedom of speech as well, and this extends to who they wish to have on their service.

I mean, it is literally one of the core tenants of net neutrality. Directly from the ACLU:

The internet has become so much a part of the lives of most Americans that it is easy to imagine that it will always remain the free and open medium it is now. We'd like to believe it will remain a place where you can always access any lawful content you want, and where the folks delivering that content can't play favorites because they disagree with the message being delivered or want to charge more money for faster delivery.

 

[Vlaphor]

I don't know what I am saying but completely disenfranchising one side of the political spectrum seems wrong.



Interestingly this isn't currently enforced equally. For example, shitting on white males is not considered racist or sexist.

They aren't being disenfranchised, they still have methods with which to spread their message. However, if people find their message to be repulsive and no longer wish to support it, then that's within their rights. You can say that it seems wrong, but the only possible way to make it "right" would be a complete violation of freedom of speech rights.

As for the second part you mentioned, racism against white men is different, due to history and how these comments punch. Punching up is different than punching down, and is treated differently. That being said, there have been examples of people being fired for anti-white racism and comments, but it's usually more direct. Saying something like "all white people are evil" or "I hate all white people" is wrong and racist; saying, "White men have been behind laws in the country that discriminate and disenfranchise." is not.

I mean, it is literally one of the core tenants of net neutrality. Directly from the ACLU:

The "folks" they are referring to are the ISP's, not the individual companies such as Paypal or Youtube. Again, I'm not fully versed in what laws utilities have to follow, but the sole idea behind net neutrality has nothing to do with content, but the idea that all data should be treated equally, with the ISP's passing a random webpage to you with the same speed and priority as Google or Netflix.

It's to prevent something like this

from happening.

 

[Zog]

You can say that it seems wrong, but the only possible way to make it "right" would be a complete violation of freedom of speech rights.

Corporations are not people.

racism against white men is different

Oh, well we're done here.

 

[Vlaphor]

Corporations are not people.


Oh, well we're done here.

A: They are allowed to choose who they do business with in terms and who they want representing them, provided they fall within the Civil Rights act. These are the current laws on the books.

B: A major reason that racism is a major problem is due to the power differential inherent in our society. Black people haven't had the same American experience that white people have had in the country, and generally still don't. When racial slurs are used, they are used in a matter to reinforce the power/societal difference between two groups. It's hard to insult a white man the same way it is to insult a black man, since their histories in this country have been so different, and the history of discrimination so lopsided.

 

[The Mad Draklor]

So what does this stuff have to do with the topic of the thread?

 

[Dunki]

A: They are allowed to choose who they do business with in terms and who they want representing them, provided they fall within the Civil Rights act. These are the current laws on the books.

The biggest problem is that they are secretly about it. There was no communication and the fact that Japanese developers for Japanese games need to translate their games in English so the English part of the company can look over it is ridiculous.

If they do not want these games anymore on tehre they should be clear and honest and not such bullshit. Sony is going back to become fucking cocky again.... This is the next big NO after their cross play bullshit excuse and statement.

 

[Vlaphor]

So what does this stuff have to do with the topic of the thread?

Very little really, though I suppose you could make a case about whether Sony has the rights to determine what goes on their platform. I feel that they do, but perhaps a case against that could be made in terms of the games that were already pressed and ready to go in accordance with previous rules, only to have their release delayed/cancelled after Sony changed them.

 

[Pot Meet Kettle]

So what does this stuff have to do with the topic of the thread?

Sony preventing these developers from releasing their games in a consolidated console market, is just Sony practicing their own free speech, which makes it right, and those developers have no reason to complain about their freedom of speech because they could improvize $100k budget for a last-minute unplanned port, release the game on doujin markets, or warez sites, probably. Pack it up, everyone. "Thread has run its course."

 

[infinitys_7th]

While I'm not totally versed on what laws utilities have to follow (other than asking the local governments if they can raise rates due to being a state-sponsored monopoly), I suppose if they want to, they can. It's their choice. They do indeed have freedom of speech, and that includes which people they service, provided it doesn't discriminate against the roles set in place by the Civil Rights act.

Also, this is always good to share in discussions such as this.

Most of those internet companies get millions in free money from the public, and depend on public infrastructure.

I also say that people who are banned from places should just make alts. Just do whatever you want - TOSes are not really enforceable, and at worst a site that feels triggered by hosting a few megabytes of data can whine to an ISP. No one cares.

 

[infinitys_7th]

They aren't being disenfranchised, they still have methods with which to spread their message. However, if people find their message to be repulsive and no longer wish to support it, then that's within their rights. You can say that it seems wrong, but the only possible way to make it "right" would be a complete violation of freedom of speech rights.

