Valve Censoring Torrent References In Steam Chat 216
dotarray writes It seems Valve is restricting just what you can talk about when using the Steam chat service. Specifically, any reference to a particular torrent site is being stripped from conversation, while mentions of other pages trigger a warning that the site is "potentially malicious." In the wake of website KickassTorrents being taken offline earlier this week, people quickly noticed that references to the torrent site were being stripped from chat - with no warning, notificiation, or acknowledgement that anything is missing. We've seen censorship before, with chat providers blocking certain words, replacing key letters with asterisks or simply substituting inoffensive words for those considered 'problematic.' That's not what Valve is doing here though - the entire message is disappearing, not just the troublesome domain.
Well duh (Score:3, Insightful)
Most pirated games go through the Steam client. Valve obviously wants people to buy games on Steam, not use Steam to play pirated games.
Re:Well duh (Score:5, Informative)
Most pirated games go through the Steam client.
You try to play one of those games on the Steam network, you're gonna have a bad time. Valve will detect your sorry ass and you may lose your whole steam account.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a cat and mouse game, but the pirates have been quite successful from time to time. Download the game content and update from somewhere, and most games can't tell you haven't bought it. At one point steam would completely trust the list of games you owned that was saved on disk, but most of the time there has been a crack of some kind that would convince steam you owned everything. I think there may even be a reverse engineered steam server that you can set up for any number of users to download games
Re: (Score:2)
I've noticed that the older I get, the more willing I am to wait for a Steam sale or even (gasp!) pay full price for a game I really want rather than download a torrent.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Well duh (Score:4, Insightful)
Heck, last year I distinctly remember buying the new Wolfenstein and Assassin's Creed IV Black Flag for less than half the full price, and I had a great time with both of them. I don't have a problem with waiting a little while. Waiting also has two other big benefits for me. First, by the time I buy a game, it has been patched and tweaked and actually runs properly and second, it gives me a chance to upgrade my PC to play the game as it was meant to be played without getting fleeced for premium prices for new components.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's almost as if companies that produce a decent product and treat customers with a little bit of respect are gonna do a lot of business and be successful.
Who knew?
Re: (Score:2)
You might not realize this, but consumers are supposed to have a sense of entitlement when it comes to getting the products they want at an affordable price.
There was a time when companies understood this, but in today's business climate, it seems that the prevalent business model involves making sure your customers don't have any choices. You want to play a game without having a persistent in
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Most pirated games go through the Steam client. Valve obviously wants people to buy games on Steam, not use Steam to play pirated games.
Most pirated games deliberately avoid using the steam client because the steam client likes to screw around with games and this has some bad effects with pirated games (I.E. replacing a cracked .exe with the DRM'd original).
And thats one of the more benign effects.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Exactly. I don't see what the problem is here. If one really wants to have KickassTorrents conversations, I'm sure he can find some other channel to do it.
Do you really think they implemented that filtering function specifically to remove texts containing "KickassTorrents" and that it is hardcoded to that?
The problem isn't that they are removing texts containing "KickassTorrents", the problem is the ones we don't know about.
So, they don't want people to find out about pirated games. How do they feel about people saying bad things about their own games, like informing other users about bugs? What do they think about competitors games, are any of those censored
Re: (Score:1)
remember 31337-speak? Elite-speak, basically replace vowels with numbers and stuff. The moronic RMT bots have been doing this forever on MMORPG's.
As for Why are they talking about torrents, Valve obviously found that people were using it to encourage piracy or they would never have done it. More to the point, pirates often don't like Steam in the first place, so it seems like it's trying to block people from using Steam to distribute piracy torrents rather than to outright block the use of bittorrent, since
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't get excited. Your statement,
seemed to strongly indicate that you believe Steam is a Microsoft product. It was a reasonable assumption for the GP to make.
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't the one confused by his comment. I just said that the person who misconstrued did so with good reason.
I'm able to make sense of poorly-written English, but only because I have professional training and 25 years' experience.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Both.
Re: (Score:3)
The logic you use is similar to that who is suicidal. I want to hurt you by hurting me.
