Censorship in Games

General Discussion
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.


Slight correction needed for the bold statement.
Justifying toxicity and blaming report system using free speech BS is not going to work. Stop playing with words.

There is no need to define what is toxic and not. It is obvious.

Calling players retards might not seem toxic to you as saying fu, but it is still an offence. And asking the system to define toxicity easily can be countered.

I meet bad players all the time. I found that there is no added value of insulting.
Why is it that so many people don’t understand what freedom of speech means?

A hint: It does not mean that a private entity is required to put up with you. As that would violate the crap out of their right to association. If you want to use their services, you follow their rules. Just like every other private entity. A grocery store will boot you out for screaming obscenities.

Just because it’s through a screen rather than face to face, the basic rules of social interaction haven’t changed. If you were acting like that in a LAN party you would be told to leave and not allowed back.
09/30/2018 05:38 PMPosted by Fanglo
09/30/2018 05:33 PMPosted by Drothvader
...
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.


Then you might have to follow the basic rules of social interaction that exist everywhere.

I know it’s a horrible fate, not being able to use the shield of anonymity to be a terrible person. Having to at least have the same level of social capabilities of a child. Acting as people have acted for the entirety of human existence. How will anyone ever cope?

Totally unrelated: When’s the last time you have actually interacted with someone offline? Like, face to face? Have you ever?

Also: The slippery slope fallacy is an incredibly bad argument. On so many levels.
09/30/2018 05:28 PMPosted by Fanglo
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.


that tinfoil hat though........
10/01/2018 08:37 AMPosted by Avinicci
There is no need to define what is toxic and not. It is obvious.


No, it's not. There are behaviors that some consider toxic, and some don't. If someone tells me to kill myself, I don't consider this toxic, simply a heated emotional response, and I'm certainly not offended or stupid enough to actually kill myself because a stranger in an online video game told me to.

There is a need to define toxicity, but the problem is that there is no succinct definition, and there never will be. That's why that video Jeff Kaplan made about toxicity in Overwatch was stupid, because he flung the term around for 10 minutes without defining it. That's why Blizzard has no definition and you are free to report players because you "felt" there were being toxic.
...
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.


Slight correction needed for the bold statement.


You absolutely have the right to say anything you want in public short of direct calls for violence. At least in America you do.
10/01/2018 12:11 PMPosted by Echo
...

Slight correction needed for the bold statement.


You absolutely have the right to say anything you want in public short of direct calls for violence. At least in America you do.

I think the post means there is a typo in the bold statement.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum