Germany banned Wolfenstein 3D for 30 years because of little icons on flags that reminded them all of that time the whole of Germany was on vacation from 1935-1945.
Eh, if you’re going to outrage-farm over Steam, them following local laws isn’t it. One might instead ask the question why they still operate in Russia in the first place, but that, too, is more of an indictment of the West’s limp-dick economic sanctions. It seems we prefer to stoke the fire and profiteer with military aid. I bet Steam doesn’t censor games in Iran, though.
A videogame had content removed because it doesn't respect a country's laws or mores. The principle is identical everywhere, only the ideological target changes. As an example Germany banned Command & Conquer: Generals in the early 2000s for depicting Iraq warfare during a politically sensitive moment. The EU bans "hate speech" games. China bans games "smearing China's image." Russia bans "extremism". It's the same state backed censorship mechanism, it is only when it is politically beneficial or when it becomes expedient (such as other nations who we treat as the enemy) it is deemed unacceptable.
The rubber law problem is the issue in all these cases: hate speech, extremism or whatever has no fixed definition. It expands when politically convenient, contracts when pressure shifts. Germany 2003: realistic warfare = too political, banned. Germany 2025: same content = acceptable. Russia's "extremism" law stretches to cover LGBTQ+ content, then anti-war speech, then opposition. The principle doesnt change. This article is not a libertarian "lets defend free speech" as much as a Western-centric activist publication.
You cannot logically claim "Russia's censorship is authoritarian oppression" while defending EU (or funnier, the UK authoritarian) hate speech laws as "democratic protection". Both are state-backed content suppression justified through protective rhetoric. The mechanism is identical. If censorship is legitimate when your preferred values are protected, you've simply chosen your censor, you haven't defended free speech.
>You cannot logically claim "Russia's censorship is authoritarian oppression" while defending EU (or funnier, the UK authoritarian) hate speech laws as "democratic protection".
No, I can. One is a repressive, anti-human law designed to push queer people out of society, while another, at least in spirit, prevents incitement of violence against those vulnerable people. They are not the same and the values are not identical. Good and bad things are different.
You claim EU hate speech laws protect vulnerable groups. But 96% of Jewish respondents in Europe experienced antisemitism in 2024 despite decades of anti-negationism and hate speech laws . Antisemitic content online increased thirteen-fold in German during the pandemic, the laws don't work and the censorship of the information just makes it more attractive. Yet these laws remain, which means they're not actually about protection but as control.
Look at how they're actually used. France criminalized calling for BDS, claiming to protect Jews. Lithuania banned advocating for same-sex partnerships under a law claiming to "protect minors". Patriot act was about "protecting". Same protective language. Different targets. The "vulnerable people" you claim to protect become the prosecuted.
Germany proves it even more, a 74-year-old woman was fined thousands of euros for criticizing Germany's immigration policies on Facebook. Germany's authorities prosecute individuals for online speech, with 17,007 hate crimes recorded in 2023, a significant increase from 8,585 in 2019, and most of them are about political disagreements not true hate. There is a whole NGO-state industry whose work is just to stop "misinformation" which just means non-state approved information. The government claims the NetzDG law protects vulnerable immigrants. Instead, it criminalized criticism of immigration policy. Once you grant the state power to define "harm," it becomes a tool against disfavored politics, not protection. And these same tools will be used by the opposite side another day, just like Trump is doing to protect the Jewish Zionists but instead it is to censor universities and immigrants.
>> content moderation policy - which allows “everything” on its store that isn’t defined as “trolling” or “illegal” - is a gift to autocrats who have weaponised the law to achieve their ends.
Well it is illegal as per Russian government.
>> But it won’t block blatantly Russian-backed disinformation games like Squad 22: ZOV, unless a country has passed laws to ban specific propaganda (e.g. two German states banning ‘Z’ as a hate symbol).
Well yes since it's not illegal.
Also: who defines what is disinformation? The author obviously! We can trust him for sure!
>> Time for regulatory action?: As it stands, Steam’s content moderation policies actively strengthen censorship bodies like Roskomnadzor at the expense of its players, its developers, and democracy at large. And with the platform consistently showing that it can’t (and frankly doesn’t want to) get its house in order, it is time for digital content regulators and policy makers to finally bring the Wild West of the global games industry under regulatory control.
Really ironic, since it was the woke people that forced deplatforming of everyone who was not on their woke side and demanded they be banned from work and online platforms.
We all know what woke dictatorial people like the author really want: complete control over store policies under the guise "we are the good guys, and we know what must be banned and what not, so listen to us!".
Steam also blocks perfectly legal games from their platform based on vague rules; famously they blocked VNs that had no adult content whatsoever using same rules as they use for adult content.
at this point of the comment I wanted to google article on the VN it was about but it turned out they did it again, this time with horror game
> Really ironic, since it was the woke people that forced deplatforming of everyone who was not on their woke side and demanded they be banned from work and online platforms.
And everyone should've just said "no, fuck you" back then, as they should now but the issue here is not even related to that problem.
If country deems something illegal, the store can't sell it. Valve is not arbitrator of the law and as long as they limit enforcement of russian law to russian store, all is fine.
If you want to be angry about something Valve does, be angry about them still operating in russia in the first place.
And it all happens in the Russian part of Steam, so... so what? Steam also IIRC censors such things for UAE, and e.g. swastikas in WW2 games for Germany (or was it Australia?) which is... fine?
why usually many people trying to defend Russian Government on hacker news? I'm I missing something?
Idk, they are sadly using the same tools Western democracies have been using recently. One cannot throw a stone from a crystal palace.
