Alex Jones is profiting from his new game on Steam — while refusing to pay the Sandy Hook families he defamed
Alex Jones is profiting from his new game on Steam — while refusing to pay the Sandy Hook families he defamed
Following his trial for defamation of the families of the children and school staff killed in the Sandy Hook massacre, conspiracy theorist Alex Jones is using Valve Corp.’s Steam, the world’s largest digital distribution platform for PC games, to sell an Infowars-themed video game. Jones claims to h...
Following his trial for defamation of the families of the children and school staff killed in the Sandy Hook massacre, conspiracy theorist Alex Jones is using Valve Corp.’s Steam, the world’s largest digital distribution platform for PC games, to sell an Infowars-themed video game. Jones claims to have earned hundreds of thousands in revenue from the video game, yet he has refused to pay the Sandy Hook families. Alex Jones: NWO Wars also mirrors and cartoonishly repackages the conspiracy theorist’s regularly violent, hateful rhetoric despite the platform’s policies against hate speech.
You're viewing a single thread.
Valve allows this?
Valve allows a lot of games I’d question like the Kyle riddenhouse game or whatever that loser is that went across state borders to shoot people.
Not sure this is a valve problem. The courts are simply going to have to seize his assets.
I mean, it’s just a game. The shitty part isn’t on Steam’s side; It’s on Alex hiding funds and refusing to pay for the lawsuits he lost.
Valve will allow anything if they can profit from it.
War is profitable. So I hear.
I mean... Half the games on steam are about war
Valve is a soulless corporation that only cares about money. Why wouldn't they?
Yeah true
To the best of my knowledge Valve allows basically everything that's not outright illegal. They aren't nearly as much of a "good" corporation as they're often framed as. They'll happily provide a platform for and take their 30% from anyone, including racists, misogynists, homophobes, etc.
Or maybe they don't see it's their place to gatekeep the store based on their own morals. If you start - where do you draw the line? Some examples like such games may be obvious, but there will be a lot more that are less so.
If people disagree with the message - nobody forces them to buy it after all and you can block any game from even showing up for you in the store, in my opinion it's plenty enough from the valve's part. I'd rather be the judge myself as to what I want and what I don't want to see and play, rather than any corporation.
They used to disallow adult games, they don’t allow NFT or crypto.
They have drawn plenty of lines, and moved them when it benefits them. They are just like any other corporation, they just hide it really well and the fans forgive or hide the rest for them.
Didn't they also rule against AI artwork? Seems that where their pocket book and legal worries are concerned, Valve treads lightly. Moral concerns and societal obligations? Not so much.
They also told a dev to stop developing a game since if they gave the go ahead Nintendo could potentially go after them.
They care about money more than anything else, just like any other corporation.
I don't think you need to care about money more than anything else to realize that avoiding a potential lawsuit from a notoriously litigious and powerful company is a wise decision
They could have given a different answer, or worked with them to find a solution, but they went with the cheapest and easiest.
As I said earlier, fans excuse and hide the rest.
Are you talking about the dolphin emulator per chance?
Pretty sure they're talking about Portal 64
Portal 64, they used the non open source code/tools, so Nintendo does have a bit of a case, hence why they are hesitant to give permission after the dev asked them.
One of those if they never asked, probably wouldn’t be an issue since valve never “knew of it”.
No, someone was developing a fan demake of a valve game for the Nintendo 64, and since the tools to develop a game for the Nintendo 64 aren't legally available and it's being used for valve's IP then nintendo would be able to go after valve.
Thats a really silly take IMO. How could Nintendo goes after valve (a third party).
It sounds like Portal 64 would simply have legal claims for both Valve and Nintendo against the developer.
The issue is the dev asked Valve for permission, so if they give the go ahead Nintendo has a case that valve condoned and allowed it.
If the dev used the open source tools it wouldn’t matter, they used the proprietary Nintendo tools that aren’t publicly available.
All right, I’m not great on coding but surely you can make your own tool that can compile into a game that can get a Nintendo 64 to work without using Nintendo’s tools which I am assuming is the problem
There is open source tools, but to port everything over would take too much time.
NFT and crypto would shoehorn in on their gun skin casino they market to children
I find the "where do you stop" argument to be riddled with holes. Laws are essentially written to explicitly outline boundries and moderation policies are basically just internal laws. Like Canadian law has very specific laws regarding what constitutes hate speech, here is what that looks like.
