Why I'm DISAPPOINTED in my last video.
On Friday, I published a video where I talked about Valve’s new content policy. And I’m just going to state this up front: I understand why people are upset and I take full responsibility. The music /was/ too loud…. Nah. It’s because I obviously didn’t take the time to explain myself well enough.
Let me state this upfront: I believe that censorship of any kind is wrong. Censorship is evil. It harms everyone.
However, there’s big difference between censorship and quality control.
First, the thesis of the video was intended to be that what Valve has done is to intentionally mix up these two very distinct issues. Why? Because responsibility is hard and requires real, actual, human effort. And real, actual, human effort would cut into their profits. They also conflated these problems because they knew there would be fanboys defending their decision as a ‘stance against censorship.’ (When in reality, the fact that they will remove “trolling” or “illegal” content is the VERY DEFINITION of censorship, and quality control has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH IT)
I don’t want Valve to censor controversial, but high-quality titles that have been in development for years, and are worthy of attention.
What I want Valve to do, is to merely say “No thank you,” to any random bloke with a free copy of Unity engine, a weekend of binge-watching a YouTube series called ‘Build your first Unity game’, and who lack ability or a single, original art asset.
In my last video, I used the terms “curation” and “quality control” interchangeably, and I feel like that was a mistake. When i said “curation,” I meant “quality control” in every instance.
Now, there were a ton of comments, tweets and direct messages from people who said my opinion was hypocritical for someone who believes in free and open source software. However, I believe there is fundamentally no contradiction here.
Quality control is what Linus does when he rejects patches to the kernel that break user space. Quality control is what your distro does when it decides “open source project X is too unstable to be included in our repo.”
Censorship would be someone preventing Linus from yelling at people on the kernel mailing list. He’s not censoring developers, and nobody’s censoring him. To conflate the two issues is grossly wrong. The only reason to confuse these two things is if someone in authority wants to justify their laziness and greed behind a smokescreen of free speech.
I’m not bothered by the fact that people think I’m a hypocrite, what bothers me are the people who feel I’m being disingenuous. I literally have no incentive at all to be dishonest with my opinion. I don’t say things to be inflammatory, and I don’t feel like what I believe is cynical, either. There’s way too much cynicism and far too many edgelords in this world.
I say what I believe on the channel because, well, I like to have a conversation with you. Conversation is important. And note, that I’m not some special snowflake who needs a safe space, I’m not a victim when someone calls me a name, and I don’t care what strangers think about me.
But a conversation with someone requires respect. If you believe that “anyone who disagrees with you is lying about what they think,” or you engage in name calling as a means of winning an argument, you’re not worthy of having a conversation with.
I was going to make a video out of this, but I’m done with this topic. So I’m posting it here for everyone to read.