As for the second part you mentioned, racism against white men is different, due to history and how these comments punch. Punching up is different than punching down, and is treated differently. That being said, there have been examples of people being fired for anti-white racism and comments, but it's usually more direct. Saying something like "all white people are evil" or "I hate all white people" is wrong and racist; saying, "White men have been behind laws in the country that discriminate and disenfranchise." is not.



The "folks" they are referring to are the ISP's, not the individual companies such as Paypal or Youtube. Again, I'm not fully versed in what laws utilities have to follow, but the sole idea behind net neutrality has nothing to do with content, but the idea that all data should be treated equally, with the ISP's passing a random webpage to you with the same speed and priority as Google or Netflix.

It's to prevent something like this

from happening.

Oh, so these places have no should have no right to moderate speech (in this case, web traffic), but the individual sites do.

I don't know, what is Comcast was embarrassed by having Twitter be viewed? They feel Twitter misrepresents them. How dare you make them host speech you do not like.

 

[Vlaphor]

Oh, so these places have no should have no right to moderate speech (in this case, web traffic), but the individual sites do.

I don't know, what is Comcast was embarrassed by having Twitter be viewed? They feel Twitter misrepresents them. How dare you make them host speech you do not like.

Comcast isn't "hosting" anything, they merely serve as the method by which you get your data. A series of pipes so to speak, that they maintain in return for money. I don't feel like they should have the right to moderate anything that is not illegal (child porn and the such), and that is the key element behind Net Neutrality.

 

[Zog]

Comcast isn't "hosting" anything, they merely serve as the method by which you get your data. A series of pipes so to speak, that they maintain in return for money. I don't feel like they should have the right to moderate anything that is not illegal (child porn and the such), and that is the key element behind Net Neutrality.

Help me understand this. Comcast shouldn't be able to censor the 'sexists and racists' but Facebook should. What about Freedom of Speech for Comcast?

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Comcast isn't "hosting" anything, they merely serve as the method by which you get your data. A series of pipes so to speak, that they maintain in return for money. I don't feel like they should have the right to moderate anything that is not illegal (child porn and the such), and that is the key element behind Net Neutrality.

Why should Comcast let their "pipes" transmit the data at all? It's all the same principle: they're a private enterprise and they're under no obligation to provide routing to the IPs that host the content, nor are they under the obligation to allow their customers access to that information.

Let's actually take it to the logical conclusion: should a person be able to say something over the phone that goes against what Verizon, Sprint, etc approve? Should a person be allowed to register a domain name regarding offensive material? Should the registrar be allowed to refuse the registration of those names? They're all just private enterprises. Should IP holders be allowed to pull their IPs from content they deem inappropriate?

 

[Vlaphor]

Help me understand this. Comcast shouldn't be able to censor the 'sexists and racists' but Facebook should. What about Freedom of Speech for Comcast?

Censor is the wrong term here, first off, but that's a different discussion. The main reason is that Comcast serves as a utility, or would anyway if Net Neutrality were a thing (which would turn the internet into a utility, the same as water or electricity). Again, that is the key idea behind net neutrality, neutrality. Everything is equal. Freedom of speech doesn't come into play here, since Comcast has nothing to do with it other than pass it on.

Plus, many times, you don't really have a choice in how you get your internet provided, since there's usually just your cable provider, your DSL provider, and whomever is still doing dialup in your area. This is another key reason why Net Neutrality is so important, as ISP's will often have a de-facto monopoly in your area.

 

[Zog]

Censor is the wrong term here, first off, but that's a different discussion. The main reason is that Comcast serves as a utility, or would anyway if Net Neutrality were a thing (which would turn the internet into a utility, the same as water or electricity). Again, that is the key idea behind net neutrality, neutrality. Everything is equal. Freedom of speech doesn't come into play here, since Comcast has nothing to do with it other than pass it on.

Plus, many times, you don't really have a choice in how you get your internet provided, since there's usually just your cable provider, your DSL provider, and whomever is still doing dialup in your area. This is another key reason why Net Neutrality is so important, as ISP's will often have a de-facto monopoly in your area.

Comcast could, legally block sites like Infowars couldn't it?

 

[Vlaphor]

Comcast could, legally block sites like Infowars couldn't it?

I don't believe so, at least not if Net Neutrality went through.

 

[infinitys_7th]

Censor is the wrong term here, first off, but that's a different discussion. The main reason is that Comcast serves as a utility, or would anyway if Net Neutrality were a thing (which would turn the internet into a utility, the same as water or electricity). Again, that is the key idea behind net neutrality, neutrality. Everything is equal. Freedom of speech doesn't come into play here, since Comcast has nothing to do with it other than pass it on.

