Click to get the RSS master feed

Dumb things pop-culture critics say: Battlefield V & Female Soldiers

September 19, 2018, 09:39:21 PM by kat

"Women didn't fight in World War II"

Fact check: Women did not fight in World War II.
Checked as: False.

The purpose of rhetorically loaded questions like 'did women fight during World War II' is to frame arguments so opposition is impossible or seen as indefensible, the answers given, whatever they may be, how factually accurate or grounded in reality they are, simply do not matter because the question, or statement, is rhetorical, not meant to be queried or answered. When understanding and knowledge, educating (of self or others), is not the goal, objecting in any sense is to deny the statement, and its makers, veracity and rhetorical absolutism; some women did fight, so women fought, their contributions to combat are equal to and no less valid than men's, so no argument is to be had.

This rhetorical assertion is false, but again this never mattered.

At the heart of this argument is a motte and bailey fallacy (castle/keep) in which a contentious proposition (motte/keep) is defended by an easier one - the degree to which the argument might be true bailey/castle); because A is true so too is B. So, did women fight during the war, yes; did women volunteer to fight or were they conscripted, yes; therefore, women fought during the war (castle), the degree to which this might have occurred, or its significance, being irrelevant (keep).

There are caveats to these points that, as is always the case with history, require those arguing females fought during the war ignore and dismiss inconvenient truths, especially when brought to their attention, the ideologically inconsistent and broader realities warfare presents[1], that the vast majority of those 'fighting' (or whatever synonym might be used to describe militarised armed combat), and dying, were and still are, male[2].

The argument then is not whether women fought, it's that they were not specifically involved in combat, they did not fight as uniform soldiers (more on this below, Ed.), which means the objection to female characters in games like Battlefield V become one of being thematic accuracy to this fact and the period being represented in the game, a rationale upon which these games are/were ostensibly sold, inclusion of any kind then being a matter of thematic fidelity or *cough*"accuracy"*cough* to the period portrayed (cf. Battlefield I controversy).

With that said, if not ignored as is suggested above, answering a rhetorical question in a way that stimulates actual discussion typically elicits the inevitable and predictable rhetorical rebuttal; "well what about the female Soviet snipers, or the female French resistance?"[3].

Well, what about them?.

Of the estimated 450,000 snipers the Soviets used throughout the war less than 1% of the overall total, approximately 2,500, were female[4]. Does the background to this matter, their inclusion being a concession that addressed differences of opinion between Soviet military brass (traditionalists) and Party leadership (progressives) - female snipers serviced the combat requirement demanded by Stalin[5] but kept them off/away from front line combat[6] as favoured by Soviet military brass, both attitudes being part of a greater compromise that had the Soviets desperate to recoup numbers lost early on to Germany on the Eastern Front. Interestingly however, per-capita, female snipers were awarded more medals, received more commendations, for their actions than their male counterparts[7] which may have more to do with propaganda than disproportionate bravery or knack for staying alive.

Similarly, of the estimated 500,000 French Resistance active towards the latter part of the War, approximately 10-20% were female[8], most of whom, like other resistance groups, spent more time fighting each other (for ideological motivated reasons) than they did the occupying German army. Given the nature of the resistance it's not known exactly how many engaged in actual combat or fought, all that is know is that some did engage their respective enemies[9].

At face value, whilst all of this does mean some women unquestionably fought during World War II, it would be disingenuous at the very least, even insulting to the memory of the millions of men and boys who stepped-up, fought and died, to suggest the War as relates to combat, was in any sense a female fight as the question rhetorically implies.

And to show just how absurd the argument, and dirty War, actually is, the same sentiments can in fact be said of children fighting during the War, school-aged minors under 18 conscripted or forcibly 'volunteered' into combat, the most egregious perhaps being the Japanese Imperial Army's[10] juvenile suicide bombers, or Germany's Hitler Youth[11], used extensively during the defense of Berlin as it fell. In other words, more children engaged in enemy combat than women, does this then justify the inclusion and exploitation of child soldiers in popular media and entertainment. Or extending the argument still further, more people of different ethnicities fought than women, so there should be more BAME representation in games before that of females.

