• krashmo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    43
    ·
    edit-2
    30 days ago

    People do need thicker skin though. So much internet drama is magnified beyond reason by people who can’t just ignore assholes. That’s not excusing the fact that they’re being assholes. Obviously if they would stop being assholes that would be the ideal solution. However, we all know that will never happen. No amount of legislation, moderation, or punishment will ever remove that tendency from people. It is fundamental human nature. Stop fighting a losing battle. Learn how to block people and move on with your life. If you stop engaging they’ll get bored and leave you alone. They thrive on your reaction so stop giving them one.

    At the end of the day it’s your job to protect yourself in all aspects of life, including online. Stop trying to outsource it to software developers. They gave you all the tools you need decades ago.

    • TheHarpyEagle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      30 days ago

      I cannot get behind the sentiment of “online communication is awful so we shouldn’t even attempt to do anything about it.” Yeah at some point you have to learn to shake it off to protect yourself, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t make any effort to moderate online spaces as well. Don’t give assholes quarter in your game if you want to retain your community.

      You can’t remove the suck from people, but you can remove the people from your community.

      • krashmo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        edit-2
        30 days ago

        I didn’t say no attempts should be made to improve things. In fact in one of my comments I explicitly said the opposite. I’m saying people need to be both realistic in their expectations of what any moderation policy can achieve and proactive in the pursuit of their own online safety. Moderators will never be able to fully eliminate this problem because it is an inherent part of the behavior of a subset of humanity and humans are involved in the activities where this harassment takes place.

        If you expect every person you meet, online or in person, to respect the rules you are going to be disappointed. By all means, make suggestions for improvement. But understand any solution will be imperfect and accept your role in dealing with those imperfections. To put the sentiment in a more succint form, get thicker skin.

        • TheHarpyEagle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          30 days ago

          Moderators will never be able to fully eliminate this problem because it is an inherent part of the behavior of a subset of humanity and humans are involved in the activities where this harassment takes place

          I’m not suggesting they can, I don’t think anyone is.

          If you expect every person you meet, online or in person, to respect the rules you are going to be disappointed

          I don’t, but I expect if someone starts yelling rape threats at a restaurant that they’ll be kicked out, rather than the waiter saying “well why didn’t you just move to another table?” The rules are there for a reason, there should be consequences if they are broken.

          • krashmo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            30 days ago

            I understand the comparison but you can’t exactly mute people with minimal effort in real life. Additionally, the threat of rape in person is significantly different than anonymously online from a legal perspective because the person making the threat knows who and where the target is at the moment the threat is made.

            At a high level I don’t disagree with most of what you’re saying. The point I’m making is that there’s a pretty large gap between “something should be done about online harassment” and “this is our plan for stopping online harassment”. Most calls for action appeal to the first without much concern for the second, and the solution is the difficult part, not identifying the problem.

    • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      30 days ago

      Did you click through to the actual clip?

      It’s not that I entirely disagree, but it’s not a black-vs-white thing. Some ribbing is understandable, after all it’s a competitive environment. But the explicitly misogynist, hateful, threatening and illegal needs to be harshly dealt with, to make players understand that it’s an absolutely 0 tolerance police and you will fuck yourself up if you try.

      No player should have to go through having to shrug off rape threats.

      Learn how to block people and move on with your life.

      That’s what we want the game makers to do, yes.

      • krashmo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        30 days ago

        Why do game makers need to be the responsible party? I’ve never played a game that didn’t let you block and/or mute people you’re playing with. That doesn’t make assholes disappear but it stops the problem from impacting you. Why add a middleman to the equation? Taking care of it yourself is much faster and doesn’t depend on convincing someone else that what’s happening needs to be dealt with. You can block people for having the wrong favorite color if you want to.

        There’s too much inconsistency in what people perceive to be inappropriate behavior for a central authority to have the final say on the matter. Moderator action should be reserved for situations that explicitly violate the law, and even that varies significantly based on location and interpretation. It’s much simpler to let players decide what they will tolerate on their own.

        • TheHarpyEagle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          30 days ago

          Why do game makers need to be the responsible party? I’ve never played a game that didn’t let you block and/or mute people you’re playing with. That doesn’t make assholes disappear but it stops the problem from impacting you. Why add a middleman to the equation?

