this post was submitted on 14 May 2026
279 points (100.0% liked)
PC Gaming
14690 readers
421 users here now
For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules:
- Be Respectful.
- No Spam or Porn.
- No Advertising.
- No Memes.
- No Tech Support.
- No questions about buying/building computers.
- No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
- No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
- No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
- Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Just curious if kickstarter is in the wrong here or not. Because when it was Valve, lots of folks were losing their minds blaming Valve for capitulating to Stripe and Visa/MC.
I still remember when we used to own games. :(
Go full opensource. Sure that restricts the games available. But then no one owns the game, and no one will ever take it from you.
Valve didn't capitulate tho.
The way you'd have heard them tell it, Valve folded like a cardboard box.
They did, they removed all content that Mastercard / Collective shout doesn't like.
And what was this material, still seems to be hentai on the store. This is basic shit that can be disprove immediately.
Hint: it wasn't ALL adult content. Like they've already said.
These things are tricky, I would generally like to say the platforms and associated processors, hosting, etc should be neutral. However, there are plenty of things that are just plain bad for society if they get created which despite being massively unpopular might get enough niche support to be brought to existence given the chance.
It could be by law, decree of the platform, or vote of the users, but somebody has to have the ability to draw a line on what can be done in public, the broader consensus on the question the better though.
Edit: Curiosity since this seems to have irritated some people. Would you suggest that a platform not be regulated in some way if it where enabling the creation of exploitive and hateful content? Note that I didn't specify sexual content but rather things that can be bad for society.
The reason people are down voting you is you’ve created a who watches the watchers situation. Whose job is it to determine what’s bad for society? We’re already having that problem right now with the won’t you think of the children bullshit and people trying to get books out of libraries just as one for instance. Censorship is censorship and censorship is bad.
Which is why I say it's difficult but necessary at some point. As a thought experiment, take a list of things in a topic, in this case it was brought in as porn things because apparently the credit companies are prudish. Array out that list going from mundane safe hetro sex all the way to snuff films. Somewhere in there any given person would find 'their' line and perhaps a separate 'the' line which they see as acceptable to film and diseminate.
So who orders the list, who draws the line, and by who/how does it get enforced? To say all censorship is bad would imply that no line should be drawn. One can't just say it should be based on 'common sense' because I guarantee there are people who would think what's sensible to you is either too outlandish or tame out there.
I honestly can’t tell if you’re being intentionally obtuse or if you just really haven’t thought about this. But for the record the line between porn and snuff films is murder, murder is wrong and society has agreed on that. You are the one who is saying it should be based on “common sense“.
I'm saying there is a whole list of things between, but I suppose that might not be obvious if you're looking for someone to be mad at.
Someone is going to want things that society has agreed are unacceptable, if not then we wouldn't need to bother making rules to prohibit them. To those people you, or the law, or the platform owner are the censor. Is it still bad then or is there some place where a watcher is valid then?
Not that hard if its legal they can't stop the sale of it. If its illegal sure whatever. Society and by extension the government gets to decide what is bad for society not some unelected corporation. And yes it is not perfect and there is and well be mistakes but what is the alternative allow corporations free reign like we do now.
Right, which is really where the whole thing started with, that the platforms and associated providers should be neutral, but someone had to have the capacity to make a determination of acceptable vs not. To call all censorship bad would say we shouldn't stop anything even those things we universally (aside from the deranged fringe) consider bad.
Law isn't flawless, nor is mass consensus always right, nor the dictates of an individual. Stripping everything to the lowest common only makes the most reserved part of the population happy and harms everyone else.
I just got confused why that got such a bad reaction.
I see, you certainly seem to be being intentionally obtuse. For the record I was just letting you know why you’re being downvoted. But that’s some pretty big projection there with the “looking for somebody to be mad at”. You’ve clearly got something stuck in your craw about this and I have no idea what it is.
At the end of the day even the Supreme Court couldn’t come up with this one with the chief justice at the time saying “I don’t know how to define porn but I know what it is when I see it”. Those things that we can agree on are law, and we’re still arguing about the ones we can’t hence this article.
But your original question was why doesn’t somebody just decide what’s bad for society? And the answer is because censorship is bad, whether you like that answer or not. To paraphrase a famous quote, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”.
My original post wasn't a question at all, it was a statement that somebody does need to have the capacity to enforce acceptable behavior, but defining it and deciding who that falls to is difficult.
Even putting aside that you literally had a question in the comment, posting your opinion in a public forum and then expecting that your opinion is the end of the discussion is asinine at best. I’m not interested in discussing the semantics of rhetorical devices, I was just trying to help you understand why you were being downvoted. A mistake I don’t plan on making again.
I had no question in the original post, making no mention of the edit after.
I didn't expect it to simply be the end all statement, but a number of down votes without explanation prompted me to inquire on why.
What seems to sum up the argument though is that censorship is always bad, unless it's the sort that you and the majority of society agree with. My suggestion originally was that indeed some is required, to maintain civil society, but who decides it is hard to say.
I literally quoted your question to you.
Then when somebody answered your inquiry you started arguing with them about whether or not you had even asked anything and then continued to not read their response.
Your summary tells me that at this point you’re being intentionally closed minded. I have no intention of continuing this conversation.
Yes, the part preceded by the word EDIT: was a question. Whatever, have fun
Well we have legal stuff and illegal stuff. Snuff films are illegal so. Anything that is legal they should not be allowed to stop the sale of.
Nope, they should not get to decide don't care what it is. And OK maybe they block the sale of CSAM but what they are talking about is not illegal. Adult content is not illegal sex toys are not illegal. So they should not be able to stop the sale of legal stuff. Also every country has different rules so they should not block globally but only in the country requesting it, like Americas fear or sexuality.
But shouldn't someone prevent bad things? Yes, but that someone isn't Visa.