This is the inherent absurdism of the argument - when and to what degree is the question answered, and by whom. The futility of pandering to demands made of it mean, rather than finding a way to introduce female characters to Battlefield V in a way the user-base would understand and appreciate, EA-Dice chose instead to insert them front-and-centre with little (rational) explanation, gamers then being told they were bigots, racists, ableists[12], misogynists, anti-women by some vocal members of EA-Dice, boosted by click-hungry games press[13], and egged on by social media activists and cultural critics.

Unfortunately for those engaged in this sort of bullying, and it is bullying, railing back at the criticisms with the specious counter-narrative addressed above, this only proved gamers correct; the characters inclusion had little to do with improving the game and was instead a direct response to external non-stakeholder forces[14] and in clear deference to servicing faux 'dialogue' obfuscating an ideological agenda.
Put more plainly, EA-Dice chose to pander to the demands of outsiders who care little for games except their being an avenue to hijack[15] for their own political and cultural purposes, insulting customers from whose purchase's salaries are paid. Low pre-orders, conflicts with other games, release-date pushback[16], drops in stock price[17], and parting ways of those involved[18] will tell if doing this is ultimately a good move.

Further Reading
- Dumb things pop-culture critics say: video games cause violence.
- Dumb things pop-culture critics say: boys don't like female soldiers.
- Violence against males in games doesn't count... another study that 'proves' it.
- Men harassed online more but like, seriously, it's not about them - Pew 2017.
- The dark side of diversity: "positive discrimination" (reverse discrimination).

[1] A great deal of the controversy surrounding BFV kicked-off when one of the projects design directors (Alan Kertz) was widely reported to have suggested publicly the inclusion of female characters was not to improve the game but head-off what appears to be a rhetorical/theoretical situation involving his daughters concerns about female soldiers in games - "I knew this was going to be a fight when I pushed for female soldiers in Battlefield. I have a daughter, and I don't want to ever have to answer her question of 'why can't I make a character that looks like me?' with 'because you're a girl'. I fundamentally feel to my core this [forced female inclusion] is the right way, and I will find myself on the right side of history.". Notwithstanding the apparent advocation of under-aged and inappropriate gaming, rather than help his (young?, uneducated?, illiterate?) daughter understand why, give her tools of discovery and understanding, he chose to redefined history to fit his (not hers) ideologically distorted world view, one that requires adherents ignore the real world in favour of personal fictions and imaginings no-one can argue against ("they are my lived experience"), a particularly odious example of someone in a position of power and authority using the 'personal is the political' principle as leverage to unduly influence others without argument, agreement or consent. Not only is this a disservice to his daughter, it also fundamentally disrespects others contributions to the conversation because they proffer disagreeable sentiments.

[2] The incontrovertible truth of biology and nature and how they relate to history and warfare is simply that women are more valuable to society than men because population numbers can be replenished far more quickly with few men than with few women - throughout history civilizations in the latter situation died because they were not stabilised soon enough after significant reductions, by warfare, pandemics, natural events etc. Over time, hundreds-of-thousands of years, this biological reality has always governed fe/male species relationships whether it passes the sniff-test of a given ideology developed in better times.

[3] It's worth noting these two examples constantly crop up in almost every instance of discussing this topic because they're easily defendable talking points, the motte (keep) to the larger bailey (castle). In furtherance to the initial rhetorical question, this new rhetorical statement is not being asked for educational purposes, but instead to substitute an ill-informed rote proposition that filters subtleties with a singular assertion that cannot be argued against.

[4] To put this number in to greater context, the Soviet armed forces are estimated to have been some 34,000,000 individuals, of which snipers constitute around 8% of the total (c.450,000), female snipers being c.0.01% of that same total.

[5] Soviet Party politics were such that all citizens were supposed to be subject to the same requirements, obligations and demands the party might make, if soldiers were needed women should be as subject to conscription as men - service therefor not being a question of ability but allegiance.

[6] Much of the Soviets top-brass in the military were grounded in what might be considered traditionalist, Tsarists or pre-revolutionary mid-to-late 19th Century thinking, that women were to be kept off the battlefield for very real and practical reasons (cf. fn.1 above).

[7] Despite Soviet Brass and Party leaders being at loggerheads over the inclusion of women in the military, once it happened officials seized the opportunity to propagandise greater female participation in society at large, not for the individuals good but instead through their contributions as a group. For the sniper this meant the medals, awards and commendations were to show women being equally as capable as men, thus equally able to secure Soviet rule and expansion. In other words, it was not about women, it was about Party allegiance at a time the Soviets were still reeling from the Revolution and first World War.

