Censorship! Vile, disgusting CENSORSHIP!

[BloatedGuppy]

I don't have easy answers here either, but a question does run through my mind when this kind of things comes up: if not to try and see it done less or have it undone, why are you criticizing it in the way you are?

Some people criticize because they want things they enjoy to be better. As per your example, I could care less about criticizing Twilight, but I will cheerfully criticize...say...The Walking Dead. I have something of an investment in it, so I rain criticism on it in the hopes it will improve (or to vent my spleen).

I've never campaigned for something to not exist (actually that's not entirely true, I did campaign for the original ME3 ending to no longer exist, those fuckers), but I can imagine scenarios where I could make arguments of that nature. Who hasn't bemoaned an unnecessary sequel, or listened to a terrible song, or watched an episode of a television show three seasons past its best before date and wondered "Why does this still exist"?

I mean, I'd like to know what I'm missing, but I am at the point of asking (as an example) why complain about Hatred if not that you don't want a game with that message to get out, and to hope that negative backlash will get it stopped? A governmetal ban would at least be honest.

I didn't complain about Hatred, because I think Hatred is just begging for me to complain about it and I don't want to indulge them, but if I were, I'd probably say "Why do we need this Jack Thompson Baiting Bullshit? I'm pretty sure you guys can do better work than this".

 

[Something Amyss]

Oh, and before anyone points out that the people behind the petition are merely issuing demands and have no ability to actually enforce their will upon Nintendo, I feel it would be remiss of me not to point out that such actions are sure to lead to Nintendo applying the dreaded self-censorship, which is almost as bad as having their factories burnt down by rioting petitioners.

I heard that the dreaded self-censorship is actually the worst kind. Though, in fairness, I did hear it from someone who was willingly practicing it by posting on a moderated message board.

Wait. You're posting on a moderated message board! Self-censorship!

If Nintendo did change the game because of that petition, wouldn't that just be them listening to their consumers (or potential consumers?)

When it was Hatred, it was censorship. When it was GTA, it was censorship. When it was ME3, it was censorship. When Anita SHE WHO MUST NOT BE NAMED says "consider," it's censorship. I can't speak for Zhukov, though I'm pretty sure he's my podmate, but I think that might be the point.

There has, over the last year or so, been a very concerted effort to cry "censorship!" when it comes to [things I like] and to cry "free market!" when it comes to [things I don't like]. A group effort by a bunch of folks who seem to abhor censorship in all its forms, except when it's their right to censor. Even if that means the same tactics.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Ever since Mass Effect 3, it seems that some have latched on to how enough outrage can get them seemingly anything they want. (even if it's just attention)

This is basically going to be the norm, methinks, until companies stop paying them any mind at all, or something big flops disastrously as a result of their nagging.

 

[KungFuJazzHands]

How do you censor something that doesn't exist yet?

This isn't censorship, it's simply a bunch of whiny manchildren having a fit.

 

[Battenberg]

Nothing. The people who don't lie Nintendo don't care enough to do anything about anything they do.

I can confirm this is accurate, I wouldn't even have clicked on this thread if 'Nintendo' had been in the title.

Seriously though this whole free speech thing is just a big ridiculous minefield. Saying everyone has the right to express their opinion includes every person and every opinion otherwise it is not truly free speech. That means you support someone's right to say homophobia is bad but also their right to say racism is good. It means people are free to say all kinds of cruel or unkind things to someone for little, or even zero reason. Hell it even means you have to support someone else's right to say free speech shouldn't be allowed.

In this case people are expressing disapproval of a game. Free speech means these people have that right just as Nintendo have the right to make the game anyway. Nobody is restricting anybody else's freedom of expression so I see no issue here. That remains true even if Nintendo choose not to make the game based on the disapproval of others. Self censorship is nothing but an inflammatory way to describe someone else's choice to not express something.

