Superman 64 Discussion Thread

[SeanDMan]

So (not that any of you were) for people wondering, "where is this all going?", if you guessed "to the United Nations!", you'd be right, but you didn't guess that you liar so sit down.

Yes, the United Nations had a conference and put out a report  that tried to frame Youtube comments as a form of violence against women. The report recommends "(i)mplementing oversight and maintaining a responsible Internet infrastructure through technical solutions" as well as "(d)evelop(ing) and uphold(ing) laws, regulations and governance mechanisms to deter perpetrators from committing these acts".

So for people who said "no one is talking about censorship" in regards to earlier debates, we now officially have a branch of the UN advocating for censorship of the internet. That's the endgame, a government enforced, censored internet to make it one big safe space/hugbox.

So people won't be able to threaten rape upon people online any more?

Sounds super.

Well sure, that is a really naive way of looking at it.

When has technology designed to enforce behaviour ever worked over here? take drm. Did drm make people stop illegally copying games? No. they just found ways around the technology to do what they were going to do anyway. hackers and griefers have always been able to get around bans and lockouts before.

this isn't the right way to combat harassment because, primarily, it won't work, and because, like drm, the ones who get effected by it will be the onez who just want to game. Serious harassers will continue to use burner accounts, vpns, and you name it to dodge whatever technology is created to stop them.

Policing people's behaviour is not the same thing as censorship.

government enforcement of people's online speech is totally not censorship at all, what was I thinking!?!

[Rich]

You were thinking censorship, and people being held accountable for saying things which are horrendous to other people, just because they can, are the same thing.  It's easy for you to miss from the altitude of your high horse

[Pizza]

Maybe governments will take this too far. But GG has nobody to blame but themselves for this. What did you think would happen?

[Schlitzbrille]

Give @Sousa something new to rage over?

[Sousa]

Fuck off outta my mentions, I'm retired.

[SeanDMan]

You were thinking censorship, and people being held accountable for saying things which are horrendous to other people, just because they can, are the same thing.  It's easy for you to miss from the altitude of your high horse

Oh hey, here's another post in a long series of posts by Snarky Rich where he doesn't know what the fuck he is talking about.

Wikipedia defines censorship in paragraph one:

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions

 The report recommends "(i)mplementing oversight and maintaining a responsible Internet infrastructure through technical solutions", so using technology to suppress speech or public communications, based on what this government(al) body finds to be objectionable.

But hey, I guess Wikipedia is not a reliable source when it comes to the meaning of words in our popular lexicon. How do your feelings define censorship? 

Maybe governments will take this too far. But GG has nobody to blame but themselves for this. What did you think would happen?

Oh no, lots of people in GG have been predicting this outcome for a long time. This is the Studio Rules Committee and the Hollywood Production Code all over again. Content that is deemed to be objectionable will be suppressed and only approved media will be allowed. We saw what a boom that created in terms of the quality of works in Hollywood and how popular censorship in films is to this day, so obviously the effects will be the same for video games.

You're an odd one, Pizza. You decried the NDP's commitment to funding the RCMP, increasing the amount of police we will have, but in terms of giving the government the ability to police people's internet usage, you're onboard? You don't see those two positions as being at odds with one another?

[Rich]

There is a different between free speech or censorship in the media, and then a semi-organised campaign of hate and harassment against a group of individuals or even personal harassment against an individual in terms of the release of personal information. This is not the Government or anybody suppressing a message for their own gain, this is a governing body protecting citizens under its mandate  from people who should be brought to justice.  You can talk about free speech all you want, but the idea of free speech as a way of saying what you want, when you want, to whom ever you want without any ramifications to what you have said is fundamentally flawed.  If you want to go and say horrible things to someone and threaten them, be it verbally or over the internet, or whatever medium it takes, you should also expect to have people react against you if you are acting in a way which is hateful.

