Non-Political Ad For Political Game Banned For Being Political
from the selling-democracy dept
In these highly divided political times, where everyone seems to have mistaken parties for street gangs to which your undying loyalty and support must be levied, it's understandable that there has been some controversy surrounding online political advertisements. We saw this during the last presidential election cycle, where many people reported their unhappiness with the application of social media political ads. Beyond that, we've also seen some groups abusing the takedown process to censor parody ads of their preferred candidates. The point being that, now that our once-proud political system has coagulated to the point where you're going to piss off roughly 47% of the population no matter what you do, the companies charged with placing these online ads can be rather sensitive about exactly what they're putting out there.That said, I'm quite confused as to how this online ad for Democracy 3, a game produced by Positech Games, somehow tripped whatever alarms were in place with whoever was tasked with placing the advertisement.
This was apparently enough for the ad company to tell the developer that they couldn't place the ad because they "can not promote any politics as this is a sensitive subject." Now, if one were to copy the URL for that image from the link provided, you'll notice that it's labeled as "Gamestop_rect.jpg". That doesn't mean for sure that Gamestop, or the people in charge of their online ads, is refusing this, but it seems somewhat likely.
Likely, yet irrelevant, because what the hell is in that advertisement that could possibly be construed as a political statement? The folks at Positech Games seem equally confused.
WTF? I bet ads for games like hitman, or GTA, or games where you get slow-mo closeups of people’s skulls being blasted apart by high-caliber bullets are just fine. But discuss income tax? OH NOES THE WORLD WILL END! I saw a clip of mortal kombat on that charlie brooker doumenatry that made me feel sick, but apparently we as an industry are just FINE with that… It’s stuff like this that sometimes makes me ashamed to be in this industry. Half of the industry wants to be grown up and accepted as art, the other half have the mentality of seven year olds. I’m pretty cynical, but I never expected my ads for a game about government-simulation to be too controversial to be shown (for money no less…).Even if it was the content of the game itself that tripped off the warning bells, we're really living in a country where a game about politics can no longer be sold through online ads because too many of our fellow countrymen are mouth-breathing fanatics? No, that's stupid. That kind of pussyfooting needs to be exposed, highlighted, and summarily done away with, because if we can't have that kind of speech due to corporate cowardice, we're all in for a world of dumb when it comes to political thought in this country.
My next game will be gratuitous homicide battles. I bet everyone will let me promote that one eh?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: advertising, democracy 3, politics
Companies: positech games
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Actually you'll have the likes of Red Cross (was it?) protest against you and tell you that you should add entire trial simulations (real time, you only get to play again in 6 years when the trial is concluded if you are lucky enough to get no prison sentence). There will probably be some churches out there advocating for the rights of non-existing people, clueless TV show celebrities blaming your games for AIDS, hunger in Africa and violent actions perpetrated by mentally ill people, politicians issuing factless statements that your games turn children into murderous zombies and other rather entertaining stuff if it wasn't for the fact they are trying to bend the laws to their delusional opinions.
Your game probably has sensitive (and possibly classified) information to a system that most of the world was supposed to follow but is inconvenient to Governments that are seeking to eradicate a non-existent threats they call by different names depending on the context it seems (although it's increasingly common to see them not giving a damn to context). A few examples of names used to describe this fictional threat are: child porn, cyberbullying, zombie apocalypse, national security and terrorism. Some conspiracy nuts imply that they couldn't care less about these said threats and instead are willing to play the game your competitor released called Totalitarianism 2 (or one of its mods, the Fascism 2.0) but it's all speculation by now.
Still if I were you I'd be careful with the thougth police, it seems to be on rampage lately.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Too late. We already are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
——attributed to Hannah Arendt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmmm
Lack Of Thrust comes to mind IMHO =(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Timmy, you're oblivious to violence being reviled:
Timmy, YOU just proved that "too many of our fellow countrymen are mouth-breathing fanatics" who LOVE fantasy violence but are unable to deal with anything substantive.
Violence and this ad ban are BOTH wrong, see? But you live in a shallow world of false alternatives, regard even reasonable limits on violent content as cutting into your vital rights, and that's the real stupidity of gamers: they're basically just dogs delighting in blood-lust.
The Rich get the most money and power by selling crap to dolts, and therefore increasingly tilt society away from quality and smarts.
01:57:09[b-250-0]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Timmy, you're oblivious to violence being reviled:
*click*
By Blue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
God, you're a tool and an idiot. DMCAed!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Timmy, you're oblivious to violence being reviled:
02:37:56[d-635-9]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Timmy, you're oblivious to violence being reviled:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I see the problem...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I see the problem...
Nope. Now, IDIOCRACY is just fine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmm
My first thought when I read this was that some random obscure US law was being used to prevent political games or equivalent, based on the title.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually, watch the ad
That particular image might not seem biased, but the video trailer for the game demonstrates some of the bias and the game itself is clearly floating a political agenda.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Actually, watch the ad
Seems like that is not too far off from the real world.
You tax the rich and business more and more, they make less and less jobs since they have less money to re-invest.
The unemployed people want 'help' because they cannot find jobs so they vote for liberals/socialists who promise to give plenty of 'help' to the poor people.
" the video trailer for the game demonstrates some of the bias and the game itself is clearly floating a political agenda."
I watched it, not sure what was biased, seemed like it was showing that giving favours to one group hurts another group and that you need to find the right balance to please the various groups to get re-elected. That seems to be what real politicians do regardless of their affiliation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Actually, watch the ad
I've played the game, and that's exactly how it works. The "quantities" in question are the number of people in your country who belong to a given group and what they tend to think of you, and both of those can be affected by your policies. Which does kind of make sense to represent in a political simulation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Actually, watch the ad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Actually, watch the ad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Actually, watch the ad
Bias towards what? You've presented half an accusation, as if you think the word itself is a criticism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Games People Play (book)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Games_People_Play_%28book%29
you would have no problem understanding a meaning to the title other than a computer game.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Republicans: Obviously that man in the ad is a democrat since he looks foreign so he must be an illegal immigrant. That makes this a controversial political statement by trying to make the game appeal to immigrants, especially illegal ones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does that mean its a "Fantasy" Role playing game?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bias
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anyone get the idea
NOT how its supposed to be, but HOW it is..at least a good guess..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And God forbid you to take a middle-ground view, you [insert partisan insult here]. It's getting to the point where only extremist viewpoints are welcome on the right, while the reasonable critique of the liberal/left gets me called "defective" if I dare to stray from the accepted doctrines.
To be fair, there seems to be more crazy on the right; I know a lot of reasonable, moderate Dems. But that's the problem. Any time I self-identify as conservative, I'm expected to drop my moderate approach and embrace the kind of Taliban-inspired insanity that frankly, scares me.
What happened to America, the home of the brave and the land of the free?
Many of our fellow countrymen are indeed mouth-breathing fanatics. They're the ones calling me a commie because I don't believe that guns are a human right.
*Wipes away a tear* We're already there, pal. We're already there. Where the hell are the moderate, designated-driver types who OUGHT to be running the show, setting the agenda, and driving the discourse? Why are they ALLOWING themselves to be marginalized?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]