Superman 64 Discussion Thread

[Benji]

So we're just throwing out innocent until proven guilty then?

[SeanDMan]

So we're just throwing out innocent until proven guilty then?

Thank fuck someone else can see the problem with proactive justice.

[Pizza]

Literally nobody has said anything close to opposing the idea of "innocent until proven guilty", i have no idea where that even came from. 

[Benji]

Rich says that removing something after it's posted is too late. Police aren't psychic, which basically means assuming someone is going to post something illegal before they do it and stopping them, thus removing "innocent until proven guilty". It seemed like a weird thing to say and he'll probably clarify it in a minute.

Edited September 29, 2015 by Benji

[Rich]

My point being is that on the internet it isn't like where there is no filter between brain an mouth, there are measures to moderate questionable content on the internet, right now I can go and put anyone of you in to a position where a mod here would read the content of your post and allow it to pass or block it from being posted if we thought that was a reasonable measure to take rather than blocking the content of your posts entirely.  This is a case where innocent until proven guilty is not at the crux of what I am saying, I am saying that the person is guilty of posting something hateful, but why should we then make it the case that the person who is being targeted is having to read all of it when there is a function not to have to let that happen. I have issue in the case where we can take the burden of proof away from the victim quite easily.

[SeanDMan]

But how exactly do we prevent people from saying things, unless everyone is either censored and monitored all the time, which throws away the assumption of innocence, unless we have psychic police?

It isn't about potecting criminals but rather about protecting millions of innocent unaffected bystanders by not submitting them to unwarranted government surveilance.

[Benji]

My point being is that on the internet it isn't like where there is no filter between brain an mouth, there are measures to moderate questionable content on the internet, right now I can go and put anyone of you in to a position where a mod here would read the content of your post and allow it to pass or block it from being posted if we thought that was a reasonable measure to take rather than blocking the content of your posts entirely.  This is a case where innocent until proven guilty is not at the crux of what I am saying, I am saying that the person is guilty of posting something hateful, but why should we then make it the case that the person who is being targeted is having to read all of it when there is a function not to have to let that happen. I have issue in the case where we can take the burden of proof away from the victim quite easily.

Isn't that what we do every day on here? People post and it is moderated after the fact if it breaks the rules, with the person being banned, suspended, or warned as appropriate. The person can put the other person on ignore if they want to too. Are you saying you'd rather every comment on here be moderated before it's posted? Sorry, I'm probably just being dense, but I'm genuinely not sure what you're getting at.

I'm all for punishing for harassment and creating friendly discourse, but I just don't get how it could be enforced in advance without an assumption of guilt before someone has even done anything.

Edited September 29, 2015 by Benji

[9 to 5]

[RPS]

I don't think it is an issue with presumption of guilt or innocence, I think what Benji and Sean are stating the harm being done is somebody reading the online comment and that by deleting a comment before it is read, no harm has been done and therefore you should allow the harm to be done before you take action. I don't really see that as an issue of guilt or innocence, I see it whether you wants freedom of speech laws to be active or reactive. Presuming someone is guilty would be stating that anytime an offensive comment is posted, an individual is immediately guilty of an offense without access to a defense for the crime, like if somebody posted the YouTube comment on your account. I don't see deleting a comment before it gets published as presuming somebody is guilty, it is presuming that the statement being made is offensive.

[Rich]

RPS has hit the nail on the head, I would never want somebody to be presumed guilty before being innocent, but if we as a society can't be mindful of each other, then there should be proactive measures to protect those who are more vulnerable. If it inconveniences a million people to stop one 14 year old taking her life because of online comments that could have been stopped getting through to her from other people, to me that's a price I would think society should be accepted to pay, in my opinion.

Edited September 29, 2015 by Rich Manning
words

[Colly]

I still don't really have a clue what's happening here outside of the fact that Ben Affleck is handsome and talented, but are the UN basically just suggesting the same sort of pre-moderation the BBC website does, where your first five posts or whatever are hidden until reviewed?