Plus, many times, you don't really have a choice in how you get your internet provided, since there's usually just your cable provider, your DSL provider, and whomever is still doing dialup in your area. This is another key reason why Net Neutrality is so important, as ISP's will often have a de-facto monopoly in your area.

You could easily argue that Twitter and similar monopolies serve as utilities as well for the public sphere. Particularly when there is no great burden for them on a case by case basis to host content.

 

[Vlaphor]

You could easily argue that Twitter and similar monopolies serve as utilities as well for the public sphere. Particularly when there is no great burden for them on a case by case basis to host content.

Except that it is entirely possible for competitors to exist for Twitter and Facebook. Tons of people have tried, and failed on their own merits. Hell, Facebook itself was a competitor to MySpace. If a person doesn't like how Twitter or Facebook exists, they should create a competitor. Same with payment services and other hosting services. Everyone in this country has the legal right to do so.

Plus, again, free speech doesn't guarantee you an audience for your speech, just that the government wont place you in any legal trouble for it.

 

[sol_bad]

I know that the UK ratings board barred Omega Labyrinth Z from releasing over there. IIRC, Germany also banned Valkyrie Drive Bhikkuni.

If a government is going to ban games, that's fine. I mean it's not great but I'm used to it being from Australia. There are ALWAYS alternate was to import games.

But if a countries government allows a game to be sold and then the platform owner tries to censor it, that is just ridiculous. The government just allowed the game and now they are forcing the company to spend extra money to censor things.
Bleh

 

[Three]

The PlayStation brand has been becoming harder and harder for me to support, because of shitty business decisions that Sony has been making... and this is another one.

Nintendo learned its lesson after the WiiU bombed. Microsoft made a much stronger effort to right its wrongs after the Xbox One launch disaster. Sony, meanwhile, knowing that it’s the king of the mountain right now, is making all of the worst calls.

— No backwards compatibility, or even an attempt at it, because allegedly nobody plays old games
— Sony quickly gave up on its short-lived PS2 on PS4 initiative
— Sony completely fumbled the 20th anniversary of the platform that made the company relevant in video games to begin with
— Sony avoided deserved criticism for charging for online play because it quietly announced it against the backdrop of the horrible Xbox One launch announcement
— Sony’s hubris has been on display during the last few E3 press events, but none compared to the pure shitfest that was E3 2018... where the audience was shuffled from room to room, pointless musical performances wasted many a viewer’s time, the in-between talking segments were more cringeworthy than anything we’ve seen since Ravi Drums 2008, and many were left asking “That was it?” at the end
— Sony begins denying licenses to completed games, appeasing its own new prudish approach

Sony has fallen far from being the scrappy company that worked so hard to compete with the likes of Nintendo and SEGA. There’s not a lot to like about Sony anymore, and that’s just sad.



Right there with you. I’m more interested in where Microsoft goes at this point, because Sony has done an exceptionally good job of turning my away as a consumer.

This policy if it prevents censors games is bad but you're kidding me with that list of why you are looking at MS. You already are on a One X so why suggest you're making the switch now.

No backwards compatibility is a big fumble how? Were people complaining during the first two years when the consoles had no backwards compatibility? No nobody talked about it. they complain now because Xbox has partial BC and they make a huge deal out of it. Do Xbox users complain that they have zero VR support even though they said they will? No. The consoles have different things. People are just more pushy about this narrative of 'arragont sony' and 'can do no wrong MS'

They started charging for online and you expected a big criticism. Yeah so did I, but where was it during the previous gen and now you are looking at MS as an alternative, the people who introduced it with no criticisim and you would still be paying even more.

As for the censorship of this type of game. That has existed far longer on MS' policy. Name one game censored on PS but not on Xbox. Just one even. There isn't any. Xbox usually doesn't even get a release for this type of game.

If you really cared about the things you listed you would be going PC not looking at MS but you're already on an xbox anyway.

 

[The Mad Draklor]

This policy if it prevents censors games is bad but you're kidding me with that list of why you are looking at MS. You already are on a One X so why suggest you're making the switch now.

No backwards compatibility is a big fumble how? Were people complaining during the first two years when the consoles had no backwards compatibility? No nobody talked about it. they complain now because Xbox has partial BC and they make a huge deal out of it. Do Xbox users complain that they have zero VR support even though they said they will? No. The consoles have different things. People are just more pushy about this narrative of 'arragont sony' and 'can do no wrong MS'

They started charging for online and you expected a big criticism. Yeah so did I, but where was it during the previous gen and now you are looking at MS as an alternative, the people who introduced it with no criticisim and you would still be paying even more.

