RPGM Ethereal Sunder [v0.15] [EtherealSunderDev]

[MRN64]

A pretty silly restriction but they are gonna do what they are gonna do with their service. I just hope we dont get the inevitable group of weirdos running around crying about cEnSoRsHiP rUiNiNg EvErYtHiNg like they normally do. Its been 200 years and people still cant grasp free speech and what it does or does not protect and what is or is not censorship.

 

[D4n0w4r]

A pretty silly restriction but they are gonna do what they are gonna do with their service. I just hope we dont get the inevitable group of weirdos running around crying about cEnSoRsHiP rUiNiNg EvErYtHiNg like they normally do. Its been 200 years and people still cant grasp free speech and what it does or does not protect and what is or is not censorship.

Censorship on a wide scale is becoming an issue though. I don't know if you kept up with the dlsite drama, but the reason why all of the major credit card companies backed out from that site is because dlsite refused to give into their demands to remove stuff like rape and loli. Sites are free to do what they like, sure, but once every option for creators gets restricted, what are they supposed to do? The frontier gets smaller by the day.

 

[MRN64]

A company deciding it doesnt want to associate with a particular type of content or speech isnt censorship though even if it impacts the visibility of said content. That is the bottom line of the discussion really. Someone deciding to not host or be party to content is as much a statement protected by free speech laws world wide as creating said content. It is their business and reputation on the line for hosting or facilitating that content and forcing them to allow content they disagree with would be essentially saying that because you rent a car or house from someone you can paint a swastika on it or something. It is within someones rights at least in the US to have a swastika on display but if you try to put it on property you dont own or try to get a bank to loan you money for it then you are in for a hard time. Thats not censorship though.

 

[JakeTapper]

A company deciding it doesnt want to associate with a particular type of content or speech isnt censorship though even if it impacts the visibility of said content. That is the bottom line of the discussion really. Someone deciding to not host or be party to content is as much a statement protected by free speech laws world wide as creating said content. It is their business and reputation on the line for hosting or facilitating that content and forcing them to allow content they disagree with would be essentially saying that because you rent a car or house from someone you can paint a swastika on it or something. It is within someones rights at least in the US to have a swastika on display but if you try to put it on property you dont own or try to get a bank to loan you money for it then you are in for a hard time. Thats not censorship though.

You're not completely wrong but you're definitely not right either. Censorship does not have to come directly from the government to be censorship. There is a concerted effort among the banking and advertising cartels to suppress certain kinds of content across all major platforms. They do it together in lock step using threats that they will deny service to anyone who does not comply. Agree or disagree with the content they want to suppress it's absolutely a form of censorship and labeling people a 'group of weirdos' for not being ok with it is incredibly naive.

And don't forget the reason these massive institutions have the ability to bully entire platforms into changing policies is that they operate as a monopoly much of which being possible because they're propped up by government. I recall there was a "too big to fail" argument used to justify the banking bailouts in '08 and these banks are even bigger today.

The situation isn't as innocent as you're portraying it but this also isn't the place to get into these kinds of discussion so that's the last I'll say about this. It is censorship though and trying to rationalize it as something else is just cope.

 

[Print1727]

Censorship on a wide scale is becoming an issue though. I don't know if you kept up with the dlsite drama, but the reason why all of the major credit card companies backed out from that site is because dlsite refused to give into their demands to remove stuff like rape and loli. Sites are free to do what they like, sure, but once every option for creators gets restricted, what are they supposed to do? The frontier gets smaller by the day.

There will always be an option. Worst case scenario, cryptocurrency is decentralized.

 

[MRN64]

You're not completely wrong but you're definitely not right either. Censorship does not have to come directly from the government to be censorship. There is a concerted effort among the banking and advertising cartels to suppress certain kinds of content across all major platforms. They do it together in lock step using threats that they will deny service to anyone who does not comply. Agree or disagree with the content they want to suppress it's absolutely a form of censorship and labeling people a 'group of weirdos' for not being ok with it is incredibly naive.

And don't forget the reason these massive institutions have the ability to bully entire platforms into changing policies is that they operate as a monopoly much of which being possible because they're propped up by government. I recall there was a "too big to fail" argument used to justify the banking bailouts in '08 and these banks are even bigger today.

The situation isn't as innocent as you're portraying it but this also isn't the place to get into these kinds of discussion so that's the last I'll say about this. It is censorship though and trying to rationalize it as something else is just cope.

