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.

Why is Steam even operating in Russia? Isn’t Russia under sanction so rest of the world doesn’t do business there?

Argument in support: the venn diagram of Steam users and VPN users in Russia approaches a circle, so for the vast majority of Steam users in Russia this is a non-event and for the rest it's a nudge in the right direction.

Assuming that it works based on IP location, not account. I sadly cannot RTFA.

Human rights are very expensive in russia.

*in Russia

why usually many people trying to defend Russian Government on hacker news? I'm I missing something?

For other examples of censorship: try playing "sleeping dogs" in Germany.

iirc Steam also removed a Hong Kong game at the behest of the CCP. Which sucks. But as far as game companies go, there are worse.

How could we hope to solve the alignment issue in AI when we're so terribly bad at it as a society?

Really it just makes yet another data point of "If buying means you still are not allowed to access, then pirating is not stealing."

Owning something on someone else's moods as terms is not ownership.

Imagine if Steam was providing food as a service: "Access to honey is no longer allowed in your country."

Alternative title: "Steam obeys the laws of countries it operates in"

Notice Apple and Google did not comply. Steam DID comply. Shame on Valve contributing to the murder of gay men and women in Russia.

>> 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!".

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.