First you outline protected grounds. In Canada this is race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, genetic characteristics, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted. (note: pardons are only available via democratic votes or through appeals in Canada)
There's a stage where you determine what context stuff is in. Like whether it is being performed publicly or privately but marketing a video game is definitely publicly so in tgis context we can skip to it's last part where you explicitly define hate speech. Hate speech is rhetoric that :
-
Describes group members as animals, subhuman or genetically inferior
-
Suggests group members are behind a conspiracy to gain control by plotting to destroy western civilization
-
Denying, minimizing or celebrating past persecution or tragedies that happened to group members
-
Labelling group members as child abusers, pedophiles or criminals who prey on children Blaming group members for problems like crime and disease
-
Calling group members liars, cheats, criminals or any other term meant to provoke a strong reaction including usage of known slurs in the context of intended harm to group members.
These rules likely wouldn't touch some hateful rhetoric that sneaks through under the wire disguised in very abstracted metaphor but it creates a pretty distinct pass fail bar that would catch explicit hate speech on their platform.
By those rules we can’t even criticize Hamas or Houthis
Yes you can.
Those groups are not fully in religious in nature but represent in part a political movement with a history of violence. As long as the ire is not placed on the entirety of the faith, a particular sect that is enacting it's ideology based on violence is not a criticism based from the religion but by the actions of the group as a political and military force. Still not cool to infer they are genetically inferior or sub human or even that they are all pedophiles or something but the fact that they have been actually commiting specific crimes as an organized group means that they are free game to be critiqued for their crimes.
You can also actively critique the writings and dogma of a religion itself but the hate speech portion doesn't kick in until imply that the people who follow it are mentally ill, inferior, predisposed to crime or all going to enact all the practices listed in their holy texts that represent a modern illegal practice etc. etc. etc.
There is a distinction between nationality and government/ politics as well. You can absolutely exercise free critique of someone as long as it is not based on the criteria of their national origin. As long as you stick to talking about the facts of what specific individuals or political groups have actually been accredited as doing you are in the clear.
-
The problem with that is that providing a platform and a revenue stream is providing support. Whatever the intent is, that is the result. The issue isn't what I see on the Steam store, it's providing a platform at all.
And yes, obviously there's the question of where to draw the line. But not drawing one at all means providing support for the Alex Joneses of the world. There's no way around that. And I don't think that that's a worthwhile trade.
Valve allows basically everything that's not outright illegal
While true, and I agree it's the right thing to do, some things like this and the Rittenhouse game are in a weird murky gray area where one could argue that it's inciting violence etc. And if that someone is a lawyer, they could convince a judge/jury that it is illegal.
I agree that they should allow anything that isn't illegal, but people say this like it's black and white, and legality very much is not black and white.
This is too bad, but yes. They are like any other large corporation, I suppose -- motivated primarily by greed.
Unless it pisses off the Chinese government, like the game Devotion that was released from a Taiwanese developer. But I don't think Steam has a high ground so much as it has good PR while not being extremely greedy. In contrast, GOG also removed it, which sort of discredited any high ground they had.
Why not? It’s not like the kids are going to boycott them. Boycotts are only for easy to refuse things. Or things that sound good in a instagram post.
Not for actual thinks they like and can’t live without.
That's how boycotts have always worked. Boycotts have only been successful when people already didn't like the thing they were boycotting.
I looovvveee tollhouse cookies, crunch bars, KitKats and stouffer’s French bread pizzas but I still don’t buy them, even though they are like the only people to make a wide range of frozen dinners, and I am not even a little bit salty about it, definitely, not at all…
So yeah, some people do stick to their morals over creature comforts.
Even when it really sucks.
I did just remember Schwann’s is a thing though, so maybe nestle is good for something at least.
And you're just one person. Clearly, your boycott is ineffective against Nestlé. Nestlé seems to be doing fine.
ROFL…. So boycotts are only for people who lack the balls to stand up against the things they like?
Yes and no. They're obviously more universal, but historically, they only actually work against things people already don't like.
True… god I hate people so much.
@politics @GilgameshCatBeard Hate is a pretty strong world
Edit: Nvm I understand now!
Valve allowing that dingus to sell a game while refusing to pay his victims families?
Sounds like a good reason to boycott to me.
But no one will.
Oh, I understand now! Yes, that would be an excellent reason for a boycott, but it never works because people never seem to be willing to sacrifice even the smallest amount of convenience for the greater good. I'd be in, and a lot of others probably would be too, but how does one even organize something like that? I think that's another part of the problem. For a boycott to work, it has to be well planned and organized.
I boycott Nestlé, and I have ran into someone in the world who does the same.
So in my little town if there is a chance that the two of us ran into each other at the same Walmart, right as I was explaining to my kid why we couldn’t buy that type of bottled water, I think that there are a bunch of us boycotting nestle while unorganized.
Overtime cents add up to dollars, even if we can’t bring them down, we can still help them not grow as quickly.
Exactly my thoughts. Well said. Though, under normal circumstances, people would be absolutely outraged by this and the shockwave would be spreading across all platforms to boycott immediately-
but mUh gAmEz?!
So…. It won’t happen.