This article discusses the recent removal of several video games from Steam and the underlying issues of censorship and control exerted by payment processors. The removal has sparked controversy, raising questions about the extent of censorship and the influence of private companies on what content users can access.
Steam Removes Adult Games
Recently, Steam removed several adult-themed games from its platform, triggering a significant controversy. This action follows a change in Steam's policies, restricting certain types of content. While Steam has historically hosted a wide variety of games, including those with adult themes accessible through content filters, the new policy marks a shift in approach.
Examples of Removed Games
Some of the titles removed include games with controversial themes, such as:
-
The Redemption of Leeway
-
Incest Twins (series)
These games, often categorized as visual novels, feature themes that some find objectionable or even illegal.
The Role of Collective Shout
An organization called Collective Shout has publicly claimed victory for the removal of these games. They campaigned against these games, specifically targeting payment processors to stop facilitating payments for such content. Collective Shout also noted that some of the games involved themes related to children.
New Steam Policy
Steam's new policy reflects these concerns, stating that content that violates the rules and standards set by its payment processors, card networks, banks, and internet network providers will not be allowed, particularly certain kinds of adult-only content.
Payment Processors as Censors
The core issue is that Steam is now prioritizing the terms of service of payment processors (like Mastercard, Visa, and PayPal) over its own. This means that even if a game doesn't violate US federal law or Steam's own rules, it can still be removed if it violates the payment processors' policies.
Financial Control and Censorship
Payment processors act as intermediaries, floating money between consumers and businesses. Due to this role, they have clauses related to ethics and morality, which they can use to deny service to organizations they deem objectionable. This gives them considerable control over what consumers can purchase online, even if it's legal.
Example: Cannabis Industry
The author provides an anecdote about a legal cannabis business in Canada facing issues with payment processors, highlighting how even legal activities can be impacted by these policies.
Collective Shout: A Closer Look
Collective Shout presents itself as a grassroots campaign against the objectification of women. However, a closer look reveals a broader agenda of censorship, extending beyond adult-only content.
Broader Censorship Agenda
The organization has targeted various brands and media, including Playboy and Teamu. They have also campaigned for the removal of games like Grand Theft Auto 5 from Target stores in Australia and Detroit: Become Human, arguing that they depict violence against women and child abuse. This suggests that their goal extends beyond removing "gooning games" and encompasses a wider range of mature content.
The Hypocrisy of Payment Processors
Despite their involvement in censoring content, payment processors have faced accusations of facilitating harmful content, particularly child exploitation material.
Lawsuits and Allegations
There have been lawsuits alleging that companies like MindGeek (owner of many adult websites) knowingly hosted videos featuring victims of force, fraud, and coercion. Judges have even allowed discovery into Visa's role in allegedly facilitating the monetization of child sexual abuse material (CSAM).
Whistleblower Allegations
A whistleblower also revealed that companies like Mastercard and Visa failed to stop payments on sites like OnlyFans for child content, despite being aware of the issue.
Conclusion: A Slippery Slope
While the removal of certain games from Steam might seem inconsequential to some, it sets a dangerous precedent. It gives payment processors the power to censor legal content based on their own subjective standards. The author believes that stopping a video game will not stop actual criminal trafficking behavior. This could lead to further censorship based on political or ideological grounds, ultimately limiting freedom of expression and choice.