Superman 64 Discussion Thread

[Quom]

I didn't mean it the way I think you've taken it. I 100% agree with you (or you with me or whatever). What I'm arguing against is an homogenisation of the internet where communities are shut down or moderated for not meeting the expectations of a group of outsiders.

[SeanDMan]

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?

It definitely can be. Parents can do more harm than good by not knowing what their child can handle and or not providing proper oversight. Kids buying M-rated games is a good example of this. On the other hand, parents can definitely stunt a childs growth by not letting them have access to information for overly puritanical reasons.

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?

There's benevolent methods of censorship but they exist in a guardianship relationship. If I had a kid I wouldn't want him to play Fallout 3, because I think it's a mature game and that it isn't suitable for people below a certain emotional and intellectual maturity. But I don't want, for example, the government banning books, or movies, or games, from adults. Adults grow up and get to make choices about what kind of entertainment they consume. Sometimes people consume entertainment that they know will offend them (for example, I watched the Republican debates), but as adults, they get to make those choices.

I don't trust the government to censor things for benevolent reasons, and I don't trust them not to misuse broad access to personal electronic information.

Do companies like Sony, Microsoft or Facebook not have a duty of citizenship to their users to protect them?

It is up to the users in question to censor themselves. Think the gore in Resident Evil will be too much for you? DON'T PLAY IT. Think Grand Theft Auto depicts horrible treatment of women? THEN DON'T PLAY IT. Art is an amazing thing. No one is shoving video games down your throat. If you don't like it, or know you won't like it, either don't play it or stop playing it.

I don't believe in censorship except when it's a case of a parent or guardian keeping their kid out the X-rated shit. Otherwise, I have this weird philosophy that adults should be able to make informed decisions about what content they consume, and accept the consequences of those choices.

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.

You missed my point entirely, so let me make it simple math:

(Group of people) = (Punished) for (actions of minority)

Gamers are being threatened with government censorship because of the actions of a minority who harass people.

Migrants are being prevented from immigrating because of the actions of a minority who may be radicalized Islamists.

In both cases, a group of many innocent people suffers because the actions of a small minority are projected onto the whole. This is called generalization. It's a bad thing. 

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.

I'm not against educating people about anti-harassment resources and the like, I'm against government intervention.

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 

Again; I don't disagree but there is also an element of personal responsibility that should come into play.

Quom seems to get it.

[Plubby]

 

If I had a kid I wouldn't want him to play Fallout 3

Yes, we get it, no farms etc  

[SeanDMan]

It's important for children to know the benefit of agriculture, damnit.

[Colly]

Basic question and I've probably missed it, but what are the government/UN actually threatening to censor?

[SeanDMan]

Basic question and I've probably missed it, but what are the government/UN actually threatening to censor?

There's no concrete proposal, but the wording in the repost would suggest a desire to use technology to prevent harassment, which would almost have to involve filtering messages before they are sent, which then would mean reading them all before they're put online.

[Colly]

Basic question and I've probably missed it, but what are the government/UN actually threatening to censor?

There's no concrete proposal, but the wording in the repost would suggest a desire to use technology to prevent harassment, which would almost have to involve filtering messages before they are sent, which then would mean reading them all before they're put online.

 

Basic question and I've probably missed it, but what are the government/UN actually threatening to censor?

There's no concrete proposal, but the wording in the repost would suggest a desire to use technology to prevent harassment, which would almost have to involve filtering messages before they are sent, which then would mean reading them all before they're put online.

Messages where though? Are we talking emails, Twitter, this message I'm writing now? This has genuinely lost me. Even more than previously.

Edited October 2, 2015 by Ultra Rare Colly
I'm leaving that quote cloud because it's brilliant.

[SeanDMan]

Potentially, all of those.

[Colly]

That doesn't really sound feasible.

[SeanDMan]

it definitely is: in various middle eastern and asian countries, China probably being the most notable, everything you post is run through an algorithm looking for red flags. If it finds them, your message never goes anywhere and you get a knock on your door from friendly governmeny agents.

the nsa already has the technology to lock shit down, they lack a mandate though.

[TheWho87]

I'd be interested to know what would be considered on the lower end of the harassment spectrum, especially in a day and age where disagreeing with someone is considered harassment.

[Schlitzbrille]

I'd be interested to know what would be considered on the lower end of the harassment spectrum, especially in a day and age where disagreeing with someone is considered harassment.

Well it was clearly  the guy's fault. Filthy sexist cismale scum for calling out those brave progressives on their shit.

[The Lusophone]

Uh, there's a difference between disagreeing with someone and making a game based around committing violence against them...

[TheWho87]

Yes but the disagreement was regarding the people who intended to ruin the life of the "games" creator by doxing them, and someone disagreeing with them doing that.

[Colly]

Yup, don't care again.

[Schlitzbrille]

Uh, there's a difference between disagreeing with someone and making a game based around committing violence against them...

That much I agree with. Read on for more.

Yes but the disagreement was regarding the people who intended to ruin the life of the "games" creator by doxing them, and someone disagreeing with them doing that.

This is a minefield. Yeah, designing a game solely around punching a feminist in the face is all sorts of objectionable, but so is threatening false charges of pedophilia.

[Bobfoc]

I think the moral of this entire tale is that everyone is awful.

[MDK]

I think the moral of this entire tale is that everyone is awful.

:<

Even me?

Even Benji?

EVEN KANEY?!

[Bobfoc]

I think the moral of this entire tale is that everyone is awful.

:<

Even me?

Even Benji?

EVEN KANEY?!

I suppose there are exceptions to every rule.

[MDK]

I think the moral of this entire tale is that everyone is awful.

:<

Even me?

Even Benji?

EVEN KANEY?!

I suppose there are exceptions to every rule.

I should bloody hope so