As for the censorship of this type of game. That has existed far longer on MS' policy. Name one game censored on PS but not on Xbox. Just one even. There isn't any. Xbox usually doesn't even get a release for this type of game.

If you really cared about the things you listed you would be going PC not looking at MS but you're already on an xbox anyway.

I would also like to point out that historically, Microsoft has a smaller threshold than Sony for edgy/"controversial" content. For example, Quantic Dream pitched their idea of Heavy Rain to Microsoft, but the company rejected the idea because it involved children getting kidnapped, IIRC.

This is a stark contrast to how Valve handled consumer feedback when word got out that certain visual novels were removed from the store. They changed their stance and decided to take a more hands-off approach to content being sold on Steam. Of course, there were restrictions such as no asset flipping and no games only meant for trolling, but overall, the platform is way more open to creative freedom.

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

He may have the right to free speech, but he isn't guaranteed a platform for it, or that other companies have to put money into it. Same with Gab. The companies took a closer look at what they would be associated with and decided they didn't want to be

They are paying with the money they earn for their own platform, their payment processors and hosting entities are threatening people who are paying for their own platform with their own money.

They are denying costumers from buying products based on political affiliation. Note that the store of alex jones is an independent site from his news site, they are denying him service on the basis of his political view, on a nonpolitical site, iirc. This is not we don't like your speech, this is we don't like you and don't serve your kind.

But again, nobody is guaranteed a platform or the right to communicate with the masses, just that the government won't interrupt your right to freedom of speech. He can say what he wants, and if he needs a place from which to spread his words out far and none of the current carriers wish to be associated with him, he is fully within his legal rights to start his own.

Those carriers have freedom of speech as well, and this extends to who they wish to have on their service.

The problem is the regulations basically grant a monopoly to the payment processors. Probably similar is happening when it comes to hosting. If things were deregulated, and these publishing companies lost safe harbor and were held liable for content, they'd go bankrupt while the pro free speech companies would prosper.

The Supreme Court has said money is speech, you exercise editorial control over online speech as a platform, you should lose safe harbor and be held liable for what you finance.

That would be illegal.

https://civilrights.findlaw.com/civil-rights-overview/public-accommodations-equal-rights.html

The important part, if you don't want to read all that is

"...Federal law prohibits public accommodations from discriminating on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin."

A public accommodation being a business that the public can use.

Also, each state has their additions to this law as well. Infractions against these fall under Civil Rights violations.

So you say political affiliation is not covered? So all or most of the companies in a district could say decide to stop servicing those of a particular political affiliation to force them to move and sway elections?

Say walmart, starbucks, etc, etc could just stop providing service to republicans in california? Or in texas most companies denying service to democrats?

 

[Zog]

Say walmart, starbucks, etc, etc could just stop providing service to republicans in california? Or in texas most companies denying service to democrats?

Good question. I await the answer to this.

 

[Pot Meet Kettle]

I would also like to point out that historically, Microsoft has a smaller threshold than Sony for edgy/"controversial" content. For example, Quantic Dream pitched their idea of Heavy Rain to Microsoft, but the company rejected the idea because it involved children getting kidnapped, IIRC.

That's a nice point. They blocked IntieCreate's Gal Guns 1 even as a Japan exclusive release (which implies they have a very similar policy to Sony, but it's less noticeable because Japanese third party support for the console is nonexistent... could be interesting to look at the Psycho-Pass XBO versions then) and profanities in Conker that Nintendo was fine with.

This is a stark contrast to how Valve handled consumer feedback when word got out that certain visual novels were removed from the store. They changed their stance and decided to take a more hands-off approach to content being sold on Steam.

That policy was recognized as a weakness and adjusted for many reasons:

• Generated bad word of mouth among developers and users
• Some adult game developers very publicly burnt bridges with Steam and went to GOG who welcomed them with open arms, GOG has more draconian curation and less choice than Steam but this one occasion was enough to reverse that public image
• Game journalists were starting to claim if they could remove this, they should remove more problematic games, or even bring back the very unpopular curation system that actually cost them revenue and consumer goodwill and potential games
• Steam was starting to get censored versions uncensored elsewhere, like Metal Gear Solid V
• The market was non negligible, and PC was an open platform so if people started to look elsewhere for desirable games (beauty is in the eye of the beholder) then the whole concept of Steam as the go-to PC gaming platform is eroded
• Some Valve employees were using this as a power trip for personal political biases, which can cause damage if cancer development was left unchecked and affected more lucrative games

 

[Jagz]

That's what they said about alex jones, at least he'll have his site! Turns out paypal, stripe and maybe even mastercard are trying to cut payment options, iirc. There's also denial of service attacks. Agree or disagree with Jones, he has a right to free speech. And you know those servers don't run for free.