[8] Rates of female inclusion and participation in resistance groups across Europe vary a great deal because concise records were rarely kept, so today, depending on source, the same information outlet may cite different numbers depending on inherent politically biases. For example, the subsection of the main Wikipedia article on the French resistance dedicated to women, "French Resistance - Women", cites 11% participation rate whereas associated with the 'feminism portal', "Women in the French Resistance", 15-20% is cited. What's missing from this are the reasons why those numbers may be relatively high; men being otherwise conscripted to fight or assist the German occupation depending on their being for or against it.

[9] The French resistance was not as unified fighting force as romanticised in popular culture, many were variants of Socialists, Communists, Marxists, Revolutionaries, which more often than not, meant they were more likely to fight and sabotage each other's efforts than that of the German threat, all in vein attempts at political, ideological supremacy. Such in-fighting caused so much strife to the Allied efforts in fact, the British stopped assistance drops (weapons, intelligence, supplies etc.) because it was more often put to unintended use, resistance groups fighting one another instead of the German war machine.

[10] The Imperial Army is known to have 'forced' schools (coerced compliance through threats of severe penalties and punishments) to 'volunteer' children for combat, minors between the ages of 14 and 17, many of whom saw combat.

[11] By the start of the War nearly 9,000,000 boys and girls were part of the Hitler Youth, most being later conscripted to fight. Towards the end of the War many were still fighting, some of whom defended Berlin as it fell.

[12] The character was given a prosthetic mechanical arm similar to designs befitting the period.

[13] Typical click-bait sensationalism aside, who may or may not be sympathetic to the cause at hand.

[14] EA chief creative officer (CCO) Patrick Soderlund: "And we don't take any flak. We stand up for the cause, because I think those people who don't understand it, well, you have two choices: either accept it or don't buy the game. I'm fine with either or. It's just not ok." (emphasis added) [source], a statement that may have been partly responsible for Battlefield V's poor numbers at time of writing (late August).

[15] Originally a creation of corporations as a means to promote brand awareness, Culture-Jacking has since been co-opted by activists to become a useful tool in the 'any means necessary' arsenal to inject alternative narratives into popular culture, bypassing traditional means of transmission and distribution, but also their testing and validation, especially necessary for ideas with the potential to change society.

[16] "An Update on Battlefield V [release date]"
[17] "Electronic Arts Stock Is Tanking on a 'Battlefield' Fail" et al.

[18] Patrick Soderlund and others apparently within the team developing Battlefield V, and source to much of the controversy, have left the EA-Dice. The fact that parties leaving were all involved in the ongoing debacle perhaps speaks to their being fired rather than their choosing to part ways amicably.

The mediating effects of violent video games on violent individuals

August 29, 2018, 04:18:07 AM by kat
[image courtesy EAsports]

It's inevitable that after another mass-casualty event press coverage would once again question the role violent video games play in causing young men to commit egregious acts of violence[1]. Jacksonville is proving a slightly more different sell than previous events because the game front and centre was from an atypical genre, competitive sports, rather than the more than expected first/third person shooter.

Interestingly, whilst this might disparity seem at first incongruous, the odd man out, the fact this is the case provides a clue as to the role violent games might play in the lives of these young men, not causative as media hopes but instead as one that perhaps acts to mediate otherwise negative behaviour.

Looking at the general profile of mass-shooting perpetrators they are typically loners, those few quiet individuals who keep to themselves, have few if any friends, say very little or rarely interact or engage with others. They frequently have difficulty expressing emotion, often appearing detached, uninvolved or completely disinterested in their environment, or when they do express its often volatile, explosive and uncontrolled. There is often a history of mental illness or at least some degree of clinical intervention or involvement in their lives, which may or may not result in the use of medication - anti-depressants, mood regulators, etc. They often come from broken homes, and are frequently subject to emotional or physical abuse.

The hypothesis; the type of person being described here could be said to have a severely impaired psyche, their emotions appear not to function within a range normally expected of a healthy, well adjusted, individual. To cope, the confluence of their circumstances might then dictate they gravitate towards, and fixate on, controllable sources of stimuli, or those they find reliable or relatable, able to provide a suitable degree of connection to their emotions (however conscious they might be of any of this).
This might then mean the playing of violent games is not specifically because they seek violence in the normal sense that might be understood, or that they want to be violent, or that violent games might make them violent, rather the opposite, violent video games may mediate the broken personhood by providing a degree of what would otherwise be heightened stimulation, enough to keep them grounded, being the only 'thing' to which they can associate.

