4 ms·

I thought China is the only one want to regulate their people's everyday behaviors... It turns out the whole idea of freedom is nothing but a degree of how alo

I thought China is the only one want to regulate their people's everyday behaviors... It turns out the whole idea of freedom is nothing but a degree of how alone one can live. The more alone the more free, but that isn't what freedom stands for...

wnevets 9y ago
I wish people would stop comparing policies of governments to the policies of a private company's online community.
- verroq 9y ago
  Until they grow to become facebook size.
- fein 9y ago
  Why? The management of an online community is just a pocket sized version of a full blown government. There's no reason to not make a comparison due to lolbertarian rationales.
  - wnevets 9y ago
    It's a lot harder to quit the NK government than it is to quit LoL
    - fein 9y ago
      Sure, but that's not what we're looking at. The behaviors of community moderation are comparable to those of a government.
      - wnevets 9y ago
        Perhaps but the consequences of breaking the rules are nowhere near as devastating. It trivializes the human rights abuses by those governments by putting them in the same category as a video game chat
  - s73v3r_ 9y ago
    Why do you feel you have more of a right to use Blizzard's resources to be toxic to others, driving them from the game, than someone else has to enjoy the game they paid for?
- 013a 9y ago
  That's true. But there are two big reasons why we hold governments to those standards: they hold significant lethal power in enforcing their policies, and they have no competition in their domain. Corporations absolutely quality for one of those. If every game manufacturer starts enforcing draconian free speech rules, players have no recourse beside "don't play". That's an option. If it gets bad enough, hopefully "good business" kicks in and they pull back. The big problem is the reasoning behind why these policies are in place. They aren't really doing it because they think it'll lead to better business; these games are already ridiculously popular, and are approaching the carrying capacity of their respective markets. Instead, they're implementing them because they think its the morally correct thing to do. That's a very dangerous road to go down, because its politically very hard to reverse a policy like this. Once you start restricting what people can say under the guise of something as buzzwordy and pure as "preventing toxic behavior", no one will be "that guy" who says "we're losing business because people are afraid to even speak, we should pull back". All it takes is one softer soul to call that person a bigot or an enabler of toxic behavior, and they're fired. I worry about platforms like Twitch, where "twitch chat" has become such a meme that it almost defines the platform. Its not about whether that definition is good or bad; its about trying to fundamentally change who you are. YouTube tried it with their comments section. No good discussion ever happens there. Not before their change, not after. But at least before it was fun and people used it. In essence, they destroyed legitimate business value in the pursuit of perceived business value based on moral righteousness, that perceived business value was never realized, and now they can't go back.
pjc50 9y ago
Living together requires some kind of mutually acceptable standards of behaviour. It cannot be everyone doing whatever they want at the expense of others' happiness.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
brazzy 9y ago
If you think "freedom" means you should be allowed to be an asshole to people, then that is what it stands for. If you want the benefits of society, you cannot ignore the needs of others.
s73v3r_ 9y ago
Why do you believe that you have the "freedom" to shove toxicity into other people's games? Why do you believe you have more "freedom" to be toxic to other players than they have "freedom" to enjoy the game they paid for? This has nothing to do with freedom and you know it.

wnevets 9y ago

I wish people would stop comparing policies of governments to the policies of a private company's online community.

verroq 9y ago
Until they grow to become facebook size.
fein 9y ago
Why? The management of an online community is just a pocket sized version of a full blown government. There's no reason to not make a comparison due to lolbertarian rationales.
- wnevets 9y ago
  It's a lot harder to quit the NK government than it is to quit LoL
  - fein 9y ago
    Sure, but that's not what we're looking at. The behaviors of community moderation are comparable to those of a government.
    - wnevets 9y ago
      Perhaps but the consequences of breaking the rules are nowhere near as devastating. It trivializes the human rights abuses by those governments by putting them in the same category as a video game chat
- s73v3r_ 9y ago
  Why do you feel you have more of a right to use Blizzard's resources to be toxic to others, driving them from the game, than someone else has to enjoy the game they paid for?
013a 9y ago
That's true. But there are two big reasons why we hold governments to those standards: they hold significant lethal power in enforcing their policies, and they have no competition in their domain. Corporations absolutely quality for one of those. If every game manufacturer starts enforcing draconian free speech rules, players have no recourse beside "don't play". That's an option. If it gets bad enough, hopefully "good business" kicks in and they pull back. The big problem is the reasoning behind why these policies are in place. They aren't really doing it because they think it'll lead to better business; these games are already ridiculously popular, and are approaching the carrying capacity of their respective markets. Instead, they're implementing them because they think its the morally correct thing to do. That's a very dangerous road to go down, because its politically very hard to reverse a policy like this. Once you start restricting what people can say under the guise of something as buzzwordy and pure as "preventing toxic behavior", no one will be "that guy" who says "we're losing business because people are afraid to even speak, we should pull back". All it takes is one softer soul to call that person a bigot or an enabler of toxic behavior, and they're fired. I worry about platforms like Twitch, where "twitch chat" has become such a meme that it almost defines the platform. Its not about whether that definition is good or bad; its about trying to fundamentally change who you are. YouTube tried it with their comments section. No good discussion ever happens there. Not before their change, not after. But at least before it was fun and people used it. In essence, they destroyed legitimate business value in the pursuit of perceived business value based on moral righteousness, that perceived business value was never realized, and now they can't go back.

pjc50 9y ago

Living together requires some kind of mutually acceptable standards of behaviour. It cannot be everyone doing whatever they want at the expense of others' happiness.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

brazzy 9y ago

If you think "freedom" means you should be allowed to be an asshole to people, then that is what it stands for. If you want the benefits of society, you cannot ignore the needs of others.

s73v3r_ 9y ago

Why do you believe that you have the "freedom" to shove toxicity into other people's games? Why do you believe you have more "freedom" to be toxic to other players than they have "freedom" to enjoy the game they paid for? This has nothing to do with freedom and you know it.