Germany banned Wolfenstein 3D for 30 years because of little icons on flags that reminded them all of that time the whole of Germany was on vacation from 1935-1945.
*in Russia
For other examples of censorship: try playing "sleeping dogs" in Germany.
Eh, if you’re going to outrage-farm over Steam, them following local laws isn’t it. One might instead ask the question why they still operate in Russia in the first place, but that, too, is more of an indictment of the West’s limp-dick economic sanctions. It seems we prefer to stoke the fire and profiteer with military aid. I bet Steam doesn’t censor games in Iran, though.
A videogame had content removed because it doesn't respect a country's laws or mores. The principle is identical everywhere, only the ideological target changes. As an example Germany banned Command & Conquer: Generals in the early 2000s for depicting Iraq warfare during a politically sensitive moment. The EU bans "hate speech" games. China bans games "smearing China's image." Russia bans "extremism". It's the same state backed censorship mechanism, it is only when it is politically beneficial or when it becomes expedient (such as other nations who we treat as the enemy) it is deemed unacceptable.
The rubber law problem is the issue in all these cases: hate speech, extremism or whatever has no fixed definition. It expands when politically convenient, contracts when pressure shifts. Germany 2003: realistic warfare = too political, banned. Germany 2025: same content = acceptable. Russia's "extremism" law stretches to cover LGBTQ+ content, then anti-war speech, then opposition. The principle doesnt change. This article is not a libertarian "lets defend free speech" as much as a Western-centric activist publication.
You cannot logically claim "Russia's censorship is authoritarian oppression" while defending EU (or funnier, the UK authoritarian) hate speech laws as "democratic protection". Both are state-backed content suppression justified through protective rhetoric. The mechanism is identical. If censorship is legitimate when your preferred values are protected, you've simply chosen your censor, you haven't defended free speech.
>You cannot logically claim "Russia's censorship is authoritarian oppression" while defending EU (or funnier, the UK authoritarian) hate speech laws as "democratic protection".
No, I can. One is a repressive, anti-human law designed to push queer people out of society, while another, at least in spirit, prevents incitement of violence against those vulnerable people. They are not the same and the values are not identical. Good and bad things are different.
You claim EU hate speech laws protect vulnerable groups. But 96% of Jewish respondents in Europe experienced antisemitism in 2024 despite decades of anti-negationism and hate speech laws . Antisemitic content online increased thirteen-fold in German during the pandemic, the laws don't work and the censorship of the information just makes it more attractive. Yet these laws remain, which means they're not actually about protection but as control.
Look at how they're actually used. France criminalized calling for BDS, claiming to protect Jews. Lithuania banned advocating for same-sex partnerships under a law claiming to "protect minors". Patriot act was about "protecting". Same protective language. Different targets. The "vulnerable people" you claim to protect become the prosecuted.
Germany proves it even more, a 74-year-old woman was fined thousands of euros for criticizing Germany's immigration policies on Facebook. Germany's authorities prosecute individuals for online speech, with 17,007 hate crimes recorded in 2023, a significant increase from 8,585 in 2019, and most of them are about political disagreements not true hate. There is a whole NGO-state industry whose work is just to stop "misinformation" which just means non-state approved information. The government claims the NetzDG law protects vulnerable immigrants. Instead, it criminalized criticism of immigration policy. Once you grant the state power to define "harm," it becomes a tool against disfavored politics, not protection. And these same tools will be used by the opposite side another day, just like Trump is doing to protect the Jewish Zionists but instead it is to censor universities and immigrants.
>> content moderation policy - which allows “everything” on its store that isn’t defined as “trolling” or “illegal” - is a gift to autocrats who have weaponised the law to achieve their ends.
Well it is illegal as per Russian government.
>> But it won’t block blatantly Russian-backed disinformation games like Squad 22: ZOV, unless a country has passed laws to ban specific propaganda (e.g. two German states banning ‘Z’ as a hate symbol).
Well yes since it's not illegal.
Also: who defines what is disinformation? The author obviously! We can trust him for sure!
>> Time for regulatory action?: As it stands, Steam’s content moderation policies actively strengthen censorship bodies like Roskomnadzor at the expense of its players, its developers, and democracy at large. And with the platform consistently showing that it can’t (and frankly doesn’t want to) get its house in order, it is time for digital content regulators and policy makers to finally bring the Wild West of the global games industry under regulatory control.
Really ironic, since it was the woke people that forced deplatforming of everyone who was not on their woke side and demanded they be banned from work and online platforms.
We all know what woke dictatorial people like the author really want: complete control over store policies under the guise "we are the good guys, and we know what must be banned and what not, so listen to us!".
Steam also blocks perfectly legal games from their platform based on vague rules; famously they blocked VNs that had no adult content whatsoever using same rules as they use for adult content.
at this point of the comment I wanted to google article on the VN it was about but it turned out they did it again, this time with horror game
https://www.gamesradar.com/games/horror/after-2-years-and-us...
> Really ironic, since it was the woke people that forced deplatforming of everyone who was not on their woke side and demanded they be banned from work and online platforms.
And everyone should've just said "no, fuck you" back then, as they should now but the issue here is not even related to that problem.
If country deems something illegal, the store can't sell it. Valve is not arbitrator of the law and as long as they limit enforcement of russian law to russian store, all is fine.
If you want to be angry about something Valve does, be angry about them still operating in russia in the first place.
And it all happens in the Russian part of Steam, so... so what? Steam also IIRC censors such things for UAE, and e.g. swastikas in WW2 games for Germany (or was it Australia?) which is... fine?
National laws must only be obeyed if I agree with them.