Re: (Score:2)
Good for them (Score:5, Interesting)
It's interesting to see how Valve his handling being the titan in the game distributors market for several years running. I know that not everything they do is best for the long term health of the industry or their consumers, but this deterring piracy on communication channels they sponsor seems pretty reasonable, and overall they've handled things quite well.
Maybe they can come up with a better way of dealing with it instead of just silently removing messages, though. Maybe wag a finger disapprovingly at the person sending the message and don't even make it look like the message got sent from their end.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
"but this deterring piracy on communication channels they sponsor seems pretty reasonable, and overall they've handled things quite well."
Indeed. Let's watch and see what else they start to censor in the future. Slippery slopes are a bitch that way.
If they were going to do this, I'd just as soon they inform people that they ate their message and for what reason. At least then you know what's going on and not having to piece together why your friend isn't responding to what you said.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
So you are using their chat app to talk about how to infringe their copyright, and you think they are in the wrong?
Entitled little bitch much?
Re: (Score:2)
"You know you can download on ka.to, good seeds and everything". Not blocked
"You think the new Piratebay is just a FBI sting now? I hear it's just one guy and everything is shady. You'd have to be crazy go go there now." Blocked.
The smart thing to do would be to have a system that silently flags people's accounts
Re:Good for them (Score:5, Insightful)
False. The Constitution applies to what the GOVERNMENT can do regarding speech. An employer or business is free to censor within certain bounds such as preventing their employees from talking about an upcoming product, internal financial figures and so on.
Further, this is Steam's property. They can do what they want, just as any other business can do with their property. You know those signs which says, "No shoes, no shirt, no service"? Guess what, they're not censoring your right to walk around barefoot. They are only saying on their property you can't do so.
Finally, anyone who didn't think their comments regarding how to not pay Steam for the games they developed wouldn't get censored is an idiot.
Re: (Score:3)
They can do what they want, just as any other business can do with their property.
You over simplify. Can banks just decide to not do business with you and keep your money? There are also laws against discrimination because a business can't just do anything it wants with its property, like put up a sign that says "No Blacks or Jews".
But you are correct about the main premise of your argument, the 1st Amendment applies to the Government or other government regulated entities like common carriers.
Re: (Score:2)
Can banks just decide not to do business with you? Yes. Can they keep your money? No, that would be theft. What does one have to do with the other?
Of course their are anti-discrimination laws, but what 'discrimination' they protect against is very narrowly defined (race, religion, color, gender, sexual orientation).
What makes you think the Constitution applies to 'government regulated entities'? It certainly does not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good for them (Score:5, Informative)
Yes. That's how credit cards get cancelled and mortgages get foreclosed on. Don't you think the bank would just rather you paid them? Because that interest is how they make money.
No, because that is theft. As parent said: "with their property." The money in a bank isn't owned by the bank. It's owned by it's customers. If the bank decides not to do business with you, they must return your property.
Yes, because discrimination on the basis of race or religion is specifically banned. But it's that category that is banned, not discrimination as a whole. Nearly every business has a "right to refuse service" clause or sign. You ever know anybody to get thrown out of a place for being an asshole? Right to refuse service. You just can't refuse service because of age, disability, gender, race, national origin, or religion (among a few other things), but you absolutely can refuse service for nearly everything else. "We don't serve people who are rude." "We don't serve people who bounce checks." "We don't serve people who complain for petty reasons." "We don't serve people without shirt and shoes." "We don't allow food in here." "We don't allow children into R-rated movies."
You know the Soup Nazi? That is not illegal.
Businesses usually have little interest in refusing services in general because it's -- quite literally -- turning money away, but that doesn't mean they don't get to decide who they do business with.
Re: (Score:2)
This. Even in Australia the Soup Nazi would not be illegal. Sure he wouldn't stay in business, but he's doing nothing illegal.
The law is very specific about the reasons CAN'T use to deny service, not about the reasons you CAN use. I can put a sign up saying "This establishment reserves the right to refuse service for any reason" and tell customers to naff off entirely out of whimsy. However if I put up a sign saying "This establishment reserves the right to d
Re: (Score:3)
In America we have free speech. it is against the constitution for them to censor speech in such a way.