If you can't see that, would you be accepting of people sending you hateful messages just because they develop some sort of vendetta against you? Where do you draw the line at something being harassment and those perpetrating it being something that is dealt with or it being "censorship" as you have framed it in this discussion?

 

[SeanDMan]

Oh hey, here's another... oh wait I said that already. 

There is a different between free speech or censorship in the media, and then a semi-organised campaign of hate and harassment against a group of individuals or even personal harassment against an individual in terms of the release of personal information.

No idea what you're trying to say here; I never said anything about censoring the media. I'd suggest you try and stay on topic but I'm pretty sure you're just here to troll me so as long as I'm annoyed by what you say that is the topic to you, so just do what you usually do.

This is not the Government or anybody suppressing a message for their own gain, this is a governing body protecting citizens under its mandate  from people who should be brought to justice.  

...what?

You have absolutely no fucking idea what you're talking about.

First of all, this is a meeting of UN Women, which is basically an advisory body to the UN. The UN, by the way, has absolutely no political jurisdiction to enforce any sort of laws on member nations except as authorized in bodies such as the International Criminal Courts. This is not a criminal matter. This is not about bringing people to justice. You have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

Secondly, this isn't a matter of protecting citizens. There has been discussion of using technology to suppress "harassment", which would mean censoring online speech before it would reach an intended target, NOT reacting to it after it has been delivered. There have been movements by UN member states to get the UN to agree to more strict monitoring and censoring abilities, member states such as China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia. If you think those states have the best interest of women and minorities at stake then, well, you have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

You can talk about free speech all you want, but the idea of free speech as a way of saying what you want, when you want, to whom ever you want without any ramifications to what you have said is fundamentally flawed.

Right, and I haven't ever said that people should be able to have unrestricted and unpunishable free speech. I believe anyone should be able to speak freely with the consequences of that speech made clear. If people are committing harassment, then they should be dealt with, absolutely. But I do not trust the government to enforce restrictions of speech on a technological level and trust them not to abuse that power.

It's important to understand, there are already rules in place against a lot of online harassment. The difficulty is in enforcing them because of the inherent anonymity of the internet.The problem is, you can't really fix this issue. Wil Wheaton had the genius idea of making everyone sign up for things with their real names, thus removing everyone's anonymity, but this is a pretty privileged position for a guy who can afford a security system on his house to keep the whackos away. Not everyone is that fortunate and there are, unfortunately, crazy people out there who take their videogames very seriously. I don't think I'd want to use my real name on XBox Live where I knew if I killed the wrong kid in Call Of Duty, he could get my personal information, come to my house and kill me IRL. Not even mentioning that Zoe Quinn, one of the people speaking to this panel, doesn't use her real, legal name online. So obviously that wouldn't be a solution she supports.

The only other solution is the totalitarian approach; monitor all ingoing and outbound packets of data and set up filters to prevent harassing content from getting to their sources. But the problem is, it won't stop there. We've seen what governments do when you have that kind of ability. Imagine googling "David Cameron Pig Fucker" and getting no results. It could happen, and it will happen. Do you know anyone who has lived in China? I do. There is nothing more frightening than getting an email that says "No, I am not okay, I can't go into it but I'll be leaving China in a few weeks, we can talk then". This is what happens when you give government agencies the ability to control the internet.

 If you want to go and say horrible things to someone and threaten them, be it verbally or over the internet, or whatever medium it takes, you should also expect to have people react against you if you are acting in a way which is hateful.

See, I AGREE WITH THIS COMPLETELY. I have never claimed to be pro-harassment. I toe a line, I am a bit abrassive and I say things that can be considered mean, but I am also a person who understands that there is another human on the other side of that argument. When things get heated I'm always willing to apologize if anything was taken too personally and I don't go after people in a personal way; I draw lines, and respect that what happens on the board is just on the board, and doesn't need to go beyond that. Unfortunately I am not the majority of internet trolls.

