Doing something harmful to someone to get a personal advantage.
Harming someone. Sacraficing them.
Example:
Maximum Profit Ltd. threw their employees under the bus to polish their quarterly report. 5000 jobs lost.
Creating a speed limit (and technically limit the cars not to be able to go over it) is not ‘throwing commuters under the bus’. Adding a filter that has some false positives is not throwing someone under the bus.
Removing the filter and opening prior victims up for a new wave of harassment, I can see this as throwing someone under the bus.
You seem to be keen to marginalize actual victims with positions like ‘they asked for it’ and ‘we don’t know the numbers’.
Actually, we have surveys for this, and the numbers are pretty high. Even if we assume that 2/3 of the reports are exacerbated, we still have a very significant number of people being severely harassed in game chats or social media, talking millions of people world-wide.
Karl Marx propagated a 40-hour limit in The Manifest. Before Henry Ford was born. I think there was some other Scottish guy (not Adam Smith) writing down something similar a few years or decades before Marx.
A friend of mine, keen on philosophy, monologued about it lately.
Inhibiting freedom of expression of a group is highly likely more harmful given the aspect that it leads to more social conflict then it would otherwise compared to saving (without guarantee) very few individuals. It’s a big order of magnitude there.
As for your examples… obviously it’s ‘throwing communters under the bus’, don’t you think it’s harmful for them if they need 20 minutes more per drive a day, hence 40 minutes reduced from their daily leftover time they have?
Obviously it is… but nonetheless it’s done since the alternative is so severe that it’s warranted. You always measure how things hold up compared to each other… and the time-loss is depicted as less harmful in general then… well… some extra corpses mangled into metal. Sounds like it’s a decent choice.
Oh, absolutely!
Which is why I’m advocating for reducing the filter to a simple state + changing how friending works as well as allowing to limit how messaging works. Like for example ‘can only be messaged by friends’ is one option. ‘Online status can only be seen by friends’.
We got options to reduce harassment in a more meaningful way then a non-functioning method of trying to limit profanity. That’s a pitiful thing to do… it’s a small aspect of it to enhance overall chat quality as it counteracts the reduced inhibition over anonymous communication… but it does not even remotely hold up to modern methods to inhibit the situation to actively occur without negatively impacting the community at all.
Specifically in social media, it’s a bit less in games, still substantial though. Which… once again, using the right measures for it.
Also for the record: I’m not ‘marginalizing’ anything here, however you came to that conclusion. I’m solely advocating for a badly functioning method to not be picked as the prime example on ‘how great’ the situation is tried to be handled.
If it’s a problem then do it properly, and yes… that is a problem, hence… do it properly. Not with crappy non-essential methods that have - in comparison to others - barely any effect.
If you want to avoid harassment in the first place give people the option to properly opt out of those situations or limit their possible interactions with others up-front.
The mentioned friend-list only visibility
The option to choose which people can actively PM you
The option to whitelist people to get through those filters.
Because imagine if you’re actively targeted and harassed by someone or a group worst-case. What can you do?
You can block em.
Ok… what if they’re willing to sacrifice accounts - which happens - solely to keep up the harassment? Will they fear prosecution in reality for doing so? Extremely unlikely, even if something severe happens.
So… stop em beforehand. ‘Friends only’… they can have 100 people trying it but that won’t help. Give players the ability on who they can interact with, not limit how. That solves the majority of the issues already, significantly reduces the situations.
The issue is that they can’t distinguish a discussion between you and your friend from a discussion with a random where either (or both) of you is harassing the other.
If you have suggestions to help with the distinction between the two, then you are welcome to offer it so that they can assess them.
visibility options to show or hide your online status to reduce chances for approach
options to limit PMs to friends only, group only, combinations of those
whitelisting individuals to get through a specific setting for whatever reason you have
This gives the respective player the power on who they want to interact with and allows to completely remove those issues up-front with the exception of it happening from your friends/the group/whitelisted people.
Also it doesn’t negatively affect the communication overall and allows on easing up substantially on the profanity filter.