[Gazz]

I don't understand why if I went up to someone in the street and repeatedly hurled violent sexist and/or misogynisitc verbal abuse and made threats of violence against them, I would quite rightly be arrested by the authorities for harassment and/or threatening behaviour and no one in society would bat an eyelid at me being punished for these crimes but if I do it on the internet and it's policed it suddenly it's all George Orwell, Big Brother, Police State, Censorship rassum frassum?

[Hobo]

YouTube comments are places filled with horrible.

The internet is full of poopheads.

I dislike poopheads who get murder death kill over cultural criticism.

I like nice things and kittens and being nice to people.

Unless those people are Linker.

 

[Quom]

My concern (and I have no idea how justified it is because I don't know which group this group belongs) is that there definitely exists an element on the internet that seems to expect the world to bend to help with their mental health issues or to fit them in. There's a difference between 'I have been triggered and for my own mental health must remove myself from this current conversation/situation to protect myself and calm down' and 'I have been triggered, you are an arsehole for doing it and you and the entire situation needs to change ASAP'. My hope is that guidance on this topic would be sought from the former and not the latter. Or preferably still people who actually have a scientific understanding of trauma and conflict. 

At the end of the day mental health is a personal responsibility and burden. If I have diabetes it isn't on Dunkin Donuts to shut down or create a suitable menu option. Likewise someone with PTSD who is triggered by the smell of a specific flower can't insist that their neighbour doesn't grow it. I personally feel that reversing this on the internet would actually be a long-term detriment to sufferers. Part of being a community is the need to be flexible and to make efforts to fit in. It can't work if each individual dictates how the group should work. There are some hate-filled shitty communities online, but it's my job to ignore them, it isn't their responsibility to change to accommodate me.

Edited September 30, 2015 by Quom
Wouldn't where I meant to would

[Pizza]

If you're speaking about trigger warnings, then I have no problems with warnings, its just a polite way of letting people know what they're getting into before they get into it. If people are pushing for triggering content (that isn't harassment or threatening) to be outright removed, then I disagree with them.

[Quom]

Trigger warnings are weird to me and I'm not sure upon what they're based or if there is anything scientific showing their value. I personally don't have an issue with their existence - like a tv show saying this show depicts violence and simulated sexual assault or whatnot - but at the same time I don't know how effective they actually are at stopping trauma symptoms because to me there is just as great a risk of the trigger warning being a trigger as whatever is in the show/text. I'm a bigger fan of attaching hotline numbers for people who feel affected after reading/seeing such things. 

I will admit I hate the idea of using them in universities as some are arguing for and removing any content which might be 'triggering' from courses. Learning to deal with your triggers and how to cope with being triggered is going to be far, far, far more valuable than any attempt to remove triggers from your life. In a classroom setting I think it's far more valuable to state something might be confronting and provide access to help if people need it, rather than altering the course just in case.

I also think a lot of people are mistaking despair, shame, feeling challenged or being made emotional with being genuinely triggered. The world can be very confronting, but there's a difference between your brain shutting down when you smell petrol and being made despondent because you identify with a character in a book. I'm not even arguing that the person triggered by petrol should be protected from petrol, more that they should be given tools to cope with being triggered.

Likewise provided the shit I've been taught on the topic (as well as what I've seen in practice) is still accurate the strongest triggers are the same as how our strongest memories are unlocked, it's a scent, a turn of phrase, a taste, a specific visual, a certain song or noise, or an intermingling of these things. You can't really protect people from these, the key is in helping people and being supportive afterwards. 

     

Edited September 30, 2015 by Quom

[Pizza]

Using TWs pre enrolment at university would be fine, so people know if they take this course, they will have to deal with triggering subjects. Removing those subjects from courses would be terrible. 

Ultimately people should have an opportunity to avoid things they want to avoid, within reason. It's weird that we live in a world where spoiler warnings are taken more seriously than trigger warnings.