Here's the problem, though; as I said with the DRM point earlier, you essentially can't stop people from committing harassment. The ability to sign up for free emails means you can sign up for free emails to set up free twitters and free facebooks and free whatever, until you have a toolbox of free accounts with which to harass people. As long as we want an internet that is available to everyone (meaning free access to email and twitter, not locking them behind paywalls so that only people with money on their credit cards can access them) then we have an email that is available to trolls. And whatever measures are put up in place, people will find ways around them. This is a day and age where major government spy agencies are getting hacked. It is naive to think that there is a real way to filter out someone who is committed enough to being offensive.

Who this will effect are common, non-hacker types.

If you can't see that, would you be accepting of people sending you hateful messages just because they develop some sort of vendetta against you? Where do you draw the line at something being harassment and those perpetrating it being something that is dealt with or it being "censorship" as you have framed it in this discussion?

There's a very simple distinction; that between reaction and proaction.

Proaction is turning over the ability to censor, throttle, and otherwise restrict the internet to the government. I am not okay with this. I have seen how this turns out. This turns out with people like Edward Snowden labelled as a terrorist because he told you how much of your personal information security is routinely violated by the government. If you think they'll suddenly place nice just because, well, I dunno, they had a change of heart, well, you have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

Reaction, in terms of trying to police harassment in it's current form, is difficult. But it's not impossible. The key is that people must have something at stake in order to be discouraged from behaving like an utter fucknugget. Make it so that if someone gets a certain percentage of negative reports on, say, X-Box Live or Steam, they lose their membership. Have email providers shut down accounts if they send harassing emails. The issue of DRM is one that is largely in the past because Steam changed the culture of how people buy games. If you try and change the culture of online gaming to reward good behaviour and isolate negative behaviour, it could work. The problem is that then you have to define harassment. If Gazz and Myke go on Fifa and call each other cunts every time they miss a pass, that isn't harassment to me. If I were to send a private message via XBox Live to Srar and tell her she's a cunt and to get offline and go back to the kitchen, that would be crossing that line. But, again, do you want the government to be the one making that judgement call? I'd rather not. Context is important and you can say things between friends that you can't say to randoms.

The biggest issue I have is that I don't want the ability to critique something to be considered harassment, and I don't want the government determining what speech is appropriate and what isn't. I am not opposed to a change in harassment punishments assuming they are logical, but the idea of turning the keys of the internet over to government agencies is something I am very uncomfortable with.

[Rich]

I like a lot of what you posted, but fundamentally fue to the anonymity of the Internet, do you not agree that some degree of being proactive is not a more effective way of at the very least monitoring hateful interactions? People shouldn't be just held accountable as and when they are reported as that then is a race to the bottom in the sense that you are not being held accountable until someone reports it or if there is a substantial volume is forced to remove themselves from their internet presence?

[SeanDMan]

I like a lot of what you posted, but fundamentally fue to the anonymity of the Internet, do you not agree that some degree of being proactive is not a more effective way of at the very least monitoring hateful interactions?

Effective is debatable. Again, DRM is usually effective until it's bypassed. Determined people will find a way around it.

Meanwhile the potential tradeoff is giving the government the ability to read and write everything you type before you even get a chance to put it online, which to me is a big no no.

People shouldn't be just held accountable as and when they are reported as that then is a race to the bottom in the sense that you are not being held accountable until someone reports it or if there is a substantial volume is forced to remove themselves from their internet presence?

But what's your other option? If you aren't punishing people for their actions you start talking about punishing them for their intent or their thoughts.

There's a standard of innocence until proven guilty with most crimes. Some things which are incredibly dangerous, such as nuclear weapons and guns, are restricted because of their potential harm. Are we really going to say that Youtube videos like this are as violent as guns, and need to be specially restricted by government mandate?

[Benji]

Guns don't kill people, but reading the comments on a YouTube video might do

[Rich]

I like a lot of what you posted, but fundamentally fue to the anonymity of the Internet, do you not agree that some degree of being proactive is not a more effective way of at the very least monitoring hateful interactions?