Needless to say, the limitations of such a relationship is tenuous at best, break the connection and the result is catastrophic.

So, whilst anti-violent video game research, the literature on the subject, salacious media coverage, disingenuous politicians and talking-point activists argue the banning of violent video games and other violent media, or that violent games make people violent so something must be done about it, they may in fact all be missing the point entirely here, in this very specific context violent video games may be mediating the potential of violent individuals because they are the only medium speaking a compatible language, able to reach them.

If this is the case violent video games ironically could be used as tools to develop and foster home and/or educational programs and interventions that reach troubled individuals using a language they speak. Demonising and/or banning violent video games could very well be a colossal missed opportunity.

Further Reading
- Boom Headshot, perpetuating the 'murder-simulator' narrative through bad science.
- Dumb things pop-culture critics say: video games cause violence.
- Digital Self-Harm Among Adolescents, a new phenomena.
- Men harassed online more but like, seriously, it's not about them - Pew 2017.
- Moral Combat: Why the War on Violent Video Games is Wrong.
- Kicking ass and chewing bubblegum.
- Assassination Generation: Video Games, Aggression, and the Psychology of Killing.
- Virtual Reality Assault and Developer Responsibilities.
- Normalising/desensitising violence in games. An (initial) study.
- How social context influences violence-aggression relationship.
- Violence against males in games doesn't count... another study that 'proves' it.

[1] Almost without exception the vast majority of mass-shooters are male, typically boys and young men, almost exclusively teens upwards to early twenties.And whilst most are 'white' (Caucasian), the numbers appear to reflect their racial distribution within the general population.

Article 11 of the EU Copyright Directive (link tax)

June 19, 2018, 06:10:20 PM by kat

[UPDATE 12 Sept 2018] Copyright Directive has been passed. The exact version still to be clarified (some clauses/amendments rejected, others accepted).

[UPDATE 5th July 2018] EU Parliament rejected the Copyright Reform bill in its current form, putting it up for review in September. This means the legislation will likely be amended to make it less contentious, especially in regards to Article 11 and 13.
Parliament’s plenary voted by 318 votes to 278, with 31 abstentions to reject the negotiating mandate, proposed by the Legal Affairs Committee on 20 June. As a result, Parliament’s position will now be up for debate, amendment, and a vote during the next plenary session, in September.

TL:DR; as with the previous discussion on Article 13 of the EU's Copyright Directive, Article 11, the so called "link tax" clause, is not so much about taxing links, but obligating governments to act on behalf of Stakeholders in pursuit of their copyright claims and broader enforcement - "Member States shall provide publishers ... with the rights [outlined] in Article 2...". Again the use of "shall" is indicative of an order or obligatory mandate, not a voluntary action.


Rights in publications

Article 11
Protection of press publications concerning digital uses

1.Member States shall provide publishers of press publications with the rights provided for in Article 2 and Article 3(2) of Directive 2001/29/EC for the digital use of their press publications.

2.The rights referred to in paragraph 1 shall leave intact and shall in no way affect any rights provided for in Union law to authors and other rightholders, in respect of the works and other subject-matter incorporated in a press publication. Such rights may not be invoked against those authors and other rightholders and, in particular, may not deprive them of their right to exploit their works and other subject-matter independently from the press publication in which they are incorporated.

3.Articles 5 to 8 of Directive 2001/29/EC and Directive 2012/28/EU shall apply mutatis mutandis in respect of the rights referred to in paragraph 1.

4.The rights referred to in paragraph 1 shall expire 20 years after the publication of the press publication. This term shall be calculated from the first day of January of the year following the date of publication.

Notes on the above:
Para. 1. Essentially the 'link tax' clause although nothing in the paragraph lays this out explicitly so any such outcome would be as a direct consequence of right-holders claims and subsequent State enforcement of those rights/claims (State acting on behalf of vested interests over those of citizens).

With that said, depending on how this is enforced it could lead to a tax on or license to link, but... to what degree is a link considered subject to copyright when urls are often auto-generated from input that may or may not mean anything beyond being a URL or include descriptive words that could be/would be usefully policed for infringement.