Jeez, I don’t know… Maybe (and bear with me here) the distinction could be one message being in a public channel, and the other being in a private message, between two people, that both have each other in their Friends list?
Oh my god, I can’t even… Just take a look at this
What I was trying to say 5 times in /global was:
“Holy shit I almost shat my pants on Cremorus”
which got censored.
I then changed it to:
“Holy sh@ I almost sh@ my pants on Cremorus”
and it got censored again.
I tried several times, until I finally got around it by typing:
“Holy cow I almost pooped myself on Cremorus”.
So, I guess we should all thank the profanity filter from stopping me to unleash this indescribable horror upon the innocent participants in the global chat
Absolutely. But your implication is that if the social construct was gone. We’d all just murder people. Instead of the logical conclusion of “humans built a social network as many animals do because they work better together to survive and killing each other is typically counter productive to species survival”
Humans aren’t naturally murderers, otherwise we wouldn’t be social animals. You’re implying that we are naturally murderers and are stopped because the social norm.
Your logic is backwards.
Wars happen due to social constructs as well, fighting over concepts like nationality and religious affiliation, and the basic concept of “he has what I want”, but the vast majority of the population is more into the social aspect rather than “I’d murder you if it wasn’t frowned upon.”
Edit: I said your logic is backwards, but it’s more apt to say you’re using the conclusion to justify the cause: “we don’t kill each other because we’re social animals” vs “we’re social animals so we don’t kill each other” seem the same but have different implications. The first, your, implication is that the social nature of our species is what is preventing us from killing each other and if that were to break down we’d all just start doing the murder on each other. The second, my, implication is that we work together as a social species and as such won’t kill each other even if that social aspect was removed. After all, only genuine psychopaths fall into the category of “I’ll kill you for no reason.” as even most (not all) serial killers had a reason for their killing spree (“she looked like my mom who abused me.” for example.) all wars started because of social constructs not because of a lack of them.
Here is an example for taking something with humour.
My wife is severely disabled and has memory issues. She takes this with humour by saying that it has its benefits, because I don’t need to think of new jokes every day. I could recycle the one from last week. It’s not mocking, not offensive, it just creates a light-hearted perspective.
Counter-example:
What Luke Mockridge said about the Paralympic swimmers - that was not humour. A joke from his perspective, maybe. A mockery for sure. But there was nothing humorous about it.
So, reducing the mental suffering of victims is not a good enough goal? Resulting in depression, anxiety, and potentially worse? There are some corpses in cyberbullying.
Harm is a physical or otherwise injury or damage. Being sporadically inconvenienced by a blocked message falls under the ‘no harm done’-category. This filter isn’t severely reducing your ability to communicate.
Your freedom of expression/opinion is already limited by the ToS, the filter is just a policing tool - with errors. The ToS is severely limiting what you can and cannot say on EHG’s services.
You feel entitled to something that you aren’t to in the first place: to say on their server what you want. Learn to behave and act with respect in someone else’s home.
I love to swear, but if the system blocks my message because it contained swearwords, I feel called out, not annoyed.
You think people create an uprising or go into general strike or coup the government because a message was wrongfully blocked? Because that was the scope of this research paper. Can’t be applied here, if you ask me. And it appears to be shallow and biased.
Friend lists do not equal friends and friendly behaviour. A distinct whitelist separately from the friend list might be okay. I have a couple of people on my LE friend list - they are just contacts.
Irony in that case. Self-deprecating humor. Also a fantastic coping mechanism to reduce personal problems to a joke in your mind.
The punchline itself which is was quoted quite a lot is quite dark humor but humor.
The context around it… yes, that’s not.
Well, how many other distressed people do you create in return for limiting freedom of expression? Is it a worthy exchange? Extremely likely for a basic filter (as mentioned, necessary evil) but for anything further? Very unlikely and it produces likely the opposite rather then actively helping more.
That’s why the mentioned other methods are there.
They help and do the job properly.