You need to re-read the constitution. It's against the constitution for the US government to censor speech. The first amendment does not apply to communication channels provided by a corporation like Valve.
Re: (Score:2)
"In America we have free speech. it is against the constitution for them to censor speech in such a way."
When Valve software becomes the government, then please let us know.
Torrent sites have a good reputation (Score:3, Interesting)
The ratio of legal content vs illegal is 1 to 99%. This would be enough to have torrenting banned.
On the other hand, I've yet to see a torrent site that tries to install crap on your system (download manager, Mc-fee Virus, toolbars...). Even formerly reputable companies like Java and Adobe are doing that crap now. If people keep this up, the crowds will be turning to torrent sites for all their legit content. It's a reputation thing.
Re: (Score:2)
McAfee Virus is a far more appropriate name for it.
Does more damage than any computer virus I've ever actually been infected by.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What the fuck does that have to do with censoring private discussions on the subject that happen to go through the Steam chat client?
I can't say to a friend, "Glad Kickass Torrents got its ass kicked" now without using a different service. Maybe you think that's appropriate but I disagree.
Re: (Score:2)
Without a network think of how much reduced piracy and child porn there would be.
Re: (Score:2)
They've been censoring scam/malware sites for awhile now. Many games have virtual items, some of which have significant value. Scammers seek to steal these items through various techniques including phishing sites that look like Steam's website. Once aware of these sites, Steam chat censors them. It's not silent in that case, but replaces the URL with "{LINK REMOVED}". Of course, then scammers use link shorteners and such to try to continue distributing the malicious links.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I don't see the problem (Score:5, Interesting)
Do you expect to walk into a Walmart and shout out instructions for shoplifting but have people mysteriously unable to hear you?
The problem is not the censorship, it's the covert censorship. With any kind of chat system we expect acknowledgement of a message. I don't care if the message doesn't get through as long as I know about it and as long as I know why.
Re: (Score:2)
If it is done from a company or a none government organization it considered moderation. If it is because of laws or government it is censoring.
When a TV show bleeps out Sware words it is censoring because of the FCC regulations. Valve is trying to maintain a particular image on its message boards so it can and should moderate its boards to prevent it from going bad.
Re: (Score:2)
The same arguments apply for moderation. Moderators very quickly get called out on their shit when they blindly delete posts. Proper moderation has always been about marking a post as deleted and better still marking why.
When a TV show bleeps out a sware word it is the exact opposite of what I'm talking about. That is not shouting into a room where no one can hear you. That's shouting into a room and everyone knowing you said something that was blocked by someone. It's not at all covert. Blocking the link w
Re: (Score:2)
If it is there site, then they should be able to moderate it as they see fit. While we as individuals are entitled to free speech. Such rules do not apply to the distributors. It is probably easier to delete then to correct.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say entitlement. I said calling people out on their shit. A site can do whatever the hell they want. Just like users can, and do (and frequently end up in the news as a result) advertise that the moderation scheme is shady causing messages to disappear into the ether without any reason given.
It's not about correction. It's about getting an error message saying: "This message could not be delivered". I don't even care if the message doesn't give a reason why. Steam isn't the first one to do this, bu
Re: (Score:1)
Umm... police station for discussing shoplifting? I don't think so.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
uh... you CAN shout "fire" in a crowded theatre. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects that right.
You CAN "dirty talk" to a minor, the First Amendment protects that right.
You CAN lie in court, the First Amendment protects that right.
What the First Amendment DOES NOT DO is protect you from the consequences of that exercise of the FREEDOM to say what you want to if it is a violation of other Laws. The Constitution is Supreme.
I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
Re: (Score:2)
That is the fucking stupidest thing I have ever read o
Re: (Score:2)
you have the right to SAY you're going to shoot me in the face. You DO NOT have the right to actually shoot me in the face. That would be attempted murder. Which is AGAINST THE LAW.
Your reading comprehension sucks balls, by the way.