[Quom]

But again psychologically there's a fucking vast and I mean vast difference between being legitimately triggered and finding something confronting. My issue is that something confronting has been confused for something that's triggering. Being confronted is how we grow, develop and form well rounded opinions, it might not be pleasant at the time, but it's incredibly important for critical thinking. You are going to end up far more fucked up by avoiding anything and everything that you find unsettling than actually doing it. You're self-imposing and then feeding an anxiety disorder.

[SeanDMan]

RPS has hit the nail on the head, I would never want somebody to be presumed guilty before being innocent,

But if you want everyone to be censored, and pass it off as an inconvenience, you are essentially saying that we (governments) should punish everyone (with censorship) for the actions of a small percentage (the harassers). That is something I take issue with, and let me frame it another way.

Right now, a bunch of European countries are refusing to accept migrants because they are Muslims, and they equate Muslims with Islamic extremists, So governments (...well, governments) are punishing all migrants (with refusing to accept them and give them access to services) because of the actions or percieved actions of a small percentage (Muslims who may be radicalized or are at risk to be radicalized).

All progressives I know are saying this is wrong; it represents Islamaphobia, racism, and is generally a problematic way of viewing things. Why, though, is it okay to generalize that all gamers should be treated like they are harassers? Sure, the stakes are a lot lower. No one is going to die if they are censored by the government. But it's still an over generalization to treat all people who game and post online with the same brush as you treat people who legitimately harass people.

but if we as a society can't be mindful of each other, then there should be proactive measures to protect those who are more vulnerable. If it inconveniences a million people to stop one 14 year old taking her life because of online comments that could have been stopped getting through to her from other people, to me that's a price I would think society should be accepted to pay, in my opinion.

I don't fundamentally disagree on that, but it's more complex to me.

I'll come back to this later when I talk about what Quom said.

I don't understand why if I went up to someone in the street and repeatedly hurled violent sexist and/or misogynisitc verbal abuse and made threats of violence against them, I would quite rightly be arrested by the authorities for harassment and/or threatening behaviour and no one in society would bat an eyelid at me being punished for these crimes but if I do it on the internet and it's policed it suddenly it's all George Orwell, Big Brother, Police State, Censorship rassum frassum?

No one is saying it should be open circus.

I'm not saying we shouldn't punish harassment. I'm not suggesting that we've gone too far in terms of political correctness. I have no issue with people being punished, appropriately, for harassing people. What I am opposed to is the idea that we need technological restrictions in place to censor our speech to prevent other people from getting hurt feelings. That is really what we're talking about. There are existing laws in place that punish harassment. There are cyberbullying laws, there are laws against threats. But we have people saying that harassment extends beyond threats and includes things like "the day to day grind of people saying 'You're a liar!'". If we're going that far, you remove criticism. You remove satire and sarcasm. And you remove those tools with technological censorship.

That is what I am opposed to. I don't want to repeal harassment laws, I'm just wary of, going forward, how we intend to enforce them, and where we draw the line.

My concern (and I have no idea how justified it is because I don't know which group this group belongs) is that there definitely exists an element on the internet that seems to expect the world to bend to help with their mental health issues or to fit them in. There's a difference between 'I have been triggered and for my own mental health must remove myself from this current conversation/situation to protect myself and calm down' and 'I have been triggered, you are an arsehole for doing it and you and the entire situation needs to change ASAP'. My hope is that guidance on this topic would be sought from the former and not the latter. Or preferably still people who actually have a scientific understanding of trauma and conflict. 

At the end of the day mental health is a personal responsibility and burden. If I have diabetes it isn't on Dunkin Donuts to shut down or create a suitable menu option. Likewise someone with PTSD who is triggered by the smell of a specific flower can't insist that their neighbour doesn't grow it. I personally feel that reversing this on the internet would actually be a long-term detriment to sufferers. Part of being a community is the need to be flexible and to make efforts to fit in. It can't work if each individual dictates how the group should work. There are some hate-filled shitty communities online, but it's my job to ignore them, it isn't their responsibility to change to accommodate me.

