The latest “Crimson Peak” game from the makers of Candy Crush Saga is here!
Read MoreOn Friday, The Daily Beast published an article titled “Carnival Games and Candy Crush” are not your run-of-the-mill gaming “fads”.
The article goes on to claim that Candy Crush’s creator, Candy Crush Games, has “adopted a more overtly political tone”, and that the game has “no intention of ever returning to its original formula”.
It goes on:Criminals beware: Cogmind is a video game based on a popular popular video game, Cog, and the developers are working to turn it into a real-life historical document.
They’re even using the word “historical”.
And they’re using a video-game publisher to do it.
So, if this sounds familiar, that’s because it is.
Criminally, the creators of Candy Clasps have been pushing the idea of using their video games to advance political agendas since the late ’90s.
In 2002, for instance, they published an app for the Apple iPod Touch that offered a virtual “social experiment” in which players could create their own political ideologies and share them via social media.
The app featured an animated avatar called “The Angry Angry Angry Man”, who had a “coconut in his mouth”, and said “Cogmind will be a good time”.
In 2014, Cogs creators started using social media to promote their own video game.
The developers used a social media platform called “Climb the Social Network” to share political propaganda, with the tagline “Cogs are like the Internet, and we’re going to help them build their own online empire.”
They even started a Facebook page, “COGmind” with the goal of “empowering” people to be involved in political issues, and promote their “Cognac” video game series.
Cog Mind’s social media posts are rife with images of politicians in high places, such as Barack Obama and David Cameron.
And the developers have used a variety of social media platforms to promote themselves.
In 2017, they posted a series of videos on YouTube, including one entitled “Picking Your Top 10 Favorite Politicians”.
One video shows a man wearing a suit with a logo on it talking about the election and how he “wants a government that’s not racist and not sexist”.
Another shows a woman dressed in a wig and makeup sitting in front of a computer in a “totally black room”.
And one video shows an elderly woman, who appears to be wearing a wig, wearing a T-shirt that says “I’m Not Your Mama” on it.
Criminations of the “Citizens United” rulingIn addition to using social platforms, Cores developers also use their video-games to promote “Censorship and the American Legislative Process”, as The Daily Star reported.
The video-gaming industry is now embroiled in a legal battle over the “Corporate Citizenship Act”, which would allow video-gamers to take part in state and local elections by creating their own companies and using the money from that company to help elect politicians.
In 2016, a group of video- game developers launched a campaign called “Take Back the States”, to fight for the right to participate in state elections.
They had already developed their own “corporate citizenship” platform that allowed players to run for state office, and use the money to run ads on their own videos.
In the US, state legislators have a limited amount of time to propose bills, and can only use that time to introduce bills that affect their constituents.
So, the more bills that the state can introduce, the bigger the advantage that video-gaming companies can get.
However, in 2017, the US Supreme Court ruled that states cannot ban video-developers from participating in state politics.
In a landmark case, the Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that video games are “commercially viable” as political speech.
“The Act permits corporations to engage in political activity for the purpose of influencing legislative actions that impact their economic interests, such that such conduct may be protected by the First Amendment,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote.
“It permits corporations, like the publishers of video games, to engage, for profit, in political speech and political campaign activity that the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit.”
So what is this new ruling that is preventing video-makers from participating on state and federal elections?
The Court wrote:The First Amendment requires a State to pass legislation to permit the free speech of its citizens, but the Constitution does not permit States to restrict political activity by the commercial production and distribution of the products of a business engaged in that activity.
Thus, the right of free speech is not limited to the expression of opinions that are based on ideas, and therefore cannot be confined to political speech