 

[Don Incognito]

I often see this term "self-censorship" thrown around, and I haven't the faintest idea what it actually means, or how it is censorship. Can one of you fine Escapists enlighten me?

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Because the latter featured tens of thousands of people not only publishing their criticism, but directing their criticism directly at Obsidian, demanding change and actively labeling the entire company transphobic etc. unless the demands were met.

The equivilent would be if people not only criticised Ready at Dawn for the abundant QTEs, but also directly demanded Ready at Dawn remove them from the game under penalty of having tens of thousands of people publically label them as an incompetant developer who's workers don't know how to code.

I've heard media criticism delivered in that form many, many times. Directors are called incompetent, writers are called hacks, developers are called greedy or stupid or overtly malicious, out to separate gamers from their hard earned money with their sinister code. Google some of the criticism thrown at Michael Bay on a daily basis. Is that censorship? Are we collectively censoring Michael Bay?

"I don't like your hat, it's ugly."
"I don't like your hat, it's ugly, take it off or I'll punch you in the face."
Frankly I'm at my wits end as to how you're not getting this, are you an alien?

Just to be clear, you've now created three comparison points for "this poem is transphobic".

1. Punches in the face
2. Kill your family
3. Statutory Rape

I'm assuming the latter cases were intended to be hyperbolic for comedic effect, but you've gone to the "punch in the face" well twice now, once having it delivered by a former heavyweight champion of the world. Going by your above comparison, are you arguing that, for instance, calling George Lucas a hack online is functionally equivalent to having Mike Tyson punch him in the face? Or are you suggesting there must be a certain critical mass of such criticism first? How much? 10,000 people calling him a hack? I'm sure there were at least that many, he eventually felt motivated to sell the IP after all.

Let's make something clear...I'm aware that people will occasionally weaponize criticism in an attempt to get their way, rather than just issuing it and then carrying on with their lives. What I'd like you to do is give me real-world examples of such criticism in the gaming industry, and then explain to me how the developer's hand was forced. I can, offhand, think of petitions to...

1. Change the end of ME3
2. Change the end of FO3
3. Remove a poem from POE (which was, amusingly, changed to a more caustic and targeted poem)

I'm not sure about petitions or high pressure tactics used in situations like removing always-online from games, or criticizing day one DLC, but it's quite possible. Those are typically endorsed/forgiven on the grounds that they are "pro-consumer".

Now I can already hear you screaming at me, calling me names, telling me I have no reading comprehension, etc, etc, because I'm not attending to your "tens of thousands of people saying change the poem or else we'll label you transphobic in the greater community" example. I do have a few questions though.

1. Can you substantiate that "tens of thousands of people" made that specific threat?
2. How many people does it take before you cross this threshold from "just putting your criticism out there" and "forcing someone" (i.e. having Tyson punch them in the face). One? Ten? Tens of thousands?
3. If it is more than one, how does the volume of criticism effect the intent of the criticism? If I'm a lone person and my criticism is functionally "stop doing X, X is terrible", and 10,000 other people happen to feel the same way, does that change my criticism from innocent to pernicious? Or was it always pernicious?
4. Do my reasons for wanting something to stop matter?

Before the usual suspects come out of the woodwork to call me a modern day Hitler and ask how my book burning is going, I should state that I thought the PoE poem protest was very, very silly. I am, however, very much in favor of freedom of expression, even when that expression leads to condemnatory criticism. And even if that condemnatory criticism is widespread. While I appreciate you are attempting to elucidate a concern about using a hysterical degree of public pressure to railroad a creator into an unwanted change, I think that leads into some extremely murky territory. Particularly when you're trying to draw parallels to physical violence. There is a bogeyman being erected on these forums called "self censorship", and this abiding belief among some that making a change in reaction to insistent criticism is automatically detestable. We like to jump on the PoE poem example because it was such a dubious criticism, but what if it hadn't been? What if it had been a more salient criticism? I'm sure for the people making it, it was, but what if it was something that had near unanimous endorsement? Wouldn't we still be involved in the same "forcing" of the creator?

