Censorship in Games

General Discussion
The national dialog has recently targeted social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook and Instagram when it comes to censoring people's speech.

This is small potatoes though when you consider that game companies like Trion, Activision, Nintendo, basically nearly every single game company has 10 times more draconian anti-speech policies in place.

These companies often employ ambiguous terms like "hate speech", "racist", "homophobe" etc... in their (somewhat) noble goal to keep their communities toxic free. The problem is that often times the moderators are not properly trained and they are free to interpret terms in a very liberal way.

On these forums you see a handful of threads everyday of people mad about being silenced due to an automated system that punishes them.

I know a lot don't like slippery slope arguments but this is the beginning of the downfall of speech. People's lives are becoming more and more online and to have an AI computer somewhere given the power to silence people is very troublesome.

I would hope that Activision realizes the mistake of employing these AI bots and focuses more on creating more balanced gameplay.

This will eventually cross-over to nearly every single online platform that people use and with even home appliances becoming part of the internet of things there could come a time when you are banned from using your microwave because some AI thinks that you are a racist person.
This post makes no sense.
09/30/2018 05:30 PMPosted by DiZ
This post makes no sense.


Are you talking about the post I made or the one you made? The use of the word "this" could be applied to either post.
09/30/2018 05:28 PMPosted by Fanglo
This is small potatoes though when you consider that game companies like Trion, Activision, Nintendo, basically nearly every single game company has 10 times more draconian anti-speech policies in place.

Free speech does not apply to private domains in the private space.

This is equivalent to just walking into someone's house and shouting them down claiming you have a right to do so under free speech. You don't you have a right to say what you want PUBLICLY in a PUBLIC space, not in the private space.

If you want to speak in a private domain, you must adhere to the rules of that private domain. The 1st amendment does not protect you there.
09/30/2018 05:33 PMPosted by Drothvader
09/30/2018 05:28 PMPosted by Fanglo
This is small potatoes though when you consider that game companies like Trion, Activision, Nintendo, basically nearly every single game company has 10 times more draconian anti-speech policies in place.

Free speech does not apply to private domains in the private space.

This is equivalent to just walking into someone's house and shouting them down claiming you have a right to do so under free speech. You don't you have a right to say what you want PUBLICLY in a PUBLIC space, not in the private space.

If you want to speak in a private domain, you must adhere to the rules of that private domain. The 1st amendment does not protect you there.


What happens when your speech limits your ability to travel, use your appliances, access your bank accounts and basically function in an ever increasingly online society?

At what point are we allowed to fight against rules that prevent us from living our lives?

Right now it's ok to have draconian rules that prevent people from playing the games they love, I get it not a big deal, there are still plenty of options to enjoy oneself. The technologies being created though for the automated silencing could someday could go mainstream. They could talk to other platforms.

Someday, being banned on 1 platform could lead to a banning from all platforms as companies outsource these automated AI banning bots due to cost.

Everyone will have their speech in a giant database and this could literally affect people in very negative ways.
For example, imagine that all major online companies uses a company called Athena to monitor and automatically silence toxic voices. TSA then uses the Athena database to create a list of potentially disruptive people and gives them extra security patdowns at airports. The FBI could use this database to refuse people security clearances, to refuse people the ability to purchase guns. Companies looking to hire you could look at your Athena score and deem you too emotionally unstable for employment.

This could literally affect huge aspects of one's life. If we don't fight it now where it's in it's most draconian form we will be destroyed by it later when it completely swallows up our lives.
09/30/2018 05:38 PMPosted by Fanglo
What happens when your speech limits your ability to travel, use your appliances, access your bank accounts and basically function in an ever increasingly online society?

If you're conflating this to mean you can't say whatever you want online, you actually CAN say whatever you want online.

However, you have to create your own website to do so. Just because you can't post it on Facebook or Twitter or whatever, does not mean that you cannot post whatever you want online on your OWN website.
09/30/2018 06:03 PMPosted by Drothvader
09/30/2018 05:38 PMPosted by Fanglo
What happens when your speech limits your ability to travel, use your appliances, access your bank accounts and basically function in an ever increasingly online society?

If you're conflating this to mean you can't say whatever you want online, you actually CAN say whatever you want online.

However, you have to create your own website to do so. Just because you can't post it on Facebook or Twitter or whatever, does not mean that you cannot post whatever you want online on your OWN website.


Correct but not having mainstream social platforms could impact a person in all sorts of ways, especially as those platforms become more a part of people's lives.
09/30/2018 06:16 PMPosted by Fanglo
Correct but not having mainstream social platforms could impact a person in all sorts of ways, especially as those platforms become more a part of people's lives.

Then if you want to use a mainstream social platform you have to adhere to the rules associated with that platform.

If you don't agree with the rules, then you go out and create the next Facebook or Twitter and make up whatever rules you want for it. You have the freedom to do that.
That's a whole word salad bar.
First amendment is from a list of amendments that had to be approved before ratification of The U.S. Constitution.

The U.S. Constitution is the document that created and established a Federal Government system. Thereby enumerating it's duties, powers, and responsibilities.

