Valve Censoring Torrent References In Steam Chat

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.

Comments

Well duh

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

No, Steam is a cloud-based service. Steam cannot be used to distribute piracy torrents. We are only talking about sharing external KAT links in the chat.

Re:Well duh

[Anonymous Coward]

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?
If they want to censor the chat, fine, but at least provide us with a list of the words that aren't allowed.
It's like the ESL statement "If we told you what the chat rules were it would be easier for you to circumvent them."

Re:Well duh

[PopeRatzo]

I find I'm waiting for the Christmas blowouts typically, and until them I'm loading up on the $20 indie titles.

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.

I don't see the problem

[tsotha]

Would you go to Walmart's site and leave links pointing to instructions for shoplifting at Walmart? Valve's site; Valve's rules.

Re:I don't see the problem

[gl4ss]

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?

Re: I don't see the problem

[ihtoit]

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: I don't see the problem

[Richard_at_work]

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: I don't see the problem

[fuzznutz]

You're not allowed to scream "fire!" in a crowd,
you're not allowed to "dirty talk" to a minor,
you're not allowed to lie in court,
... and that list goes on and on.

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.

[...] most people who complain about the restriction of their free speech either have no clue, or forcefully refuse to acknowledge that that freedom is only valid against the gouverment (sic), not their fellow man.

This is the only "insightful" comment you have posted.

Re:Good for them

[smooth wombat]

it is against the constitution for them to censor speech in such a way.

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.