Re: (Score:2)
Second, You claim that I do not have the right to shoot you in the face because it is "AGAINST THE LAW" but in the prior post you cl
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not going to bite because you've already made up your mind and you are WRONG.
Re: (Score:2)
I was born a few years after slavery was abolished (though you wouldn't think it looking at the state of the minimum wage economy). Your argument is invalid.
Re: I don't see the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Only the Constitution doesn't say "except..." The First Amendment is pretty unambiguous.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The current "court interpretations" of unambiguous text is the way we ended up with free speech zones, civil asset forfeiture, warrantless wiretaps, eminent domain for the benefit of private interests, and the rationale that everything is interstate commerce even when it isn't. We strict construction Constitutionalists have taken a lot of shit from those who happen to like their "current" interpretations, calling us mindless Libertarians or anarchists, but you are only one swing vote away from an "interpretation" you can't tolerate. So next time you are robbed by your local policeman who just happens to think you are carrying a bit too much cash to be normal, at least you can pat yourself on the back and say, "Well, at least we can get those dirty talking perverts, or those nasty Megaupload pirates, or those filthy traitors who told the world we are spying on our own people." Just remember that when the words don't say what is clearly written, anybody can twist them to mean what they want the next time around.
This is the only "insightful" comment you have posted.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say that. What I will say is that yes, a private chat server is equivalent to my living room. I can remove you if I don't like what you're saying. That's not to say I want to stop you from saying it, you can say what you want till you're blue in the face, but just not in my private living space. It's my house, my rule, and in my house I am God.
If it were a chat space provided by the State, there would be a First Amendment argument because - and this is long established through the public library sy
Re: (Score:2)
depends on your definition. I'm for personal freedom, but I'm also for the personal responsibility that comes with it. We're all adults here, I assume, we've generally learned (we claim) to not be offended by language, but the Nanny State would have us believe that innocent use of language causes buildings to topple and firearms to discharge themselves and peoples heads to spontaneously explode. Their solution is to try and choke us while saying its for our own good. I say, the Law is settled in the consequ
Re: (Score:2)
I say, the Law is settled in the consequences of language, and it should only come into play if actual, demonstrable physical harm has resulted as a direct result of that language.
Then you will be glad to learn that it is absolutely impossible for any language to cause physical harm as a direct result. In your prior example of "inciting violence", the language wasn't the cause of the harm, the violence was the cause of the harm; and the cause of the violence was the listener's choice, not the speech, or the speaker.
The freedom of speech naturally extends to all speech. Your freedom of speech is respected if and only if you can say whatever you want to say without any change in your l
Re:I don't see the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Valves site, Valves rules, so next week don't be so surprised when a friend messages you back that they bought a game they thought you recommended to them.
it's valves site after all so why not?
Trust your comm channels? End-to-end crypto (Score:1)
it's valves site after all so why not?
And yes, they could do it. (I doubt they'll do it any time soon in practice. But in theory that's entirely possible for them to implement. A la Facebook: "This list of friends are also checking/following[*] this page" - [*] meaning that you once clicked by mistake on the link and now this incident will be used as a tool to pull as many of your friends as possible).
Want to trust your communication channels ? Then you MUST use end-to-end encryption, a la OTR. The only way to transmit your messages in a comple
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
they do need MITM if, as the AC says, the chat is encrypted end-to-end. can't really regex encrypted chat...unless they have the keys.
Re: (Score:2)
Because that goes from private censorship to impersonation, which can run afoul of a lot of laws in a lot of countries even for something as relatively "innocent" as game recommendation.
In this case, Valve is simply refusing to pass on the message to the other party in one circumstance (one specific domain). Not a good thing, but not illegal or even necessarily amoral (though that is up for debate) when done through their own service. In the other circumstance (related
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
That's a pretty poor analogy because no one's leaving anything in a public place on Steam chat, I think it's private chat isn't it? If so then you're analogy is actually akin to two people in Walmart talking about how shoplifting could occur and then someone from Walmart coming over and covering their mouth when they say certain sentences, except even that doesn't fit well because at least the other person in the conversation could see the other person is having their mouth covered when they say certain thi
Re: (Score:2)
when TPB went back up, music didn't even FEATURE in the top downloads. Neither did mainstream or prerelease movies. Any guesses as to what did make the top list?