          Because the devs/mods have the power to at least attempt to remove the person from the game before anyone else has to suffer their comments.

          It’s much simpler to let players decide what they will tolerate on their own.

          It’s pretty simple to enable mod actions, too. Game devs make a list of rules about what you can and can’t say. You agree to those rules when you start playing the game. Breaking the rules earns you a punishment. If you don’t like it, you don’t play the game. If the rules are unfairly restrictive then people won’t play the game and it will fail. This is how internet moderation has worked since forever.

          • krashmo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            30 days ago

            Yes that is how moderation has worked in some places in the past. It’s also been historically unpaid volunteer work and not particularly effective, especially at large scales. Most of the people here have at least one story about bad moderation on reddit precisely because that kind of moderation is inefficient and heavily influenced by the personal bias of the moderator reviewing a report. You still needed to block people on a regular basis if you wanted to both participate and avoid harassment from a subset of users. That’s how it is all over the internet and there is nothing that can be done to completely remove that element of online activity. Hence the need for thicker skin.

            • TheHarpyEagle@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              30 days ago

              Well yeah, that’s why part of Riot’s solution seems to be adding more mods. I’d be more understanding if Riot didn’t have the resources to add more paid mod support, but I truly don’t think that’s the case. So yeah, pay more mods and use more advanced technology to flag communication, I think that’s an attainable goal.

              I’m not saying that people shouldn’t still protect themselves by blocking harassment, but I believe it’s perfectly within devs’ abilities to at least attempt to remove the most heinous bullies from the game.

              • krashmo@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                30 days ago

                While that is true in many respects, voice chat is quite difficult to police compared to text chat. I’m not sure how you go about automating or even monitoring that without recording everything people say using your service. Which then brings up a whole host of issues from data storage costs to privacy concerns to consent to record laws. You pretty much have to rely on users to submit evidence of their claims and that leads us back to the idea that users need to expect to have an active role in enforcing any sort of moderation policy.

                • TheDarksteel94@sopuli.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  29 days ago

                  It doesn’t bring up any issues to record people for moderation purposes, if it’s in the Terms of Service of whatever service/game you’re using. Agreeing to the ToS is a form of contract. CoD’s voice chat, for example, is already monitored and recorded.

                  Also, as voice recognition with AI is getting better, so will the effectiveness of those moderation tools. Not just in terms of speed but also in terms of cost.

          • krashmo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            30 days ago

            I’m not a lawyer but it is my understanding of US law that something like what you see in the video does not meet the legal definition of a threat. There is no indication that the offender knows the real identity or location of the person they are speaking to, both of which are required to establish the intent necessary to define something as a threat in the legal sense of the word. Furthermore, the person speaking appears to be from another country, likely the UK or Australia, both of which have different laws than the US. Is Riot supposed to evaluate this situation based on the laws of the country in which they have their corporate HQ, the country the speaker resides in, or the country in which the listener resides? I don’t think a lawyer in any of those three countries would advise this streamer to press charges based on the content of this video alone which would indicate that this kind of behavior is not illegal. Perhaps it should be, but that’s another matter entirely.

            To reiterate, none of this is meant to be interpreted as a defense of what that guy said. It’s just to illustrate the point that moderation is not a simple thing to enforce even in situations where a surface level evaluation seems like it should be. It’s much simpler to mute this guy or leave the lobby or whatever else you feel like you need to do to protect yourself. The unfortunate reality remains that people like this will always be around no matter what system is in place to minimize their impact. That’s not to say that no steps should be taken with that goal in mind, just that when all is said and done you will always bear some responsibility in protecting yourself from content or behavior you don’t want to be exposed to.

            • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              edit-2
              30 days ago

              If you can play from say the UK, and you pay money for the game or access to it’s Internet or components, they are doing business in the UK, and hence their business, business interactions and everything are subject to UK laws.