How is content to be treated with respect to Robots.txt, permissive access granted by rights holders to have certain elements of their material index by search engines - if access is granted through Robots doe this also imply consent/limited licence of use. What obligations are services subject to if denied access by robots.txt. Are copyright monitoring agencies exempt from all considerations (e.g. Mark Monitor).

Para. 2. Copyright as a 'natural' or automatic right recognised of authors, creators et al, should not be affected by the new legislation. Similarly, previsions already afforded to creative works should not be restricted - although not expressly spelled out this should mean that allowances for 'fair use' (and its European equivalent, e.g. 'fair dealings' in the UK) and 'transformative works', should not be affected by the Directive (fair use and transformative works are allowances or degrees to which infringements may be tolerated within the confines of copyright law, they are not exemptions). However, this would be contingent on Rights-holders pursuit of infringement claims and to what degree they require State intervention on their behalf to police those claims/rights.

Para. 3. Directive 2001/29/EC "Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society". Directive 2012/28/EU "Directive 2012/28/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on certain permitted uses of orphan works". "mutatis mutandis".

Para. 4. It's not clear if the twenty year limitation is exclusive or inclusive of the normal 70+ years afforded under previously established copyright legislation (e.g. Berne Convention on copyright). This might then mean copyright claims in some circumstances being claimed to be 90+ years instead of 20.

Additional Reading
- EU considers hyperlink Copyright
- EU Commission & Restricting YouTube for the Public Good
- MarkMonitor, AWS and site scanning abuse
- Illegal Hate Speech, the EU and Tech
- "Net Neutrality" has been hoodwinked, yet again!
- Two tier Internet - Net Neutrality has been hoodwinked
- Draft Investigatory Powers Bill (as passed "Investigatory Powers Act 2016")

Article 13 of the EU Copyright Directive

June 12, 2018, 08:24:59 PM by kat

[UPDATE 12 Sept 2018] Copyright Directive has been passed. The exact version still to be clarified (some clauses/amendments rejected, others accepted).

[UPDATE 5th July 2018] EU Parliament rejected the Copyright Reform bill in its current form, putting it up for review in September. This means the legislation will likely be amended to make it less contentious, especially in regards to Article 11 and 13.
Parliament’s plenary voted by 318 votes to 278, with 31 abstentions to reject the negotiating mandate, proposed by the Legal Affairs Committee on 20 June. As a result, Parliament’s position will now be up for debate, amendment, and a vote during the next plenary session, in September.

TL:DR. In short the European Directive on Copyright reform essentially places the legal rights of corporations above those of sovereign Nations, the individual and those afforded through due process. In other words, the Directive grants Rights Holders supranational authority to make claims of infringement and have service providers and EU Member States act on their behalf to ensure those claims are properly prosecuted instead petition member States through their legal systems - supranational legislation in service of corporations rather than corporations subject to National legislation.

Generally speaking the use of "shall" in the following is indicative of an order or mandate (an enforceable requirement), not a request, optional obligation or other type of voluntary action.

Certain uses of protected content by online services

Article 13
Use of protected content by information society service providers storing and giving access to large amounts of works and other subject-matter uploaded by their users

1.Information society service providers that store and provide to the public access to large amounts of works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users shall, in cooperation with rightholders, take measures to ensure the functioning of agreements concluded with rightholders for the use of their works or other subject-matter or to prevent the availability on their services of works or other subject-matter identified by rightholders through the cooperation with the service providers. Those measures, such as the use of effective content recognition technologies, shall be appropriate and proportionate. The service providers shall provide rightholders with adequate information on the functioning and the deployment of the measures, as well as, when relevant, adequate reporting on the recognition and use of the works and other subject-matter.

2.Member States shall ensure that the service providers referred to in paragraph 1 put in place complaints and redress mechanisms that are available to users in case of disputes over the application of the measures referred to in paragraph 1.

3.Member States shall facilitate, where appropriate, the cooperation between the information society service providers and rightholders through stakeholder dialogues to define best practices, such as appropriate and proportionate content recognition technologies, taking into account, among others, the nature of the services, the availability of the technologies and their effectiveness in light of technological developments.