If we're going to be wandering around pointing fingers and saying "That's acceptable criticism" and "that's unacceptable criticism, and basically violence", I'd like some pretty ironclad data supporting the argument. Otherwise we're in...what's the popular colloquialism? "Feels before realz" territory. And since we're about NOT KILLING IDEAS around these parts, and rightfully so, I think that's a fair position to take.

Of course it's early and I'm rambling, less than half of this likely makes sense, and you're just going to get mad anyway, but we'll see.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I'm not reading all that, if you don't get it now you never will.
I think you're an alien.

Here's a distilled form of the argument for you, maybe you'll prefer it.

Meh, people will always try and use rhetoric in order to prevent criticism or discredit those who might criticise.

 

[Zhukov]

Literally all I've done is try to encourage Zhukov to be more empathetic towards those who fear self-censorship and illustrate why they might feel the way they do,

Fair enough.

Admittedly, I missed that angle in you initial post.

Unfortunately I still find your thought process to be questionable.

But in reaction to the potentially transphobic joke in Pillars of Eternity, people did flood Obsidian's twitter and email demanding that it be changed.

If I were to Tweet into the void "Game X sucks because Y, they should have changed it!" I would be merely critcising, apparently.
However, if I were to Tweet "@DeveloperX Game X sucks because Y, you should have changed it!" I am fostering self-censorship.

So the difference between lamentable censorship and legit criticism is in whether or not it is addressed directly at the creator?

See there's a big difference between just making criticism (the former) and demanding your criticism be acted upon or else (the latter). And it's entirely understandable that some people would be concerned by the latter and not the former.

So if I say, "I wish this game was different, I hope the change the sequel", I am merely criticizing.
If I say "I demand the sequel be made differently!", I am bringing about self-censorship?

So the difference between censorship and criticism lies in how one phrases one's remarks?

See, those both seem like awfully fine distinctions to me.

 

[DrOswald]

The critical point is that censorship is about the suppression/attempted suppression of sensitive information, some point of view opposed to ones own, or content deemed morally objectionable. The point is that information or ideas are seen as dangerous or morally wrong and therefore should be eliminated.

This is not a call for censorship because no one is saying that this information is secret, dangerous, or morally incorrect.

The government saying "you cannot print the blueprints for our carriers, it is a military secret" is censorship. Secret/dangerous information is being suppressed.

The Motion Picture Production Code (and its enforcement) were censorship. Ideas were being suppressed for being morally incorrect/dangerous.

Jack Thompson trying to get games banned was attempted censorship. An attempt at suppressing ideas that he saw as both morally incorrect and dangerous.

Anita using her influence to sway the public into suppressing ideas she does not agree with is attempted censorship. She is attempting to cause the suppression of ideas she sees as morally objectionable.

A developer deciding a rape scene, even one that attempts to handle the subject with the respect and seriousness it deserves, is not a great idea in the current political environment is self censorship. An idea was suppressed to conform to societal norms.

People trying to change a game because they think it will be bad is not attempted censorship. No information, points of view, or ideas are being suppressed. No one is saying it is going to corrupt people who see it, or the information presented will be dangerous to anyone.

Your house cannot be that color by the terms of your ownership is not censorship. Dumb, perhaps, but not censorship.

NOW, to be absolutely clear, censorship (and especially attempts at censorship via public opinion) are not necessarily bad, and just because you avoided censorship does not mean you have the moral high ground. I do not agree with what these people are doing trying to get this Metroid game canceled. It is stupid and counter productive. But it is not censorship.

 

[Something Amyss]

There were a fair amount of people on these forums who were blatant hypocrites when they were upset about Pillars but were on the Take Mass Effect Back bandwagon.

There were also a ton of people who berated Retake, but then jumped onboard that recent consumer movement to bring ethics into games journalism. Might not be so bad if you didn't see people berating people making FTC and BBB filings on behalf of Retake, but supported and defended that other movement when they did it.

