Total Members Voted: 18
Voting closed: August 16, 2016, 06:26:48 PM
depends on the type of censorship, but usually id say it's wrong
Fuck your poll options.Anyway, what Flee said, and I'd also add that a lot of what people consider "censorship" is not actually censorship at all.During the localization process of a video game, for example, it's not censorship for its developer to change certain elements of the game if they're deemed too inappropriate for international releases, because the game developer mandated it.It's only censorship if a third party comes in and changes shit around without the dev's greenlight. So, for Street Fighter V, when Juri's outfit was made less skimpy, that wasn't censorship--that was Capcom's own decision. It would be like saying Nintendo is censoring Princess Peach all the time, because she never wears skin-bearing outfits.
Localization where they censor the medium just because some are offended = censorship. When people are harassing devs, and they submit = censorship.
Quote from: Tsukuyomi Saber on August 09, 2016, 07:34:16 PMLocalization where they censor the medium just because some are offended = censorship. When people are harassing devs, and they submit = censorship.The reasoning is irrelevant. If the developer mandates the change, it's not censorship. Period.If anything, a developer submitting to the deeds of their buyers is the exact opposite of censorship.
Censorship is acceptable in several different scenarios, such as incitement to violence, NDA's, security clearance, intellectual property rights, harassment, defamation, licensing, endangerment... So I'm not going to vote, because the poll is lacking and doesn't include a "yes, in certain cases" option.
Quote from: Verbatim on August 09, 2016, 07:35:56 PMQuote from: Tsukuyomi Saber on August 09, 2016, 07:34:16 PMLocalization where they censor the medium just because some are offended = censorship. When people are harassing devs, and they submit = censorship.The reasoning is irrelevant. If the developer mandates the change, it's not censorship. Period.If anything, a developer submitting to the deeds of their buyers is the exact opposite of censorship.If it's people who are not the devs who want change, and the devs have to change it because of those people = censorship.
Quote from: Tsukuyomi Saber on August 09, 2016, 07:47:42 PMQuote from: Verbatim on August 09, 2016, 07:35:56 PMQuote from: Tsukuyomi Saber on August 09, 2016, 07:34:16 PMLocalization where they censor the medium just because some are offended = censorship. When people are harassing devs, and they submit = censorship.The reasoning is irrelevant. If the developer mandates the change, it's not censorship. Period.If anything, a developer submitting to the deeds of their buyers is the exact opposite of censorship.If it's people who are not the devs who want change, and the devs have to change it because of those people = censorship.They DON'T have to change it. Ever. They do it because they want to.What you're basically arguing is that game developers don't have a right to personal autonomy when it comes to their own products. They're not ALLOWED to change their products, because YOU said so. You fascist pig.
Quote from: Verbatim on August 09, 2016, 07:56:08 PMQuote from: Tsukuyomi Saber on August 09, 2016, 07:47:42 PMQuote from: Verbatim on August 09, 2016, 07:35:56 PMQuote from: Tsukuyomi Saber on August 09, 2016, 07:34:16 PMLocalization where they censor the medium just because some are offended = censorship. When people are harassing devs, and they submit = censorship.The reasoning is irrelevant. If the developer mandates the change, it's not censorship. Period.If anything, a developer submitting to the deeds of their buyers is the exact opposite of censorship.If it's people who are not the devs who want change, and the devs have to change it because of those people = censorship.They DON'T have to change it. Ever. They do it because they want to.What you're basically arguing is that game developers don't have a right to personal autonomy when it comes to their own products. They're not ALLOWED to change their products, because YOU said so. You fascist pig.They do it because hordes of neurotic busybodies like yourself will flood their social media and corporate sites with vitriol demanding they change whatever triviality might have offended their rigid code of acceptability.
Quote from: ⊿ Eli on August 09, 2016, 06:29:14 PMdepends on the type of censorship, but usually id say it's wrongWhat type of it would you be fine with it.
Quote from: CIS on August 09, 2016, 08:08:14 PMQuote from: Verbatim on August 09, 2016, 07:56:08 PMQuote from: Tsukuyomi Saber on August 09, 2016, 07:47:42 PMQuote from: Verbatim on August 09, 2016, 07:35:56 PMQuote from: Tsukuyomi Saber on August 09, 2016, 07:34:16 PMLocalization where they censor the medium just because some are offended = censorship. When people are harassing devs, and they submit = censorship.The reasoning is irrelevant. If the developer mandates the change, it's not censorship. Period.If anything, a developer submitting to the deeds of their buyers is the exact opposite of censorship.If it's people who are not the devs who want change, and the devs have to change it because of those people = censorship.They DON'T have to change it. Ever. They do it because they want to.What you're basically arguing is that game developers don't have a right to personal autonomy when it comes to their own products. They're not ALLOWED to change their products, because YOU said so. You fascist pig.They do it because hordes of neurotic busybodies like yourself will flood their social media and corporate sites with vitriol demanding they change whatever triviality might have offended their rigid code of acceptability. And they have every goddamn right to do that.That doesn't mean they're being forced, and it doesn't make it censorship.
They do it because they're being shouted down by perceived customers to specifically tailor whatever it is they're selling to whatever political ideal said screeching morons desire.
Furthermore, here's a link to the ACLU's website that defines what censorship is. It specifically mentions that censorship can be carried out via private means.
Quote from: CIS on August 09, 2016, 08:25:44 PMThey do it because they're being shouted down by perceived customers to specifically tailor whatever it is they're selling to whatever political ideal said screeching morons desire.And they have every goddamn right to do that.QuoteFurthermore, here's a link to the ACLU's website that defines what censorship is. It specifically mentions that censorship can be carried out via private means.Wow, thanks. How fucking irrelevant.
"Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups."
Quote from: CIS on August 09, 2016, 08:31:58 PM"Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups." And that's not what's happening. There are no private pressure groups. No one is holding a gun to a Capcom developer's head and saying "Change this or die."
I specifically said they're not having knives held to their throats.
The "private pressure group" in this type of situation is merely the types of angry Twitter mobs that you'd most likely gleefully take part in so you can feel morally righteous and like you just did something important. Just because they're not having their lives or their company's existence directly threatened doesn't mean they can't be pressured into submitting via badgering.
Quote from: Verbatim on August 09, 2016, 08:35:15 PMQuote from: CIS on August 09, 2016, 08:31:58 PM"Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups." And that's not what's happening. There are no private pressure groups. No one is holding a gun to a Capcom developer's head and saying "Change this or die."Tell that to these dudes
Quote from: Jester on August 09, 2016, 08:49:03 PMQuote from: Verbatim on August 09, 2016, 08:35:15 PMQuote from: CIS on August 09, 2016, 08:31:58 PM"Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups." And that's not what's happening. There are no private pressure groups. No one is holding a gun to a Capcom developer's head and saying "Change this or die."Tell that to these dudes Thanks for linking to me to a vague headline instead of the article itself.
Quote from: CIS on August 09, 2016, 08:25:44 PMQuoteFurthermore, here's a link to the ACLU's website that defines what censorship is. It specifically mentions that censorship can be carried out via private means.Wow, thanks. How fucking irrelevant.You clearly got beat, give it up.
QuoteFurthermore, here's a link to the ACLU's website that defines what censorship is. It specifically mentions that censorship can be carried out via private means.Wow, thanks. How fucking irrelevant.
You clearly got beat, give it up.
Poll
Censorship