In an interesting blog post written up today, Valve's Erik Johnson has said how Valve will be relaxing their rules for what will be acceptable on Steam.
You might have seen the discussion recently about how Valve sent word to a few developers, giving them notice that their games are going to be removed from Steam. Even we picked up on this, as it didn't really feel right.
There were people suggesting that payment processors were to blame, or outside groups like we had linked in our previous article's comments. Valve said this is not the case at all. It's also not an automated process, Johnson said they have "groups of people looking at the contents of every controversial title submitted to us".
Now, Valve will allow pretty much anything "except for things that we decide are illegal, or straight up trolling". The blog post read as a surprisingly personal insight into how Valve operate, something Valve has been starting to do a little more often lately (which is great to see).
This bit got me:
So what does this mean? It means that the Steam Store is going to contain something that you hate, and don't think should exist. Unless you don't have any opinions, that's guaranteed to happen. But you're also going to see something on the Store that you believe should be there, and some other people will hate it and want it not to exist.
Naturally, Johnson made it clear that being allowed on Steam doesn't mean Valve agree with the content themselves. However, it now means a human at Valve can no longer just send out warnings of a game being removed from Steam. The fact that they're making this step, this real progress towards being more open is a good thing for developers and for gamers.
They continue to be my favourite store and I'm personally happy they will so openly admit when they're wrong and they didn't have a good handle on the situation. Their previous rules seemed to be okay for some, not okay for others—just too vague. Let's just hope the words turn into a reality.
Additionally though, a valid complaint will be that with even less curation finding games you want to see could end up being a bigger problem, one they will need to solve. Obviously this is where the likes of us come in, to let you know about good games, but an improved way to filter the Steam store itself will help. No matter what though, someone won't be happy.
Post updated after publishing.
Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
Quoting: noxTrue. Just trying to give an example of extremism. And saying that we definitely should not tolerate everything. I guess this is getting off topic though.Quoting: tuubiQuoting: SeegrasExtremism isn't the same as having an unpopular opinion and it should never be allowed to be mainstream. You can be a staunch supporter of anarchist ideology for example. That's perfectly fine, regardless of how you feel about their opinions, and they should be allow to argue their stance. Or you can be an extremist advocating violent protests or let's say terror attacks on state infrastructure. The latter does not deserve a platform nor should it be tolerated.Quoting: tuubiI don't think fraud attempts, hate mongering and racism need a legitimate platform, and neither does extremism of any sort.
Your extremism is somebody elses mainstream. And "not giving extremism a platform" is thus nothing else but an extremist position in itself.
I might be misunderstanding here, but "Advocating terror attacks" would very likely end up in the "illegal" part of the blog post.
I've found Steam's store unusable for a couple of years now. I pretty much exclusively use this site. All the more reason to support Liam I guess. So, I suppose that in that regard things won't change. But, I do not think it is good that the store is not usable. Honestly, I just clicked on "Best Sellers" and one of the first things listed for me was Left For Dead 2. And of course, I already have it as well as half of the games I see listed in front of me. Now, I suppose instead of seeing old crap I already have, there will be NEW crap that I don't want presented to me.
I do appreciate the different perspective on this though. I saw several articles about this change, and this is the only one that shows it in a positive light. I am sceptical myself, but I do understand that other outlets tend to love to bash on Steam.
Quoting: tuubiQuoting: BeamboomSpeculative junk. Porn, shovelware, fraud attempts, hate mongering, racism, extremists political and religious agendas, and so forth.Well, some of the stuff you just mentioned is deservedly illegal in most of the civilized world, so it really should be banned. I don't think fraud attempts, hate mongering and racism need a legitimate platform, and neither does extremism of any sort. Porn (with consenting adults) and shovelware are less of a problem IMHO.
And please note, This is content that I do not say should be BANNED - they just do not belong on the main street.
That's part of what bugs me about Steam's announcement on this. They seem to be treating the hate mongering and racism, which we already know is on Steam and will increase following this policy change, as merely a disagreement between people with differeing tastes. Which seems at best hopefully naive, but more likely an attempt by Steam to avoid criticism by taking no position at all and pretending there's no issue in the first place.
But of course, not taking a position actually is taking the position that "this is all fine by us". Even with the thinnest possible disclaimer of "we aren't saying we agree with the content".
Quoting: EikeQuoting: SeegrasYour extremism is somebody elses mainstream. And "not giving extremism a platform" is thus nothing else but an extremist position in itself.
Really?
Karl Popper about the problem ( "paradox of tolerance" ):
You're talking about something completely different. "Extremism" per se just means you have in some area a position that goes far beyond what most people think even as outlying.
For instance, some people think copyright is not strong enough, others think it's way too strong, but the extremist positions in that debate are a) that copyright should last forever, whereas the other extremist position is b) that copyright should be abolished. Since my position is that copyright should not be abolished but return to pre-1841 levels, I think the idea that copyright should last after the death of the artist is already an extremist idea.
Last edited by Seegras on 7 June 2018 at 12:58 pm UTC
Quoting: monnefI don't agree with censorship and my opinion is, that only a game (or any other medium) literally exciting violence in concrete context (e.g. "kill the man A today around 12" ) should be illegal and censored/removed from distribution platform like Steam. That's the sane definition of hate speechEver played Hitman?
Quoting: SeegrasQuoting: EikeQuoting: SeegrasYour extremism is somebody elses mainstream. And "not giving extremism a platform" is thus nothing else but an extremist position in itself.
Really?
Karl Popper about the problem ( "paradox of tolerance" ):
You're talking about something completely different. "Extremism" per se just means you have in some area a position that goes far beyond what most people think even as outlying.
No matter if I agree with your understanding of the word, there's extremism that everybody should frown upon and that we should not call mainstream for whoever.
Quoting: EikeKarl Popper about the problem ( "paradox of tolerance" ):
Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.
Hooray, seeing Mr Popper cited outside of my philosophy class in school is cool!
It's important to understand that he is not saying anything about tolerating the extreme, it's about tolerating *intolerance*. Ie. accept (or at least don't reject them on this basis) even extreme positions if they aren't *intolerant*. This could be eg. "extreme capitalism" or "extreme communism" as they (per se) are not intolerant. However "extreme fascism" is intolerant, as is often enough "extreme anti-fascism".
But there are more facets to it than even this. And this is where I just cannot agree with Valve's decision, just looking away ain't good. "Leaving it to the educated adults on steam"? That's a lot of trust you put into those... "educated" "adults".
Patreon
PayPal
See more from me