The difference between "stifling free expression" and "investigating possible misconduct" is apparently largely contingent on whether or not you like the people involved. It was actually kind of startling to see that in action when I logged back on here.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

The critical point is that censorship is about the suppression/attempted suppression of sensitive information, some point of view opposed to ones own, or content deemed morally objectionable. The point is that information or ideas are seen as dangerous or morally wrong and therefore should be eliminated.

I'd agree with this definition.

The problem I'm running into is that there's this "grey area" of criticism where the argument is being made that certain kinds of "charged" criticism will, due to the nature of public sentiment, "force" creators into self-censorship simply by being issued. I.E., I can criticize a game's shaggy dog storytelling or inept execution of mechanics, but if I point out they used a tired sexist trope or employed an overtly racist stereotype, I'm instigating "moral panic". I'm sure you've seen the debates around that point.

Do you believe such criticism to be a form of censorship? Do you believe attacking such criticism as morally objectionable in its own right and calling for its removal or suppression constitutes its own form of censorship?

 

[MechaSlinky]

People bitching isn't censorship. Nintendo changing something to please the bitching people isn't censorship. It's capitalism. It might also be completely fucking stupid, but it's still capitalism.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Just to be absolutely clear I am somewhat, but not entirely, taking the piss here.

So... Nintendo recently announced a 3DS Metroid game. It's called Metroid Prime Federation Force. Have a trailer [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGu3Xe1uUUg]. It looks very jolly.

It turns out that some Metroid fans are not happy about this. Take note of the likes to dislikes ratio on that video. (I run a browser plugin that hides Youtube comments, but I'm guessing they're not exactly flattering either.)

In fact, some 12,000 and counting fans have signed one of those awesomely potent online petitions [https://www.change.org/p/nintendo-petition-for-cancelation-of-metroid-prime-federation-force] in which they criticise multiple aspects of the game and demand for it to be cancelled.

Now I have at times engaged in some highly amusing discussions regarding what does and does not constitute censorship and violation of creative free speech in regards to video games. I wish to know from people who feel passionately on the issue whether or not they regard this stalwart effort by customers to be an act of censorship and a violation of Nintendo's right to free speech.

Oh, and before anyone points out that the people behind the petition are merely issuing demands and have no ability to actually enforce their will upon Nintendo, I feel it would be remiss of me not to point out that such actions are sure to lead to Nintendo applying the dreaded self-censorship, which is almost as bad as having their factories burnt down by rioting petitioners.

Discuss.

Ugh. Why do people say this stupid shit. I haven't seen the trailer and don't need to. Censorship has to come from the government by force of law or it's not censorship. We as citizens have every right, no we have a responsibility to police the things that we do and do not want in our society and communities. Legal bans are different from calling for a boycott. One of them is using the law to get your way and is wrong, the other is using the power of the dollar to effect change. If the other side feels strongly they will counter your boycott and buy more product. (Remember how much Chik-fi-la made off of being against gays?) That is how a free society functions and is supposed to function.

The thing that is being mistaken here is that freedom of speech means freedom from legal consequence it doesn't mean freedom from criticism nor does it mean I have to listen to your shit.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

Yes, it's an attempt by a group (exerting what meager "power" they have available to them) to censor a product they don't like. Just like the GTA/Target nonsense.

No, I don't agree with it.

Yes, they're idiots.

(I run a browser plugin that hides Youtube comments, but I'm guessing they're not exactly flattering either.)

This is so very sad to me, sir. Not that you should care about what I find sad, but eh.

The reason for the protest, rather than the usual "Just don't buy it" line, is because they're afraid of the possible misinterpretation that poor sales means that the fanbase lost interest in the series, therefore the company should not focus on that series.

And this right here nails why they're upset in the first place.

