Is being against censorship really supporting censorship against those who take part in censorship? Well if taking part in censorship is no different than speech or another way of expressing yourself then the answer to that question is yes. But when a store is taking part in censorship, what they are doing goes beyond just expressing themselves. :) A store taking part in censorship is an abuse of power that affects the lives of others in a forceful way. It's like playing god with other people. So the answer to your question is no. There is no censorship occurring if a store is pressured into not taking part in censorship. The store is not being pressured into not being able to express itself. The store is being pressured into not playing god, basically and I see nothing wrong with that. Very clever of you to try to make censorship appear no different than a person expressing himself. :P No, when there is simply speech, people's lives aren't affected in a forceful way. People aren't interfering with your life when they are simply expressing themselves. Walking by a radio and hearing a song play with lyrics that disgust you, doesn't affect your life in a forceful way. People playing a game like Hatred in their homes, doesn't affect your life in a forceful way. Someone making it difficult for you to gain access to the speech etc you want IS AFFECTING YOUR LIFE IN A FORCEFUL WAY. They are using force. They are being bullies. They are trying to push you around.

And blowback from those who are against censorship may be just as weak as a blowback from SJWs. This is a possibility. But because there will be a blowback no matter what, it would be wiser decision to choose the right path and that is the path against censorship. So history doesn't remember you as some evil control freak. And when you are on the moral high ground, it's a lot easier to defend yourself. :) It's not easy to defend yourself when you are on the wrong side.


I will give you an example of a store simply expressing itself. Imagine you walk into a video games store and on one shelf, there are a dozen copies of Hatred. And the owner of this store thinks, Hatred is an evil game. So under that shelf with the Hatred copies, there is a sign hanging. On this sign, it says "We recommend you do not buy this game because this game is evil blah blah". That is a store simply expressing itself. And pressuring that store into not having that sign hung up under the shelf would be censorship.

I'm not the one who called it censorship, you did, and I don't think you've yet made a case for a storefront deciding what it wants to and what it doesn't want to sell being censorship. However, the case can may be made for it being a restriction to freedom of expression by forcing a storefront to sell specific games that they don't want to.
Steam is not god, it can't play god, a game not featuring on steam doesn't mean you can't buy it everywhere else, so again, it isn't censorship. It'd be like Tom Cruise refusing to relay your message about illuminati raeliens eating our souls to his followers, and then you yelling at him for censorship.

Show me where is says where Valve is obligated to put any Greenlit title up for sale and I'll believe you. Steam has a right to decide what they sell and don't sell, this isn't the first or the last title that they've decline to sell. Walmart is a family store but that doesn't stop them from selling violent movies or violent video games either. What policy do you want Valve to explain? It's their store, should they not be able to exercise their own freedom in selling what they choose to?

It was put best something else that I'll repeat here. The devs of Hatred can exercise free speech and develop their game but Steam doesn't have to provide the microphone.

I'm exercising my freedom right now by calling you a stupid ass hat. Nothing wrong with that, right?

With your definition of censorship every single brick and motar store is doing censorship all the time. Because no store can sell every product (even in one segment). There are just too many. So they always have to decide which ones to sell and which ones they don't. What does it have to do with censorship?

Resorting to name calling when you run out of things to defend your argument. --golfclap--
GoG is promoting censorship because there many titles that they CHOOSE not to sell.

I don't need to make a case for a store deciding not to sell something because if offends them being censorship. Because it is censorship according to what the world considers censorship... Censorship is censorship. From the wikipedia article on censorship. "Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions."
Not selling something because it makes some people butt hurt = suppression.

"However, the case can may be made for it being a restriction to freedom of expression by forcing a storefront to sell specific games that they don't want to."
That case can NOT be made. Not at all. I already explained why in my previous post.

You do realize, you can play god without being god? Of course, Steam is not god.

"a game not featuring on steam doesn't mean you can't buy it everywhere else,"
Yes, these words are correct. But why do you think there is only censorship if it is impossible to buy a game? There are many levels of censorship.

"so again, it isn't censorship"
It is censorship because censorship doesn't always mean state censorship or censorship that is almost 100% effective.

"It'd be like Tom Cruise refusing to relay your message about illuminati raeliens eating our souls to his followers, and then you yelling at him for censorship"
Tom Cruise is not a store.
HAHAHA, you wish.

And I was trying to make a point. You failed to see it. :( And GOG isn't promoting censorship. Find out what censorship means and then you will see they aren't taking part in censorship. And if they are taking part in censorship, it's to avoid breaking laws and I understand.

Wrong. That is not my definition of censorship. Here is my definition of censorship.

"Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions."

I never said censorship is not selling a game because a store doesn't have shelf space for it. No cookies for you, ever again.

The keyword of the Wikipedia article are "governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions". Steam is none of the above. It's a private corporation. And please don't tell me it falls under other groups and institutions. This phrase is used to describe stuff like churches, political parties and other group that have a heavy impact on a society or a country.

Of course it falls under "other groups". You think because Valve is also a private corporation, it is not capable of suppressing speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient? So if a corporation is suppressing speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient, then what do we call that? Shouldn't we call it censorship considering the outcome is the same? OR does being a corporation magically make everything they do, "business" only and nothing else? And one could also say, a store has authority. So Steam could also fall under "authorities". If you look for the definition of "authority", you will find that there are many. Authorities don't just mean, the police, judges, etc

"authority" from dictionary.com

"1.the power to determine, adjudicate, or otherwise settle issues or disputes; jurisdiction; the right to control, command, or determine."

A group of one. :D

Valve, including Steam is a collection of people. They are a group. I don't understand your post.

People need to understand that Steam is a software, not a person or persons. Valve made Steam, Valve is a group of people.

TL;DR: Valve = People. Steam = Software.
Steam doesn't decide jackshit. Except when to work, which it never does 80% of the time.

Valve is a business entity, I don't believe they behave as a group of people in terms of deciding their course of action.

They behave like a business entity of course but they are still a group of people. They can fall under many different categories. Business entity, group, corporation, authority, organization etc.

When I say Steam, I mean Valve. I'm sure most people mean Valve when they say Steam. It's an easy mistake to make.

Valve have the right to sell or not sell whatever they want. Game looks like trash.