Therefore, the First amendment applies to the Federal Government and the Federal Government only. Ignore any illegal decisions by the SCOTUS that overrule individual States' laws. The Fed is actually subservient to the States, as the States are the creators and thereby have the greater power. This is why Secession was the only redress when the Fed oversteps it's bounds. (An interesting sidenote: The Consitution would not have been ratified without the Bill of Rights. States were not going to agree to any Federal powers without severe restrictions on it. Having just freshly fought their way out of a tyrannical centralized government from Britain.)

This history lesson brought to you so that you can be less ignorant, and stop thinking "free speech" is some intrinsic right granted to you everywhere you go. Private persons and businesses have absolutely no responsibility to grant you free speech in any manner. Unless they are licensed by a government entity (representative of the people) that requires specifically that they do so. And there are none that do.
Nyet
Jesus, i know Queue times for HL are long but i didn't think we would get enough time to question society, ethics and morality as a whole !

GOD DAM YOU BLIZZARD LOOK WHAT YOU HAVE DONE !
Paypal cut off Alex Jones' account because of his views.

That is just wrong in my opinion. Money is money.

Hate to be the person who tells you all the truth but, people can have different opinions than you and that doesnt make you right or them wrong.
09/30/2018 05:33 PMPosted by Drothvader
If you want to speak in a private domain, you must adhere to the rules of that private domain. The 1st amendment does not protect you there.


You have a good point. But the rules for abusive chat are not clearly expressed, some aren't even in the COC. At this point almost anything you say can be deemed as abusive chat, if it's reported as such.

Blizzard has the right as you say to have this system, but it's not good for the health of the game. Most of the games I play now in HL nobody talks in draft or in game. I've taken the step to mute all chat and not talk considering the "evidence" presented to me that led to my only silence in three years of playing this game.

I'm not allowed to say what the evidence is, but it was so trivial it would never have crossed my mind as abusive, especially as it's not in their own rules. They also cited many things out of context, one was even a complement to a fellow player. Here is a fake example as I'm not allowed to cite directly, I said this was a "great game" (a game we won) because I got to play Tassadar, it was used as evidence of "sarcasm".
When the basis of your concern defeats itself before you even finished typing it out, it should be more evident that you didn't put enough thought into the crap you're typing out.

"I know [people] don't like 'slippery slopes, but here's a slippery slope"
The point of "knowing" something is to use that knowledge to act on it, and not just it as justification for rationalizing whatever you want simply because you claimed to 'know' something to be an issue.

The second concern is coloring your presentation with enough bias to make the expressed problem seem less interesting as it takes that slippery slope and just bouts this into more of a perception/ignorance issue. "draconian rules", false equivalency of scope, and I can go on. You seem so fixated on projecting this slippery slope into a fantasy that has pretty much two areas of concern:
1) you're not going to be able to do much of anything about
2) you're not presenting your concerns on an outlet that matters
3) the shark-jumping of the extent to what you're trying to automate might be problematic if the system were more punishing to those that don't violate the terms at hand, to which you express little concern on that regard, only on the basis of the extent of the powers that be.

The functional problem you seem to ignore is the personal accountability of people using a system in regards to the 'rights' they do have to use said systems, esp if they're a 'service' rather than a 'right' or 'utility' to which the concern would be more particular to legal representation and advocation of people through being educated on particulars that matter, rather than induced activism through ignorance.

What you want to project doesn't suit with how you want to act, and rather than get congruity between the two, you just want to hid behind a claim to 'know' rather than think through the implications of actually being honest with that claim.
Draconians and Reptilians are not the same.

Athena is Terran's Advisor and Google's Adjutant.

You are all one within my Iris.
I think these major social platforms are going to be considered a public utility at some point. Where the 1st amendment would apply. At least i hope so and we should all fight for it / make sure it happens. Censorship of ALL and ANY form sucks. People should be free to express whatever feeling/opinion they have regardless of how controversial or upsetting it might be to someone else.

There was a time where people were killed/tortured for having a dissenting opinion/view on something. And it feels like a lot of blizzard supporters would be happy if that were still the case today.
It's not censorship in HotS, it's public opinion. If enough people find someone's chat offensive, they get silenced. False votes done in spite or just cause one's being an edgelord are definitely a problem, but it's not the only one. Judging by posts on this forum, many people are too stubborn to realise their mistakes. Calling others names, being rude or sarcastic obviously draws you closer to a silence. Yet all you see there is people justifying their actions as "giving advice", "they deserve it", "they play awful, so I can say whatever", "it's not rude, just be thick-skinned", "I've seen worse", etc. None of those are valid. Just learn common decency.

Just this weekend there was a Nova telling the team to go hang themselves for not doing something or other. Yeah, sure, I bet there will soon be another thread of a wrongfully accused innocent lamb.
09/30/2018 05:28 PMPosted by Fanglo
These companies often employ ambiguous terms like "hate speech", "racist", "homophobe" etc... in their (somewhat) noble goal to keep their communities toxic free. The problem is that often times the moderators are not properly trained and they are free to interpret terms in a very liberal way.


These terms are not ambiguous, pushing them into relativism territory is a deliberate attempt to avoid punishment by claiming what you said does not qualify as such. While I can agree that moderators are not always very clear in their rules, do not attach these two.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum