3 ms·

Ah, great, another company that wishes to profit off content while attempting to wash its hands of the implications of that content. Offering something for sal

by nimish 8y ago

Ah, great, another company that wishes to profit off content while attempting to wash its hands of the implications of that content. Offering something for sale on a platform, or store, or "aggregator" as we're now calling it, is endorsement. If you take their money, you take the rest.

jstarfish 8y ago
I'm not understanding your objection with this. They distribute explicitly legal video games for a small take. They draw the line at supporting anything illegal. What are the implications that are so damning to you?
- nimish 8y ago
  Legality and morality and not the same. There are lots of things that are legal that are morally dubious or unethical: payday loans, for one. Just because the law allows it, doesn't make it a moral thing to do.
StanislavPetrov 8y ago
Obviously you aren't one of those, "I disagree with what you say but would fight to the death to protect your right to say it", people. Personally I applaud Steam for their willingness to let adults make their own decisions about what content they want to purchase and consume, rather than outsourcing that decisions to the loudest mobs. Given the nature of modern society I've no doubt that Steam will face attacks from many, like yourself, who would prefer that Valve act as the Thought Police. I'm hopeful that they have the backbone to stick with this policy and weather the storm.
- nimish 8y ago
  I am totally one of those people. My issue is with Valve attempting to wash their hands of any consequence of selling some of these games. If you take someone's money, you are endorsing their content. This is the exact opposite of thought policing: Valve wishes that you decouple endorsement from sales, which is a hugely radical thing. Free speech does not apply to private platforms. The game developers whose titles were banned could easily sell them elsewhere. But Valve has chosen to endorse them, so they have to take on any consequences.

by nimish 8y ago

jstarfish 8y ago

I'm not understanding your objection with this. They distribute explicitly legal video games for a small take. They draw the line at supporting anything illegal. What are the implications that are so damning to you?

nimish 8y ago
Legality and morality and not the same. There are lots of things that are legal that are morally dubious or unethical: payday loans, for one. Just because the law allows it, doesn't make it a moral thing to do.

StanislavPetrov 8y ago

Obviously you aren't one of those, "I disagree with what you say but would fight to the death to protect your right to say it", people. Personally I applaud Steam for their willingness to let adults make their own decisions about what content they want to purchase and consume, rather than outsourcing that decisions to the loudest mobs. Given the nature of modern society I've no doubt that Steam will face attacks from many, like yourself, who would prefer that Valve act as the Thought Police. I'm hopeful that they have the backbone to stick with this policy and weather the storm.

nimish 8y ago
I am totally one of those people. My issue is with Valve attempting to wash their hands of any consequence of selling some of these games. If you take someone's money, you are endorsing their content. This is the exact opposite of thought policing: Valve wishes that you decouple endorsement from sales, which is a hugely radical thing. Free speech does not apply to private platforms. The game developers whose titles were banned could easily sell them elsewhere. But Valve has chosen to endorse them, so they have to take on any consequences.