If I were a fan of the series, I'd certainly be upset too, but "signing a petition to cancel it, like a petulant brat" upset?

No.

 

[Don Incognito]

If I were to Tweet into the void "Game X sucks because Y, they should have changed it!" I would be merely critcising, apparently.
However, if I were to Tweet "@DeveloperX Game X sucks because Y, you should have changed it!" I am fostering self-censorship.

So the difference between lamentable censorship and legit criticism is in whether or not it is addressed directly at the creator?

Well first of all, like I've been trying to explain to Guppy and have said before literally all criticism is legitimate.
The criticisms "The Order 1886 has too many QTEs" is just as valid as "Pillars of Eternity contains a transphobic joke." There is no difference between them (I'm sure you already know this but I'm just clarifying).

Now bearing that in mind, if you were to tweet "@DeveloperX Game X sucks because Y, you should change it and if you don't I will try to harm you" could be seen as fostering self-censorship.

To put it another way, if you were walking down the street with a bundle of cash in your hand. On your way to a charity in order to donate the cash and the demon Baal materialised in front of you and said "donate that money to charity or I will smite you. You could forgive innocent bystanders for thinking that you had been forced into donating the money.

You really, really, really, REALLY need to work on your analogies.

Criticism, even threatening a boycott, does not in any way equate to physical assault. Physical assault is not part of the free market.

 

[Zhukov]

Well first of all, like I've been trying to explain to Guppy and have said before literally all criticism is legitimate.
The criticisms "The Order 1886 has too many QTEs" is just as valid as "Pillars of Eternity contains a transphobic joke." There is no difference between them (I'm sure you already know this but I'm just clarifying).

Now bearing that in mind, if you were to tweet "@DeveloperX Game X sucks because Y, you should change it and if you don't I will try to harm you" could be seen as fostering self-censorship.

Okay.

So what exactly is the harm being threatened?

Because so far all you've described (outside of analogies about being punched in the face by Mike Tyson and being smote by demons) is people inflicting harm by not buying the game, which is about as basic a consumer right as I can imagine, and people threatening harm by saying bad things about the game and thus potentially decreasing sales.

You say all criticism is legitimate, but what exactly is "social media negative PR campaign" if not a concentration of criticism?

You cited the Pillars of Eternity thing. (Just to make clear my position clear on that: I was not offended by the poem, I did not regard it as transphobic, I have no problem with people complaining, I have no problem with the developer listening, I do not think anything of value was lost with its removal.) You say the developers were threatened with a "negative PR campaign" consisting of people saying the game contained a transphobic joke, yet you say the criticism of "PoE contains a transphobic joke" is as valid as any criticism.

I do not think your position is consistent.

 

[Don Incognito]

You really, really, really, REALLY need to work on your analogies.

Criticism, even threatening a boycott, does not in any way equate to physical assault. Physical assault is not part of the free market.

No I don't, especially considering I never even came close to equating physical assault with simple criticism.
Re-read the post or go back and read the full exchange.

Thus far, I've seen you compare boycotts/petitions/complaints to getting punched, getting punched by Mike fucking Tyson, and getting smited by a demon. I'm sure I've missed one or two others.

So, yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and disagree with you there, John. Again: physical assault is not part of the free market. Petitions, boycotts, and complaints are. The developers can respond or not respond to said petitions, boycotts, and complaints in whatever way they'd like. They aren't being censored.

 

[Zhukov]

(I run a browser plugin that hides Youtube comments, but I'm guessing they're not exactly flattering either.)

This is so very sad to me, sir. Not that you should care about what I find sad, but eh.

What is sad, the fact that I run that plugin or the hostile comments on the trailer?

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Thus far, I've seen you compare boycotts/petitions/complaints to getting punched, getting punched by Mike fucking Tyson, and getting smited by a demon. I'm sure I've missed one or two others.

Smote, Mr. President.

It was also compared to threats of murder and statutory rape, although in the latter case it was clearly facetious.