I like and respect Brenda Romero, but here I find myself disagreeing hard. I know a lot of people have been a part of this discourse, but so far she’s offered the best points in favour of Valve’s position, so I’d like to address those and why I disagree.
She starts by stating that museums, art galleries, libraries and book stores are filled with offensive content. I’ll come back to the word ‘offensive’ later, but for now I find her only valid comparison to Steam here to be book stores, as Steam is a store.
Let’s cover museums and art galleries first; their content, unlike Valve's, is curated for a purpose, either to make a statement or to teach us something. They omit much more than they include in order to do this. Again, Valve is simply not doing this.
Book stores are also capable of choosing not to sell books, and I'd argue they should and largely do exercise that right. I can't draw a book of swastikas made of dicks and get it sold in Waterstones, but I can get my swasdicka game on Steam, for a fee. Valve will take a 30% cut.
A store choosing not to sell something does not stop that thing from existing, it only locks it out of that platform. It can still exist elsewhere. Giving something a platform is a form of endorsement and validation. Making a profit from that thing is to make its values your own.
Moving on:
Brenda's examples of games that have resisted bans in the past include GTA, MW2, God of War and DOOM. Firstly, the attempts to ban these were at government/ratings board level, not store-level, so I wouldn't agree with that comparison at all, but whatever.
Brenda's examples of games that have resisted bans in the past include GTA, MW2, God of War and DOOM. Firstly, the attempts to ban these were at government/ratings board level, not store-level, so I wouldn't agree with that comparison at all, but whatever.
As we know, none of these were banned, because that would be ridiculous, so these examples don’t really serve her point that banning things in itself is wrong. A conversation was had, and we said ‘nah these are fine. Not perfect, but fine’.
These non-banned games are still open to discussion and criticism. We can handle the offending content ourselves much like Valve proposes, by engaging honestly, whether negatively or positively. But allowing every discussion to be had is assuming every discussion is worth having.
Let's talk in extremes for a moment (CW):
None of Brenda's examples include content in which you behead minorities precisely because they are minorities and should be beheaded. That’s the kind of content we’re arguing against Valve profiting from, not GTA or MW2.
None of Brenda's examples include content in which you behead minorities precisely because they are minorities and should be beheaded. That’s the kind of content we’re arguing against Valve profiting from, not GTA or MW2.
We’re not talking about banning a shooty game because it uses 9/11 imagery for cheap shock value, we’re talking about de-platforming games that contribute to making real people's lives harder by validating beliefs that some humans aren't human, and shouldn't be treated as such.
When Valve chooses to sell a game that is explicitly racist, homophobic or transphobic it is both endorsing and openly validating the belief and actions of racist, homophobic and transphobic people.
Valve needs to be responsible for what it chooses to validate.
Valve needs to be responsible for what it chooses to validate.
In attempts to ridicule this idea, people are pretending Steam would look like itch; lots of bitsy games, no more gory shooters. However, we already have a real world example of what a curated content-regulated platform looks like; Sony and Microsoft do this with their consoles.
GTA still exists.
DOOM still exists.
God of War still exists.
Call of Duty still exists.
Nobody is trying to take these away.
We’re not asking games to be morally pristine, we’re asking creators not to go out of their way to harm people if they want to be sold on a storefront.
DOOM still exists.
God of War still exists.
Call of Duty still exists.
Nobody is trying to take these away.
We’re not asking games to be morally pristine, we’re asking creators not to go out of their way to harm people if they want to be sold on a storefront.
She touches upon this briefly by stating Nintendo’s dusty old content policies. For this, I’ll simply say that Nintendo still has content policies today, but they’re different. What is and isn't acceptable can indeed change over time, and we should let it.
But again, it’s also worth noting that these examples of what weren’t allowed back then aren't comparable to what we’re arguing shouldn't be allowed now. We’re not talking about religious/alcohol depictions anymore, we’re largely talking about who gets to be treated as human.
Finally, I agree that creators should have these freedoms, but I don’t agree that we should automatically be given a platform for them. If we choose to be harmful in our creations, we shouldn't be elevated, and Valve shouldn't get to profit from that.
This went way longer than expected.
I didn't expect to contribute to this discourse at all, but Brenda's way shorter thread made points I felt worth discussing in apparently microscopic detail.
Remember all: be nice and good about all this. Nasty discourse is useless discourse.
I didn't expect to contribute to this discourse at all, but Brenda's way shorter thread made points I felt worth discussing in apparently microscopic detail.
Remember all: be nice and good about all this. Nasty discourse is useless discourse.
Tom pointed out an inaccuracy in one of the claims I made so I'm putting that here:
People are responding that Valve shouldn't get to decide what qualifies as valid art, but I don't subscribe to the idea that 'If enough people like it, it must be valid', because there are always going to be people whose interests come at the expense of other people's safety.