.
.
.
.
.
.
Linux images. Followed by porn.
Re: (Score:2)
uh... they have stats pages on the website?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Troll? Oh yay, the pro-copyright infringement brigade is out in force today. Why *would* you take The Pirate Bays own stats, which conveniently exonerate themselves, at face value?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: I don't see the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
would you rather I sourced from the MPAA, the BPI, the New York Chamber of Commerce? Because they would get exactly the same data from exactly the same source - and cherrypick that which suits their agenda.
TPB, as has been proved time and again, do not host infringing files. The FI says that's not true. What they mean is it's not convenient. What is convenient for them is the claim that they do, so that is the lie (as in claim proven to not fit the facts) that they push as truth. TPB host infinging files as much as Google host kiddie porn. Why isn't the FBI going after Google for *linking* to kiddie porn?
Re: (Score:2)
You can source it from anywhere you want, but don't expect not to be laughed at if you take the stats given by the website trying desperately to avoid prosecution...
Whether or not TPB hosts "infringing files" is a matter of opinion - the Swedish Government certainly takes a differing stance from yours, in that they have successfully prosecuted the founders for assisting in copyright infringement, and have taken the website down on many occasions.
You have to be fucking insane not to think that the bulk of th
Copyright ifnrigement has a DEFINITION (Score:3)
Copyright infringement is about the distribution of copyrighted material without the authorization of the original copyright holder. It has never been about posting instruction on how to get the file, which is what TPB is. The GP is correct : there is NO infringing file whatsoever, which is why the swedish prosecution tried to make up "an aiding" gambit, as no infringing file can be found on TPB server. As for traffic being majorly about copyrighted material or your pharmacy example, it is legally *irreleva
Re:Copyright ifnrigement has a DEFINITION (Score:4, Informative)
but the simple truth is that they are deliberately aiding and abetting criminal activity.
Copyright infringement is not a crime. It's a tort.
There is a gigantic difference between the two.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright infringement is not a crime.
Here in the USA where Slashdot is hosted, we have criminal copyright infringement.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Would you enact a law allowing UPS to examine everyones goods and redact any references to other postal/courier services?
Bad analogy. A better analogy would be: UPS decides to run a forum or message system that their users/customers can use to communicate about UPS-related services, or issues that come up when you're running mail-order retail, etc. And then they decide to filter out communication that uses THEIR PLATFORM to talk about how to rip off UPS. Nobody's talking about laws, they're talking about what you can do with your own system when people choose to use it to communicate. The government's not even in this pictur
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not offline (Score:5, Informative)
Depends where you live (Score:2)
It's a honeypot: go there, have your IP logged, after some months when you don't expected you're sued. And if they decided they want to make an example, your life is over.
Depends in which jurisdiction you happen to live. In the US, yes maybe.
In other countries depends. It might range from:
- laughing of and throw the **AA's letter in the bin
- to "Sorry guy, but I actually paid the necessary tax in my country" (Russia has a centralised - and very cheap - copyright tax, left over from the soviet era. In France, there's jurisprudence that the "blank media tax" imposed on most sold blank media is supposed to pay back for anything that you download and store there. Etc.)
Re: (Score:3)
Doe lawsuits were massively dismissed by a judge last January. I wrote an article on it and it was buried to make way for Kim Kardashian's latest arse measurement.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a honeypot: go there, have your IP logged, after some months when you don't expected you're sued. And if they decided they want to make an example, your life is over. The internet as we knew it is dead: stasinet took its place. Watch what you say, citizen.
No, it's not. I forget which source it was (I think TorrentFreak), but they interviewed the CEO who said that they are regularly changing their domain on purpose. Problem with .so domain might have hastened their schedule but it would have happened anyway.
The person who runs the site had no reason to say that if it weren't true. The Canadian authorities might be able to put a gag order on people under some circumstances but they can't force somebody to lie in public.