If what you are selling is so caustic that people dont want to associate with it then people or companies choosing not to associate with it is NOT censorship. It is not a concerted effort to "target" something they dont like but an effort to not be seen as enabling something or condoning something. If the KKK calls up NBC and asks for them to run an ad for them and NBC refuses it is NOT censorship. If they call every broadcaster on the planet and they all refuse it is NOT censorship. None of the companies are part of some secret plot to ensure nobody knows the KKK exist they just dont want to be seen ANYWHERE near them in ANY way. Its the same even if some other company tries to buy ad space in their stead or simply are known to support them. The broadcasters dont want to associate in ANY way with that kind of stuff so they do not have to supply services. That is not censorship. Its not some kind of malicious intent to ruin that content or whatever.

The biggest bottom line is deying service is NOT suppression especially when what you are trying to serve contains loli and rape which no company that values its reputation wants to touch. The whole argument can sometimes be a thin line but it is a clear and defined one. The banks are not knocking on the doors to shut anyone down they are just not working with them and nobody can force them to.

There absolutely is an arguement that banks are too big and too powerful but to say its because they are out censoring things is beyond silly. They just dont want to associate with something that could taint their brand and lets face it with all of the pearl clutching around adult industries it is an important thing to consider.

 

[BuffLawyer]

full gallery save for new update?

 

[Print1727]

If what you are selling is so caustic that people dont want to associate with it then people or companies choosing not to associate with it is NOT censorship. It is not a concerted effort to "target" something they dont like but an effort to not be seen as enabling something or condoning something. If the KKK calls up NBC and asks for them to run an ad for them and NBC refuses it is NOT censorship. If they call every broadcaster on the planet and they all refuse it is NOT censorship. None of the companies are part of some secret plot to ensure nobody knows the KKK exist they just dont want to be seen ANYWHERE near them in ANY way. Its the same even if some other company tries to buy ad space in their stead or simply are known to support them. The broadcasters dont want to associate in ANY way with that kind of stuff so they do not have to supply services. That is not censorship. Its not some kind of malicious intent to ruin that content or whatever.

Why are you assuming there need to be a concerted effort or secret plot or malicious intent for there to be censorship lol?

Payment services are holding people's money (not really but you get what I meant), they need no effort here, just flip a switch. They are open about this, not hiding anything. It is not malicious at all, they believe they are doing a good thing by stopping money flow to bad things (or whatever, could be actually malicious, could be not, doesn't matter)
.

The biggest bottom line is deying service is NOT suppression

It is. Like what? In your above example, broadcasters are suppressing 3K??? Are you even reading your own message?

The banks are not knocking on the doors to shut anyone down they are just not working with them and nobody can force them to

Hey there, I'm going to stop certain people from paying you. I'm not going to stop you from working though so all is fine right?

Anyway, payment services should be a tool of moving money, not stopping it because they believe bad things are bad (or whatever the reason might be). That is for me to decide (also local laws but you get what I meant).

 

[MRN64]

You are missing the point entirely. A person or company has the right to produce whatever content they want to and distribute it but that does not mean that someone else has to agree to take part in it. It doesnt matter if the person that doesnt agree holds the keys to larger distribution. If they do not consent to being part of distribution then that is their choice. It is a far greater breach of freedom of speech to tell someone they MUST condone something they dont want to than it is to tell someone that they dont want to participate. This is why anti discrimination laws were a hot button topic for a long time. The concensus that was reached is that innocent people just trying to exist should not be prejudiced against simply for who they are so the decision was made to limit free speech in that particular way to ensure the rights of people. That protection is not a blanket protection for everyone for every case of when people want to make weird porn.

Someone can say do or make whatever they want but they cannot FORCE someone else to take part in it unwillingly. Choosing not to be party to something is not censorship. Telling people that they cannot make or distribute something is. The banks did not sit down and tell anyone that they cannot express themselves they simply said they will not help them in doing so. That is not censorship. At all.

People do not have a right to force people to be party to their weird fetish porn even if that refusal would limit its market viability.

Hey there, I'm going to stop certain people from paying you. I'm not going to stop you from working though so all is fine right?

Essentially yes. You might not like it but that is how the world works. Though in this case the banks are not stepping in the way to block anything they are just not agreeing to take part. If they actually were locking bank accounts and threatening to shut down places then yes that would be censorship. They arent doing that though. If another payment processor steps in or they decide to take money orders via mail the bank isnt gonna burn their offices down. Denying access to their services is not blocking payment. It is simply a statement of "I do not wish to participate in this business."

