Your examples don't fit the situation being discussed, but thanks for contributing.

Wrong on both counts. I quite enjoy a spirited argument.

Your definitions needs some work:

That’s true in some cases, and as I’ve said elsewhere anytime you’re catering to the will of a gatekeeper, you’re dealing with an element of censorship.

Sorry, the first paragraph shouldn’t have been quoted. That was me, and it leads into the following paragraph. My bad. I’d suggest you go back and read it, though, because it’s a valid point.

In that case it's a form of censorship. Catering to the will of a gatekeeper pretty much always is.

It's not about what's "acceptable" (unless they're bowing to Steam or some other entity). It's about what's marketable.

Not at all. By removing content that doesn’t interest western culture to the same extent that it does Japanese culture they ensure the game fits the cultural standards of the market, and is therefore more marketable.

Now your argument hinges on the necessarily subjective contextual connotations of the word “objectionable.”

Altering the game to make it marketable can also be censorship.

I agree on all those points, but I don’t necessarily think what’s going on above is always censorship. If they’re changing things to get Steam approval, then yes, that’s censorship of a kind. If they’re just trying to make their product more marketable in a different region, then I don’t think that’s necessarily…

Yes there is.

Thanks for quoting me. You can clearly see from that statement that I was speaking about this particular situation. There was no blanket statement ever made about the nature of localization and censorship, and their mutual exclusivity. I didn’t say that, of course, because it’s not true, and I never implied that it…

In the cases in which Steam is prohibiting content, then sure, that’s censorship of a sort. A company choosing to alter the content of their product to make it marketable in a new region is not censorship. To call it such is to dilute the word to the point of meaninglessness.

And I'm just saying that you're incorrect. So here we are, just saying things.

And you’re not taking it seriously at all, so talking to you about it is clearly pointless at this rate.

You’re misrepresenting my argument again. Once again, I never claimed that censorship and localization were mutually exclusive. I just claimed that only one of those things is happening in this case.

Are you seriously going to tell me that they aren’t removing sexually explicit content because people will find them objectionable?

Now you're being fucking ridiculous. Your opinion on the quality of dubbing and localization is irrelevant to whether or not it qualifies as censorship (it doesn't).

I don’t see anything in that definition about removing content that isn't marketable.