Good, keep harassing them.
Not harassing, notifying them of our concerns in a cordial manner!
Exactly! Please stop mailing pictures of Luigi Mangione to their executive offices!
Youcantstopmeimfree
Wat
Good.
I know the whole “slippery slope” argument is often overused, but conservatives already love to conflate queer voices with pornography to try and censor them. This slope is like X=0.1, if these conservatives have their way they will be coming for LGBTQ content next. This shit needs to be shut down right away.
Atwater: Y’all don’t quote me on this. You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”
Collective Shout is following this with some modifications. You can’t come out an say “we want to ban LGBT content”. Collective Shout starts with banning inceset and rape games cause who’s going to stand against that? Then it’s all about perverts (with no definition of what makes someone a pervert) and protecting children from perverts. All the way talking about what makes a women, women (Hint: Does not include trans-women).
It’s why conseratives are in favor of bathroom bills, ID and birth names, and other anti-trans law.
For people like us, it’s glaring obvious what Collective Shout is up too however the average person doesn’t.
Leftists basically never reach beyond what they say, and in fact there’s a lot of issues that come from centrists often being the sorry excuse for true progressiveness in most places. Conservatives, though? That slope is proven, every damn day, to be slicker than a teflon slip’n’slide coated in motor oil and full-fat butter.
Why did Reddit delete the post?
For fuck sales, Reddit…. Could you try not to suck so hard all the time?
It’s 90% bots now.
Narwhal. Axe. This.
I’m not even a gamer and I object to this censorship of consensual sexual content. I don’t support the violence aspect, but these companies are swinging the pendulum way too far. I’ll call my CC company after work to register my (cordial) complaint.
I’ve heard collective shout is trying to run away too; claiming that itch.io is being mean and being maliciously compliant.
Good.
They targeted gamers. Gamers.
Gamers are the most oppressed minority, after white men and Christians.
Reminds me of the old cartoon where internet porn becomes illegal and the streets are on fire in the next frame.
Visa and MasterCard’s low wage customer service operators are getting overwhelmed by gamer fury over ‘censorship’
ftfy
They targeted gamers. Gamers.
Good.
I mean, before getting too excited it’s worth taking a second to remember this is the exact playbook that launched Gamergate. Will be some of the same people, too, considering porn is the great unifier of the US left and… well, horny nerds.
I agree with the sentiment, but I’m not gonna get super hyped for the “gamers can organize a remote pressure campaign” thing ever again without some icky feelings.
Attacking a massive corporation is a very different proposition than attacking individuals, I don’t think that parallel is terribly concerning
Is it? I don’t know that I can get behind people based on who they choose to go after. I’ve always had trouble to find a mob that goes after people I dislike any less scary than any other.
And for the record, again, I do agree with the underlying sentiment and have no particular empathy towards payment services, of all things. I just find it very hard to see “gamers” rallying to do the whole online disruption thing and cheer rather than picture the very real instances of attacking individuals in the exact same way.
It’s just kinda creepy, honestly. More so if the only line we have for this is how much we like the targets at any given point. I’m gonna spend a long time thinking about this one. So far a bad faith letter campaign and an online disruption campaign are both having an outsized influence on something that probably shouldn’t be swayed so easily in any direction beyond official government regulations. Even if this ultimately falls on the side I agree with it’s… not a good look and I come out of it more concerned than I was. And I was concerned about this scenario already.
That’s the same sort of idiotic logic that leads to “both-sides”-ism.
Back in objective reality, the validity of an attack actually does depend strongly on whether the target actually deserves it.
In no way is that the same as arguing that both sides are right or have a point. For one thing I’m actively agreeing with one side.
For another, who decides the “deserves it” part? Is it just you? Is it a popularity contest? Lots of the gamergate morons thought their targets deserved it, too, for a lot of the exact same reasons being provided here. Is being an acceptable target just a popularity contest? Are we all meant to be targeted at all times to just see who has more support? I mean, I’m assuming the religious prudes that used the same techniques to get those games banned in the first place thought they deserved it, too.
A bunch of leftists and feminists, particularly in Europe, are intensely anti-porn, to the point where they call themselves “abolitionists” and are proposing legislation with similar effects to this thing. I don’t agree with them, like I don’t agree with this instance, but I’m not ready to make my personality about starting a grassroots online sabotage movement towards them.
The “ends justify the means” argument is honestly chilling, because I realize in this context that yes, absolutely, that is how we operate. That’s what’s behind the “made a bad tweet, got in a plane, found out they were the main character on the Internet five hours later” stuff. If you get enough people to think you’re a valid target that “deserves it” all bets are off.
Historically this has been particularly bad around gaming, where a lot of the audience is tech-savvy and heavily connected. And frankly, I think that space sucks and in many corners of the Internet gaming commentary revolves solely around half-understood outrage.
Look, there are downsides to doing things this way, is all I’m saying. I’m not particularly concerned about this instance, because clearly the thing that happened was wrong and in bad faith already and it’s actually a good thing that the monopolistic impact of payment processors gets highlighted, because that’s objectively worse. But seeing the process divorced from the moral outrage or disagreement still demonstrates some things about the Internet that I find profoundly problematic.