 

[Print1727]

A person or company has the right to produce whatever content they want to and distribute it but that does not mean that someone else has to agree to take part in it.

You are correct. Not going to argue with that, since innocent until proven guilty, this have to go though the court (anti trusts and such). I'm not going to argue with that.

What I'm arguing here is that by denying the service, that is censorship or suppression.

 

[MRN64]

You do realize that by agreeing that someone doesnt have to agree to take part in something then that means they dont have to support it or distribute it right? Which is the act you are literally saying is censorship. A customer is in general not entitled to access to service if there is an even somewhat legitimate reason. No shirts no shoes no service isnt censorship and this is a similar concept. The main exceptions are once again things like anti discrimination laws.

 

[hsyew007]

Big Thank you

 

[minn-tan]

Freedom of speech and expression is a matter of principle, not just a legal right for Americans. Pretty soon we're all going to have to switch to supporting game devs and artists via Monero. And honestly, I'll champion it. The payment processors need to fucking burn and we have no one to blame but ourselves because we are the ones giving them money to fuck us over.
Everyone should have already seen the writing on the wall and the obvious eroding of our liberties on a global scale for decades now.

 

[Mirai_Hikari]

bro wtf is going on in this comment section lol.

 

[Painfulexperience]

bro wtf is going on in this comment section lol.

Something about Patreon legal nonsense or something

 

[fulcrum]

Freedom of speech and expression is a matter of principle, not just a legal right for Americans.

freedom of speech is only the spreading of your own opinion. what youre talking about is freedom of culture and art. completely separate issues. also, freedom of speech doesnt prevent you from facing the fallout of your opinion especialy if its that far out of the norm, such as calling for restaurants to serve cat and dog. its illegal in a lot of places to slaughter and prepare these animals for food outside of life and death emergency situations like various supply chain interruptions.

or being put on the list for the fbi surveilance van when talking about the cheese.

 

[Print1727]

freedom of speech is only the spreading of your own opinion. what youre talking about is freedom of culture and art. completely separate issues. also, freedom of speech doesnt prevent you from facing the fallout of your opinion especialy if its that far out of the norm, such as calling for restaurants to serve cat and dog. its illegal in a lot of places to slaughter and prepare these animals for food outside of life and death emergency situations like various supply chain interruptions.

or being put on the list for the fbi surveilance van when talking about the cheese.

I think of it as my right to know others's opinion/not let others to tell me what do think.

If there is a censored stupid opinion, I would rather seeing the opinion then go "that is fcking stupid, censor that" rather than some randos tell me "it is bad bro, you don't need to see it".

It doesn't work everytime, especially when dealing with spam but I would prefer doing that.

 

[minn-tan]

freedom of speech is only the spreading of your own opinion. what youre talking about is freedom of culture and art. completely separate issues

Not according to US law. Art is a form of protected speech. For example, If I draw a picture of the federal reserve burning down. that would be considered free speech even though it's art.
Even things like flag burning are considered protected free speech (see supreme court ruling Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397).
But anyway, the crux of the issue here is that corporate entities don't care about our speech, art, expression, culture, etc. No one is arguing that Patreon or any other payment processor should be *forced* to allow everything on their platform. They are free to allow or disallow any content. The problem is whether or not their censorship is "right" as a matter of philosophic principle. The same reasons why freedom of speech was amended into the constitution apply outside of legal contexts as well.
If every single payment processor banned all artists/creators who make nsfw games, we would all agree that this would be their right. However, if asked whether or not this would be an ethical decision, I would expect everyone here to answer with a resounding "no".

 

[MRN64]

Lets be real here. When the topic turns to philosophy instead of the facts of the matter at hand its just a good sign that the discussion has gone on too long. We could all sit in the thread and post for months about the finer details of service based industries and how they do business but that wouldnt really do anything. I would love for payment processing companies to be more open and do business with more companies no matter the content they produce but that doesnt mean they are going to or that they have to. The legal situation is the only real situation that matters in this discussion and if we all start larping as Socrates and Plato its just gonna spiral into innane rambling.

The bottom line is it doesnt matter what we feel about this situation because we have no control over it. The best you can do is understand what is going on and why so you can deal with it.

 

[Mirai_Hikari]

when you have to mute the games comments cause there nothing but dumb shit like the conversation above lol