Effective is debatable. Again, DRM is usually effective until it's bypassed. Determined people will find a way around it.

Meanwhile the potential tradeoff is giving the government the ability to read and write everything you type before you even get a chance to put it online, which to me is a big no no.

People shouldn't be just held accountable as and when they are reported as that then is a race to the bottom in the sense that you are not being held accountable until someone reports it or if there is a substantial volume is forced to remove themselves from their internet presence?

But what's your other option? If you aren't punishing people for their actions you start talking about punishing them for their intent or their thoughts.

There's a standard of innocence until proven guilty with most crimes. Some things which are incredibly dangerous, such as nuclear weapons and guns, are restricted because of their potential harm. Are we really going to say that Youtube videos like this are as violent as guns, and need to be specially restricted by government mandate?

I'm not saying the censorship of videos is acceptable, and it is not proactive, it is reactive in that it  is still is punishing people for their actions, what I am getting at is you can stop the message and punish people before it reaches its target audience as with what you appear to have as your stance is that the audience has to read the hurtful things before anyone is punished. I just feel that you are protecting the antagonist rather than the victim which is fundamentally the wrong way round in my opinion

[The Lusophone]

Are we really having a discussion over whether government stopping people saying "I am going to kill you and rape your still bleeding corpse" is a good or bad thing?

[Rich]

No. We aren't having that discussion, we are having one about where the line is on censorship/big brother governing on the Internet/when is it acceptable to jump in from a government stand point.

 

thanks though.

[The Lusophone]

Seems like something high level that maybe an international body should take a look at and report on...

[SeanDMan]

Are we really having a discussion over whether government stopping people saying "I am going to kill you and rape your still bleeding corpse" is a good or bad thing?

Yeah, that is exactly what I am saying, you're not being hyperbolic at all!

I'm not saying the censorship of videos is acceptable, and it is not proactive, it is reactive in that it  is still is punishing people for their actions, what I am getting at is you can stop the message and punish people before it reaches its target audience as with what you appear to have as your stance is that the audience has to read the hurtful things before anyone is punished. I just feel that you are protecting the antagonist rather than the victim which is fundamentally the wrong way round in my opinion

I guess the thing is, I really don't see comments online as being all that hurtful. There are definite ways to hurt someone via the internet; things like swatting, publishing their address, sharing compromising images of them without their permission. The thing is, these things are already crimes, and already have punishments.

I definitely think there is a danger to offensive comments and harassing messages... if the victim in question is a teenager. Generally, once you've lived through high school, you should know that words are mostly useless in terms of weapons. If someone is saying mean things about you online, you can... I dunno, go offline for a few minutes?

Generally, functioning, non-sheltered adults should be able to take criticism and not consider it to be harassment. But we aren't dealing with well adjusted people with real world experience, but sheltered, privately educated trust fund babies. Consider:

According to feminist culture critic Anita Sarkeesian, who spoke at the event, online “harassment” doesn’t simply consist of what is “legal and illegal,” but “also the day-to-day grind of ‘you’re a liar’ and ‘you suck,’ including all of these hate videos that attack us on a regular basis.”

Being called a liar in Youtube videos is not violence. I'm sorry, it's just not.

[Sousa]

To be fair, Sarkeesian did show up at the UN panel wearing a garland of dismembered dicks, her dick-chopping knives gleaming in the cold fluorescent lighting.

[Benji]

Liar :/

[SeanDMan]

Pffft, Sousa trolling as usual.

...we all know she does her circumcising with those hoop earrings she wears.

[MDK]

To be fair, Sarkeesian did show up at the UN panel wearing a garland of dismembered dicks, her dick-chopping knives gleaming in the cold fluorescent lighting.

I missed that, I was busy watching Obama and Putin hate fucking each other with their eyes