Re: (Score:2)
So what? Do you realized that your IP address and more is probably logged for every web site you visit?
Nothing will come from going to Kickass.to. It's not illegal and there is no illegal content there.
However, it's rather trivial for anyone, including copyright holders, to collect the IP addresses of people serving files with bittorrent because the sources you are downloading from are displayed in the bittorrent program.
No web browser needed, no honeypot neede
Re: (Score:2)
1.)How does going to the kickass.to website make you an illegal filesharer?
2.)Why bother building a honeypot when they could just launch uTorrent and get a list of IP addresses that are actually serving the copyrighted material? Which is exactly what the Copyright Alert System [slashdot.org] has been doing for 2 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if it was a honey pot so long as the torrent files were good it wouldn't matter. VPN's are pretty cheap and easy to use. Simply use a VPN service so that your actual IP address never enters into the picture. For bonus points you can use a VPN server located in another country that doesn't recognize US copyright law.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? They'll sue you for downloading a file that has absolutely no infringing copyright and that is generated by a computer? A file that simply describes a set of other files, and their hashes?
Get a grip.
That's like arresting you because someone said they saw you walk around in a suburb where drugs can be bought on the street.
They haven't learned the lesson. (Score:2, Interesting)
How many times do we have to teach idiots the lesson?
1. Create a service.
2. It gets popular.
3. Apply heavy handed censorship.
4. The Streisand Effect causes the censored items to propagate further (see: TFA)
5. Lose the damn service by hemorrhaging users due to bad press.
This day and age the profit step is Zeroth, gotta have money already to build popular platforms now.
Re:They haven't learned the lesson. (Score:4, Informative)
How many times do we have to teach idiots the lesson?
1. Create a service.
2. It gets popular.
3. Apply heavy handed censorship.
4. The Streisand Effect causes the censored items to propagate further (see: TFA)
5. Lose the damn service by hemorrhaging users due to bad press.
This day and age the profit step is Zeroth, gotta have money already to build popular platforms now.
The story goes more like this:
1. Create a service based on user supplied content, everything from YouTube to TPB.
2. It gets popular because of illegally shared content, since most people ignore copyright law.
3. You get big enough to get noticed and they threaten you with very expensive lawsuits
4. You apply heavy handed censorship to keep them from putting the thumbscrews on you
5. Discover that your users are fleeing while the copyright goons are never happy.
6. Service collapses from dwindling income, high legal costs and closes doors.
The only exception is if you get bought out by someone with deep enough pockets, like when Google bought YouTube. I don't see Steam having the same problem though as they deliver games from publishers, who pick the channels they'd like to publish through. I expect that soon torrents will be known as t0rrents on Steam Chat and the world will carry on as before.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Censoring private messages? (Score:2, Informative)
Is this about public forum, or a private chat between two people? If it's the latter, I don't see how this is acceptable.
Alpha [space] Papa India Tango Yankee (Score:5, Funny)
Tango Hotel Alpha Tango [space] Sierra Uniform Charlie Kilo Sierra [Dot] [space] [space] India Foxtrot [space] Oscar November Lima Yankee [space] Tango Hotel Echo Romeo Echo [space] Whiskey Alpha Sierra [space] Alpha [space] Whiskey Alpha Yankee [space] Tango Oscar [space] Golf Echo Tango [space] Papa Alpha Sierra Tango [space] India Tango [Dot]
Bad idea - All negatives for Valve, for users. (Score:2)
I think this is a significant misstep for Valve. There is zero realistic expectation it will provide any benefit and it has a huge potential for negative effects. Valve has built Steam into the 800lb gorilla of the digital distribution of games (and now, some software as well), making generally good decisions. However, this is one of their rare blunders that cannot help anyone involved.
Steam thrives due to a multifaceted system of technical and logistical policies that one could consider "open handed" in
Streisand Effect (Score:2)
Ok, so, they want to censor, the best response is for them to feel a strong, immediate Streisand Effect.
I have no interest in tormenting or torrent sites in general, but since they're attempting to silence it, I now really want to know what domain(s) they're trying to cover up.
Re: (Score:2)