Para. 1. In a nutshell paragraph "1" obligates content providers, that's any party or entity providing access to their own, or the content of others, enable monitoring mechanisms that filter content for suspected Infringements or Rights Holders material based on their criteria and to their satisfaction, "adequate and proportionate". The legislation does not provide remedy from inadequate or disproportionate monitoring except as outlined in Para 2 (see below). In other words Para 1. defines a playing field where rights holders are able to force service providers into actively monitoring their networks for infringements based on what may be ever-changing rules, and in ways that may subject Users to increased privacy violation risks as a consequence - the Directive effectively creates an ecosystem in which Rights Holders fish or trawl for infringements, requiring services provide 'actionable data', rather than Rights Holders prosecuting specific instances of infringement, which raise additional due-process concerns.

Para. 2. Service providers and EU member States are liable for consequences arising from monitoring, policing and prosecuting claims not Rights Holders. Remedy i.e., refuting or disputing a claim is the responsibility of service providers and member States. In other words, Rights Holders are in a position to make claims but not be held to account for false, incorrect or otherwise improper prosecution.

Para. 3. Grants Rights Holders the ability to coerce other businesses/services into compliance - essentially Rights Holders are able, through legislatively authority, to engage in anti-competitive behaviours, dictating compliance from other companies and corporations, in pursuit of their rights - their rights supersede those of others.

Additional Reading
- EU considers hyperlink Copyright
- EU Commission & Restricting YouTube for the Public Good
- MarkMonitor, AWS and site scanning abuse
- Illegal Hate Speech, the EU and Tech
- "Net Neutrality" has been hoodwinked, yet again!
- Two tier Internet - Net Neutrality has been hoodwinked
- Draft Investigatory Powers Bill (as passed "Investigatory Powers Act 2016")

[1] the original, and much longer draft version (8 sub-paragraphs rather then 3) of the above can be found here "Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on copyright in the Digital Single Market - Mandate for negotiations with the European Parliament".

Fact-check: Valve will no longer police Steam Store

June 10, 2018, 12:18:13 AM by kat

TL:DR. If outside third-parties want to dictate the rules by which Valve assesses content on Steam, they can accept legal and financial liable for any and all consequences in this being so.

As a matter of fact: Valve will no longer police its service.

Fact Check: True/False

Since Valves announcing it will be taking a more laissez-faire approach to policing Steam Store ("Who Gets To Be On The Steam Store?"), press and media coverage on the matter has almost universally represented the move as an abandonment of the services to alt-right, alt-lite, Nazi-bigot, racist-mongering mongers, and that in various ways Valve is telling the world it no longer cares about [insert current-year cause]. In essence that 0.001%[1] of content will somehow spread, infecting Steam Store into oblivion (or so the catastrophic rhetoric seems to suggest. Ed.).

Checking such claims and assertions against what Valve actually said (cf. below), as a matter of fact(TM): Valve did not they will stop policing Steam Store[2], their actual words were that they would "focus less on trying to police what should be on Steam". Or more plainly, Valve is making it clear (in ever-so-nice-a-way) they "will be focusing less on policing Steam the way a vocal minority are saying we should, instead leaving it up to its developers and users, customers who actually use the service.".

It's no wonder Valves decision has so many up in arms. The resulting splatterfest of opined column inches is not about Valve's Steam Store policing policy per se, rather it not being done in deference to wholly unaccountable[3] outside interests whose motivations are not aligned with Steams broader user-base.

If you're a player, we shouldn't be choosing for you what content you can or can't buy. If you're a developer, we shouldn't be choosing what content you're allowed to create. ... Our role should be to provide systems and tools to support your efforts to make these choices for yourself... ... we've decided that the right approach is to allow everything onto the Steam Store, except for things that we decide are illegal, or straight up trolling. Taking this approach allows us to focus less on trying to police what should be on Steam, and more on building those tools to give people control over what kinds of content they see.

[1] 0.001% is pure speculation as definitive demographic data to qualify the claim is not available to the public.

[2] if Valve are to act on 'illegal' and 'trolling' content they need to be actively policing/monitoring Steam Store to some degree as a prerequisite to facilitate enforcement of that policy.

[3] the problem with capitulating or acting in deference to third-parties is that they are never the ones holding the ball when things go belly up... should a developer or customer sue Valve as a consequence of third-party induced policy changes or enforcement, who is then responsible for servicing that action (the same problem arises from use of third-party Codes of Conduct).
KatsBits Web
Search KatsBits using StartPage