Are governments using copyright strikes to remove video games from consumers? - Alternatively: Are governments upset you won't play Highguard or Concord?

[Cups2Cups]

A very interesting concept from @Thiletonomics out of a discussion regarding a copyright troll trying to remove an obscure videogame "Cookie Bustle" from 1999 from history and public discussion. I encourage you to read through the thread and if you have thoughts regarding that subject, feel free to contribute! However, I felt that there was something worth discussing that he brought up that required its own thread, and I wasn't sure that the video game forum was an appropriate place to post it, so I brought it here.

Publicar en el tema 'Cookie's Bustle'

11 de Abr, 2026

While that certainly is a concern, here is why I think that cannot happen: Video Games made for mass audiences are typically developed in democratic 1st world countries, under formed corporations and LLCs, which are legal entities created with that country's laws and frameworks. (Yes, indie game devs do exist but let's keep it simple). Because such things exists, there is money on the line. If the government decided that game was problematic but it's own laws prevented it from arbitrarily removing it. It would need to go through the government process to pass laws to have it removed...

• Thiletonomics

Reacciones: x 1

I don't dispute his assertion that governments have banned video games in the past. However, I think its rather reaching that a government would instead of using its own established processes to debate a ban or arbitrarily ban a video game-- they would attempt to "softly" remove new and old games they don't like by abusing the copyright system, and erase public discussion via the same method. His reasoning for this is because governments are upset we will not play media meant for the "Modern Audience".

It's my opinion that that is absolute horseshit. Either this is just silly or I have been living under a rock. Sure, there is a alot of garbage by AAA studios that is 'really more of the same' of established titles or just outright bad lootbox garbage that is just a grab for your wallet, eyeballs, or gooner goop (and sometimes all three!) and sometimes may promote the agenda the current sitting government of your country want you to believe. Perhaps also sales of these games and it's peripherals may generate a significant amount of money via taxation that makes governments very happy. However, there has been a drive with older gamers and newer generations alike to play games that have been released in the past that were actually very good, or have a cult following, or are not always snapping at your wallet. There is also video games released under the radar that don't generate tax revenue and/or don't adhere to what governments believe "Modern Audiences" should be playing.

Aside from the situation happening to Cookie Bustle (which I think is a unique situation being abused by "GraceWare" and "Brandon White"), is there any drop of truth in Thiletonomics assertion that governments are being sneaky in removing games and public discourse about those games via abusing the copyright system simply because you won't play "Government Approved" games like Highguard or Concord?

Discuss.

 

[Coolio55]

The DMCA system is already openly abused but if governments started abusing it - there would be mainstream calls for reform and that would puncture the wallets of major corporations worldwide.
There are much easier methods to deplatform games that don't involve implicating fundamental business tools.

 

[Xarpho's Return]

The DMCA system is already openly abused but if governments started abusing it - there would be mainstream calls for reform and that would puncture the wallets of major corporations worldwide.
There are much easier methods to deplatform games that don't involve implicating fundamental business tools.

If the government started abusing it, then you're just screwed. It's like how unions were meant to force accountability on corporations and improve working conditions by essentially forcing their hand, but once you have public sector unions, which have no accountability with shareholders or competition, then they've just defeated that purpose, and there's nothing you can do about it.

 

[ChefKiss]

Governments spend tens of millions of your tax dollars funding games that support THE MESSAGE
Zero dollars in funding games for economic growth or artistic reasons but lots of funding for "Games for Change"
Soft power is a thing they care about and I don't see any reason why they would put so much effort into making games nobody plays that support the message and then make zero effort to fight against games that counter signal the message.
That said I don't see any evidence of the government doing it yet but I wouldn't be shocked to learn they did.

 

[Cups2Cups]

That said I don't see any evidence of the government doing it yet but I wouldn't be shocked to learn they did.

I don't think any lawyer (other the government's own lawyers, who are publicly known) would risk their credentialed privilege to practice law would do such a thing. The media likes to paint them as sleezy and evil lying scumbags but at the end of the day most legal disputes are really about money, and that can be settled without paper-flinging and ending up in front of a civil jury, which is the most terrifying thing a lawyer would have to do in their career.

 

[Famous Actor]

Governments spend tens of millions of your tax dollars funding games that support THE MESSAGE
Zero dollars in funding games for economic growth or artistic reasons but lots of funding for "Games for Change"
Soft power is a thing they care about and I don't see any reason why they would put so much effort into making games nobody plays that support the message and then make zero effort to fight against games that counter signal the message.
That said I don't see any evidence of the government doing it yet but I wouldn't be shocked to learn they did.

1. This is a fundamental misreading of the situation. Those programs are more-so make-work jobs for starving lefty artists w/ friends on the inside than they are propaganda machines.
2. Look at DiGRA (from GamerGate, remember that lmao?). Technically they were partially funded by DARPA (so they could organize conferences, supposedly), and technically they themselves funded a lot of the shitlib orgs who led the charge shutting down the proto-chuds and "woke-ing" games in the mid-10s, but the organization wasn't founded w/ that in mind. What happened was a couple of feminazis wormed their way onto DiGRA's board, voted friends onto the rest of the board, and then they simply used their powers to make sure funding only went to their friends' projects. Even supposing that DARPA funded DiGRA w/ the feminazis in mind...
3. Throwing money at retards is a lot easier than active censorship. Lefties on the ground level already insist that everything under the sun actually conforms perfectly w/ their worldview (and go after any chvd incel nahtzees who disagree) anyways, so there's really no need for any direct intervention.

 

[Cups2Cups]

1. This is a fundamental misreading of the situation. Those programs are more-so make-work jobs for starving lefty artists w/ friends on the inside than they are propaganda machines.
2. Look at DiGRA (from GamerGate, remember that lmao?). Technically they were partially funded by DARPA (so they could organize conferences, supposedly), and technically they themselves funded a lot of the shitlib orgs who led the charge shutting down the proto-chuds and "woke-ing" games in the mid-10s, but the organization wasn't founded w/ that in mind. What happened was a couple of feminazis wormed their way onto DiGRA's board, voted friends onto the rest of the board, and then they simply used their powers to make sure funding only went to their friends' projects. Even supposing that DARPA funded DiGRA w/ the feminazis in mind...
3. Throwing money at retards is a lot easier than active censorship. Lefties on the ground level already insist that everything under the sun actually conforms perfectly w/ their worldview (and go after any chvd incel nahtzees who disagree) anyways, so there's really no need for any direct intervention.

I didn't even understand half of that. WTF does DARPA have to do with videogame censorship?

 

[Famous Actor]

I didn't even understand half of that. WTF does DARPA have to do with videogame censorship?

Next to none, which was supposed to be my point. They threw money at some video game-related organization called DiGRA, who were tenuously involved with some of the people in the GamerGate drama, which was misconstrued by others as a direct chain of control from DARPA to said people.
Maybe that example wasn't the best for what I wanted to say, which was that the government wastes tons of money on random things w/o really bothering to know what the money's being used for. Sorry I didn't make that clear enough.