How long till steam, gog, and microsoft's store are infiltrated?

That's quite a false equivalence. The Alex Jones situation is understandable; he's a nutcase, whose famous for hate speech that very few people empathise with. Adult games ostensibly fall in the same category as adult entertainment, such as paid porn websites and the like. The day adult games websites are censored is the day porn sites also become censored. So long as games adhere to the sames rules porn sites need to, they're perfectly fine.

 

[Vlaphor]

They are paying with the money they earn for their own platform, their payment processors and hosting entities are threatening people who are paying for their own platform with their own money.

They are denying costumers from buying products based on political affiliation.

So you say political affiliation is not covered? So all or most of the companies in a district could say decide to stop servicing those of a particular political affiliation to force them to move and sway elections?

Say walmart, starbucks, etc, etc could just stop providing service to republicans in california? Or in texas most companies denying service to democrats?

I've not heard anything about anybody losing a platform due to political affiliation. Alex Jones didn't get deplatformed for his political affiliations, he got hit for things such as saying that the Sandy Hook shooting was fake or the Pizzagate bullshit. That's what made companies not want to have anything to do with him. Same with people who get fired/deplatformed for racist stuff. It has nothing to do with their political affiliation, it's just that the people in charge of those places/services didn't want that person affiliated with their company/service anymore.

As for your question about denying service based on political affiliation, that's a trickier question. California does have political affiliation as a protected class, so no, they could not. Same with D.C. and New York (to a certain degree), but as for the other States, yes and no. This website answers it better than I can

https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/political-affiliation-discrimination.html

but the long and short is while technically it would be legal, it could also open up a can of worms in terms of civil suits. Besides, I've never really seen open discrimination against someone for their political affiliation, but rather their stances towards subject such as race and religion.

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

That's quite a false equivalence. The Alex Jones situation is understandable; he's a nutcase, whose famous for hate speech that very few people empathise with. Adult games ostensibly fall in the same category as adult entertainment, such as paid porn websites and the like. The day adult games websites are censored is the day porn sites also become censored. So long as games adhere to the sames rules porn sites need to, they're perfectly fine.

Wasn't the U.K planning to censor online porn? And what of the european union's planned draconian copyright measures? If they can stop even memes, they can probably cripple many adult sites.

Alex Jones didn't get deplatformed for his political affiliations, he got hit for things such as saying that the Sandy Hook shooting was fake or the Pizzagate bullshit.

Pizzagate is merely the fact that there were very high profile individuals some with pedo art, others hosting what seem like pro pedo music groups, added to strange language and high monetary figures with known code words(65,000$ for hot dogs for one event?). The attempted kidnapping of haitian children(Laura Silsby, was it?), the rumored lolita express, they started to take seemingly real facts and cobble up a story.

But as said it is not illegal to have such art, or host such music groups. And no real crime has ever been proven to be associated with it, just weird tastes. Of course just like gay frog, such will start conspiracists' threads spinning.

Sandyhook, again any minor anomaly and they'll blow it out of proportion. But until legal cases settle it remains to be seen whether the law was broken.

You have to keep in mind that many of these platforms are far more lenient on similar radical statements and ideology from the far left. So it is political.

 

[Jagz]

Wasn't the U.K planning to censor online porn? And what of the european union's planned draconian copyright measures? If they can stop even memes, they can probably cripple many adult sites.

The porn thing isn't censorship, it's more about tighter age verification checks; it's dumb, I agree, but not quite censorship. The meme thing is again related to clamping down on what normies deem as online hate speech; not quite in the same category as adult entertainment.

 

[Vlaphor]

The porn thing isn't censorship, it's more about tighter age verification checks; it's dumb, I agree, but not quite censorship. The meme thing is again related to clamping down on what normies deem as online hate speech; not quite in the same category as adult entertainment.

I thought the meme thing was more related to copyright protection or at least their overzealous attempts at it. You have to own full rights to everything you post online, no matter what, is the supposed idea behind it.

 

[Jagz]

I thought the meme thing was more related to copyright protection or at least their overzealous attempts at it. You have to own full rights to everything you post online, no matter what, is the supposed idea behind it.

It's probably a mix of both; they definitely want to clamp down on memes they consider to be alt right. But let's not derail the thread further; this is about Sony.

 

[Senhua]

Cannot wait to see this pedophiles pandering games will be censored and Sony will lost billions/month because of that.

Spoiler: NSFW