5 ms·
> "That's an argument for banning swastikas, not banning anyone who displays a swastika." If you don't ban the person displaying the swastika, how can you poss
by aka1234 6y ago
> "That's an argument for banning swastikas, not banning anyone who displays a swastika."
If you don't ban the person displaying the swastika, how can you possibly enforce banning swastikas? There must be a consequence for displaying the offending symbol, otherwise the rule is toothless.
You remove the swastika, and the person just replaces it. What then? Just keep removing it and hoping the Nazi/edgelord/'troll' will get tired of replacing the swastika? Trying to win a battle of attrition with a bad-faith actor is not an effective way to enforce rules.
> "remember the moral panic we just went through when 4chan trolls convinced people that the OK hand sign was a "one-sided version ofna White Power" sign and got people fired from their jobs for making the sign."
"Remember when 4chan 'trolls' said the OK hand sign was a white power sign and then white supremacists started using the OK hand sign as a white power sign?" --- There, I fixed it for you.
- toast0 6y agoBan the car --- either don't let them use it online, or don't show it to others. If an account gets a threshold number of cars banned, don't let them use customized cars online. If they're spouting hate on chat, ban them from chat too.
- aka1234 6y agoThat seems like a lot of effort to address the symptoms, not the disease. The root issue is the user. Get rid of the user and you don't have to worry about all these half-measures.
- loopz 6y agoWhat was the problem needing solving?
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y agoDepends who you ask. Some might say toxic expressions. Others might say people who declaim toxic expressions. Clearly MS has the latter goal in mind. I can imagine a very reasonable argument for this. Someone who puts a Confederate flag on their car seems highly likely to engage in other toxic behaviors. Just like someone who calls someone a nigger once is likely to do it again. So we use the behaviors as a signal of underlying tendency. We don't want people who have this tendency on the platform because they will tend to make life worse for other users, and the loss of their business hurts us less than we gain from other people feeling more comfortable. Therefore we ban them.
- prepend 6y agoSome may say it’s not a significant problem and it’s cheaper for MS to make a PR statement about doing something than spending effort in moderation software changes.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago> Some may say it’s not a significant problem But not the people who have the authority to make the call, plainly.
- loopz 6y agoThis explanation really creeps me out, if major corps can just do about anything, based on any arbitrary rule ie. RND() or even own biases and legal discrimination. On the other hand, too many on gaming platforms are engaging in clearly racist behaviour, ie. choosing offensive nicks, spamming chat, and need correction.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y agoI'm sorry it creeps you out, but as a general rule company managers are free to do what they please with their company, as long as it is not illegal. Banning racists isn't illegal so ...
- baddox 6y agoThat's just a more detailed explanation of the process of banning someone for using swastikas in a game.
- Dylan16807 6y agoWhat? "Don't let them use customized cars" is extremely different from "ban them".
- baddox 6y agoThe comment provided a list removing more and more capabilities from the game. That's exactly what a gradual process of banning someone would be. Sure, you can give them time to correct their behavior, but eventually you might have to ban them.
- Dylan16807 6y agoThe other capabilities would only be removed if they broke other rules. That's not a gradual process toward banning. That's a completely unrelated disciplinary measure.
- freehunter 6y agoSo basically, if someone murders another person we should ban them from murdering people but not put them in jail. They should only go to jail if they commit multiple unrelated crimes.
- filoleg 6y ago>if someone murders another person we should ban them from murdering people but not put them in jail. If conflating the act of violently taking someone's life away irreversibly to displaying an offensive custom skin in a videogame sounds like a reasonable and genuine argument to you, I don't think there is anything anyone can say to convince you otherwise. I agree with the parent comment that restricting customization for the offending users in the game is a reasonable punishment. They can still play the game AND have zero actual possibility of committing the same offense. The desired outcome of the user not using offensive imagery in custom skins is achieved.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]