Comment by dragontamer | Hacker News Reader

Comment by dragontamer | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Here's my problem.

If a developer (lets say, Koei Tecmo games), decides to make a video game (such as Dead or Alive 6) slightly less sexy than a previous video game (such as Dead or Alive 5), is that "censorship" ??

Or is this a *COMPLETELY DIFFERENT* discussion, and the "censorship" trolls are just trying to cause outrage in a completely unrelated subject matter?

Ditto with Nintendo and their treatment of Pyra & Mythra in Xenogears vs Smash Ultimate. Its like Smash Ultimate is aimed at a younger audience, so Nintendo wanted those characters to have slightly less sex appeal in Smash Ultimate, while having slightly more sex appeal in Xenogears.

So yelling "censorship" at the top of your lungs because you don't like Pyra's tights in Smash Ultimate is just... counterproductive. (For those unaware: The original character design doesn't have tights, so she shows a bit more thigh in Xenogears. So the controversy is whether or not adding the tights to Smash Ultimate is "censorship").

--------

That's the thing about "censorship". Its outrage trolling these days. You yell censorship not to make a point or to move the discussion forward. You yell it to close off the discussion and derail it. Its a troll move, not really about discussing underlying issues.

No, making your game slightly less sexy is not censorship if it was your own choice.

If you decide not to say something, this is not impinging on your freedom of speech, it is you using your freedom to make that decision. Some people call this self-censorship which I do not count as censorship.

When I decide not to talk politics at the office or at home party that might be self-censorship but in reality is my own choice.

Yes, censoring trolls that say vaccines are harmful is still censorship, regardless of how sure you feel about being right.

Understand that any idea had to start at some point with a single person or small number of people. Women demanding their right to vote, it had to start somewhere. It also means everybody else was of another opinion.

Suppressing speech, beliefs, just because you don't agree with them risks to cut those movements before they have ability to gain traction and in effect slow human progress.

Self-censorship is censorship. If you know stating some position (I support candidate X) is going to result in being harassed, death threats or other injury and you choose to not engage in speech, that is still being censored.

You made decision to not get involved in the conflict. That's not censorship.

Have others been allowed to state that position? Has some body tried to suppress that speech? If yes, then they (but not you) have been subject to censorship.

I was trying to remember the name for this when I wrote the original comment, and now I recall it.

A chilling effect.

It started as a legal concept but it applies to censorship as well. It's sufficient to count as censorship if you simply punish legal speech sufficiently that the populace self-censors.

[1]: https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/897/chilling-effect

Intimidation is an effective form of censoring.

Speech has consequences otherwise it wouldn't be worth speaking. Whether or not you want to accept those consequences is not censorship.

Yeah. People forget free speech does not mean consequence-free speech.

> Whether or not you want to accept those consequences is not censorship

So if whenever someone expresses a certain opinion, they received mass amounts of threats against their personal well being, by non-government actors, you would not say that this speech has been chilled/censored?

Are you aware of the concept of how certain actions (such as mass threats) can have a chilling effect on speech?

If you don't want to speak because of the consequences, that is not censorship. And threats of violence are already against the law.

Anything other than threats of violence is someone else's free speech.

> And threats of violence are already against the law

But.... These types of things also cause a chilling effect on other people's speech right?

Do you understand how it is possible to stop large amounts of people from engaging in speech, if non-government actors make threats against their well being?

Do you understand this concept of how censorship can be done by chilling speech through the process of violent threats, even by non-government actors?

> because of the consequences

What if those consequences are violent threats (or even attacks!), by non-government actors, on you and your family?

You really would not call that censorship, if no-one was willing to engage in certain speech, due to these violent threats by non-government actors?

It's chilling but it's not censorship. You're not prevented from speaking, you just choose not too.

Extremely famous people have changed the world through their speech and died for it. They should not have died but they were also explicitly not censored.

You're just arguing over the meaning of words. I agree with you that threats of violence over speech is awful. And thankfully it is against the law, as it should be.

But that's also the most extreme -- we're mostly arguing about people who don't feel like they should have to answer for their speech rather than being violently threatened.

> You're not prevented from speaking, you just choose not too.

That a weird definition of censorship.

Imagine if someone were to say "You aren't being censored. The government is just threatened to kill you, for your speech, after you say it. You can say whatever you want, and it won't be stopped. You will just suffer consequences (such as when the government kills you), afterwords for your speech. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences!"

I think that basically everyone would call the situation that I just described, as censorship.

The situation of government death squads, killing people for their speech, is probably the most clear example of censorship that I could think of, even if they do it, after the fact.

I am not sure what could possibly even qualify as censorship, if the example I gave doesn't count.

So I am not sure why you are basically saying that violent threats, that discourage speech, are not an example of censorship.

> If a developer (lets say, Koei Tecmo games), decides to make a video game (such as Dead or Alive 6) slightly less sexy than a previous video game (such as Dead or Alive 5), is that "censorship" ??

Is it in all releases or just the US and European releases? I remember people complaining that just the Western releases of some games were censored.

Since games are basically global these days (since the Japanese version must work with the European version and must work with the USA version for online play), its a blanket decision that applies globally.

If it's just cosmetic changes then not really. People can mod their copies, use their own models and remain compatible with others.

edit: I'm rate limited, responding here:

I just pointed out that versions don't have to be the same to play online. I remember people complaining that the releases were different, so I'm just asking.

The typical gamer can't really mod games on modern consoles like XBox Series X or PS5.

Sure, a dedicated fan can do that. But when you consider the outrage is from typical people (who do not have the technical skill to implement these mods), then it makes more sense.

Except it is censorship and it's happening because a vocal minority of Western audiences demanded it.

https://nichegamer.com/2018/10/27/new-sony-censorship-policy...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com