So devs not only have to give Steam 30% percent of every sale, but they also have to provide the additional labour of keeping hate speech of the platform in perpetuity.
If Valve doesn’t want to do moderation, they shouldn’t have got into the social media business. It’s their platform and they’re ultimately responsible for it.
Social media is an apt comparison, as Steam is at the size where human moderation isn’t really viable so they’d have to use AI like everyone else in that space.
And I’d rather a few anti-woke weirdos shout into the void than have to type “unalive” in the Steam forums.
Not to mention if Valve moderated every game developers would complain about Valve stepping on their toes and moderating their forum in a way they dislike.
Some dev theoretically might not like a mod decision Valve theoretically makes, so the only logical solution is to expect every single dev that publishes on the platform to commit to moderating Valve’s game-specific forums forever.
Yes, good moderation is expensive. Externalising that cost onto devs is, frankly, exploitative. Also, “a few anti-woke weirdos” is a massive understatement. The modern reactionary movement is heavily tied to gaming and Steam plays a major role in that.
Iceblade02@lemmy.world 1 hour ago
The developers can choose to lock down and effectively disable discussions entirely if they want.
Steam simply provides devs a service, easy access to host a forum for their game w/o having to manage that separately. Using it is completely optional.