I kind of agree with this, but also kind of don't?

I have no problem with communities coming out and saying "we don't want misogyny, we don't want racism". Communities (and I sort of agree with Pizza) have a responsibility to police themselves. That is one thing I like about the internet, that we have places where the moderation is heavy handed and we have safe spaces where people can feel like harassment is a non-issue, and then we have other places, like here, where the moderation is a little more lax, and people can be a bit more expressive (within reason), and then we have the Chans, where anything goes. Where each community draws the line is left up to them, and I like that.

With videogames it's a bit more complicated. Ideally, every game service would have a Steam. On Steam, I am part of the EWB Group. I can then look at that group and see people who own similar games, and I can then message them and suggest we play together. If, in the course of said game, I treat the other person like shit, threaten them, etc, I would reasonably expect to be kicked out of said Steam Group. There aren't subcommunities on X-Box Live and PSN like there are on Steam because Sony and X-Box probably don't want to be required to police them, but the beautiful thing is communities can police themselves. I would not expect to join SRSGaming on Steam and last more than a day. But that is the beautiful thing about an SRSGaming group, it can, and should, be allowed to police itself and keep itself a safe space. AND THAT IS AWESOME. And there should be a reddit Steam group which is probably full of dank memes brah and various bullshit I have no interest in, AND THAT TOO IS AWESOME. By letting us set up sub groups we can allow people to find places where they feel comfortable. I've played Fifa with some of the laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaads, I know sometimes it can get a bit saucy, and to me that's fine. But say if Jimmy were to play and his mom heard some of that language? He would be grounded for years. But this is the beautiful thing about communities; if you find one isn't what you want, there are THOUSANDS more.

There are definitely lines. But the tools exist to block people from messaging you on pretty much every platform. Sure, they can create burner accounts and get around that but I don't really see a way to prevent that outside of pre-emptive censorship (which I oppose) and making services like Youtube, Facebook, Email cost money (which won't prevent burner accounts it will just make them cost money, and it has the side effect of cutting off tons of people from using them, so I don't support that either). To me, there is a degree of personal responsibility when you sign onto the internet. Yes, people should be free from harassment, but you also have to accept that some people on the internet are awful. Personally, if I were internet famous, I would set up filters so that new accounts automatically go to my spam box. That would cut down a shitload of burner accounts access to me. You'd still get people silly enough to use their primary accounts to harass people but those are usually linked to personal information meaning if you cross criminal lines, you can usually be punished for it. But there is a personal responsibility element that I think people are overlooking. Playing videogames with random people can lead to interacting with awful people. A curated online experience, where you play with people you know, is generally going to be much better for everyone.

Anyway, this is a complex and nuanced issue, and I'm glad at the least the people discussing it on the "other side" here tend to be doing so in good faith as opposed to earlier Ben Affleck related trolling.

BTW, part of the reason people are distrustful of this UN petition is who is involved. This is a twitter post where Zoe Quinn tries to relate the latest school shooting to people coming after her, as if he was on his way to get her when he got bogged down in a school. IMO stuff like this is garbage, and kills her credibility, but that is just my opinion.

[Rich]

In no way do I disagree with 99% of that, my only issue is you seem to automatically assume censorship is a punishment, is this really the case? I mean things like parental filters are a form of censorship, does this make them a punishment to the child? Censorship isn't always about punishing, or about keeping information away from others for the gain of the censor, it's also about protecting people, is that not important too? Do companies like Sony, Microsoft or Facebook not have a duty of citizenship to their users to protect them? We aren't talking about this being like an exclusion of anybody such as the migrants, this issue doesn't mirror this because if it was applied to everyone then no one is being victimised or punished for what or who they are. I just think it's far too simplistic to just assume everybody will police themselves without further educating people, without giving them a social construct to work in. People aren't all thick skinned, people aren't all arseholes, but there are enough of each that we should be thinking of ways to protect the former and ensure the latter are as harmless as possible