              Seriously, we let companies get away with too much. If you provide public spaces, you are responsible for some degree of safety in/on them, and that includes certain personal safety, protection from libel, slander and threats. Likewise if you do business in a country and can make money from customers there, you are responsible for adhering to those countries laws. Want to do business in >200 countries? Yeah, you now have to adhere to >200 sets of laws.

              Now you could say “But it’d suck if so many companies no longer release their products globally!”. Sure. OTOH, it sucks much more that companies shirk responsibilities constantly. Companies are supposed to be like persons. So like a person, require them to adhere to local laws and show at least some degree of decency.

              And no, it’s ridiculous to assume someone should take steps to protect themselves. It’s a failure of society that we have to do that for something as deranged as online rape or death threats. Because we let both the aggressor and the conductor get away with it, exactly in the way you do, by immediately putting the onus onto the victim.

              • krashmo@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                30 days ago

                Ok so what exactly is your proposal? We’ve already established that what happened in this video is not illegal based on the laws of any of the countries that the people involved likely live in so what’s next? How do you go from where we are now to the system you want to see implemented?

                You’re talking about abstract ideas and I’m talking about actionable realities. The two often conflict with each other. The world you’re describing isn’t the one we live in so if you you want to make it a reality you need to get much more specific about how to implement your vision. It’s easy to say “do more” when you don’t have to worry about the resources required or side effects of what you’re asking for.

                Normally I’d agree with the blanket statement that companies are allowed to get away with too much but the way you’re applying that argument here doesn’t make sense. You’re also saying that people don’t have any responsibility to protect themselves and I just can’t agree with that statement. It’s way too idealistic to be applicable to real life in any significant way.

  • 10_0@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    29 days ago

    Maybe focus on banning cheaters rather than having a pissing contest with some dude

  • THCDenton@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    29 days ago

    I’ve been playing games online for 20 years and never before have I seen this level of passive-aggressive douchebaggery. Rules limiting what you can say must have some influence on this trend. I just mute my mic and chat in pug matches now.

  • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    30 days ago

    Geezus fucking hell, why did I watch the clip?

    That’s disgusting. I would argue two things need to happen across the board:

    • Companies need to collect IRL data if you want to have access to text/voice chat, verify them, and in situations such as these, hand them to the authorities. Yeah it’s a tricky data protection problem, but these would be legally actionable threats IRL, they should not be let off the hook just because it was done online.
    • More importantly, companies themselves should be on the hook for failing to act. That is, if you want to provice text or voice chat or something, but also do not want to invest enough money to moderate these spaces, then you should be legally liable under the same logic as why the cases should be given to the police in the first place, you’re aiding and abetting such threats. I suspect we’ll very very quickly either see way stricter moderation (good) or the end of text/voice chat in many games (not ideal, but if they cannot be moderated, then so be it).
    • golden_zealot@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      30 days ago

      Yeahhhhh, I don’t want a company which itself previously settled for a hundred million dollars in a gender discrimination suit to have every persons intimate personal data.

      • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        29 days ago

        Yeah fair enough. Good point. Legal consequences for online activity are always a tricky subject because of privacy issues. Can’t trust the very companies I would like to be on the hook for not taking safety serious to in turn take safety of data serious.

        (And of course too many people think “it’s like the high seas”, ignoring that those have more laws than many countries and hence why you need marine lawyers if you do shipping 😅)

    • uhN0id@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      30 days ago

      I totally missed the clip you were shocked by at first (I guess the Twitter embed didn’t load the first time). Just went back to watch it and I don’t understand how someone can be ok with saying that. Yeah I’ve heard sexist things and weird sexual harassment comments in games like valorant, overwatch, etc but that was absolutely disgusting. His casual tone says so much about him too. He’s not even laughing where you could at least say “that’s a stupid shitty joke”. He has such a real tone to it that it’s truly disturbing.

      I agree with all of your points. It’s unfortunate but I think we’ve gotten to the point that people need to be properly held accountable. Don’t just ban them from the game, ban them from the entire platform and report them to local authorities for that. Hell, when someone is this nasty someone on the community team should send it to their employer. It’s clearly a threat even if he has no way to see it through. This isn’t just calling someone trash, or telling a woman to “go back to the kitchen”. These people need to learn what real consequences are. It’s truly disgusting behavior.