Harm is also mental, you can hurt someone physically or mentally.
You can cause involuntary harm.
You can cause voluntary harm.
No?
Depending on the block and the lack of ability to re-describe it it can nonetheless cause major frustration to actual anxiety though. It’s a form of ‘loss of control’ after all.
In our case in LE it’ll likely be mild.
But once more, if it’s such a hefty existing issue why aren’t respective measures already taken?
EHG - unlike me before today - has given the aspect of harassment in their game clear thought after all… so how comes that there wasn’t a single one looking at a variety of games and how they handle it there? Because you’ll easily find a few which have different options which all return to ‘we just remove the inherent ability to freely message people without their consent’.
That’s the far bigger question here actually.
The profanity filter being overzealous is a detriment for communication, and it being overzealous has - by design - a piss-poor performance to avoid those situations in comparison to the weakest of the other options.
Can’t see if the person is online? Chance highly reduced to try harassing them.
Can’t message the person? Well, how should you start it in the first place?
Latency is only one of over a dozen different metrics to measure network performance.
A lot of these metrics are outside of both EHG’s and your control. Some are only in your responsibility and some are in EHG’s responsibility.
With the issue you are describing and Kain saying this shouldn’t happen like this, you should open a bug report and give EHG as much info as possible so they can find the issue that is causing this delay behaviour.
“The winner is the last one who drowns.”
Do you really consider this a punchline?
And taking perspectives like this is why I consider you to marginalize victims of harassment. You seemingly weigh this higher than the harm done by harassment.
Or your example with the people shouting ‘punch me in the face’. I have heard similar horrible arguments that went along the line: ‘women are at fault, why do they wear mini-skirts?’
Nope, still not. The filter is a bit overzealous, but in the example that Sarthis provided, it successfully filtered the profanities. It did what it was supposed to be, I guess. In this case, it is a detriment to communication by design.
If you think that disallowing profanities in their chat is a big social issue and limits your freedom, you have a problem with entitlement. Do you deny EHG the right to block the word shit from their chat?
This does not solve all the problems, though. First of all, we still have the public chat or party chat. You are pro profanity filter, right? But not a context-based one, if it works that way? Because it has sporadic false flags?
Working with friend lists, white lists, blocking all private messages by default until a user accepts messages from a specific user - those are all things you can add on top.
But they won’t work as an automatic policing tool, and they aren’t foolproof. Many people would accept incoming requests out of curiosity, I guess. The door is open, after all.
Or you put someone on your friend list and a day later, things turn sour - something I experienced in Warframe. Or it turns out that you are a woman. What often follows are insults, constant sexual innuendo up to the point of what I would consider verbal SA. There were men doing experiments, pretending to be women, using voice filters and all. They suddenly had a baaaad time.
Your measures might be good in some ways, but they aren’t a great solution, either.
This alone should be enough for you to realize how insane your arguments on this matter are…
If you have to exaggerate so much like this to prove your points, then those things might not have much in common after all?
And I suppose you don’t want to go down the “who is generally being wrongly imprisoned in the western society” discussion, since you already showed you lack knowledge on racial studies.
Guess I’m done with this thread. See yall.
Well, yes. If you’re asking me, I’m very thankful to EHG for not seeing shit like that in the end of the day in chat, when I just want to chill.
Edit: oh look, they didn’t censor me for saying shit here… Maybe you could create a thread to share your feelings whenever you feel you need to say some bad words.
It’s really macabre, but it’s humor.
And I repeat, what happened in the whole context though… is not humor.
Ohhh, that argumentation line.
‘You seemingly weigh this higher then…’
Do I?
Is that what you’ve taken away from all of that?
That’s a big ‘oof’ there I would say in context.
And the full context by now is:
I’m against using profanity filters and instead are - as a end result with all things taken together - for the loss of anonymity online to enforce accountability as well as the implementation for methods which aren’t interruptive but outright avoiding those situations to happen in the first place.
Does that sound ‘marginalizing’ to you?
Once more, big ‘oof’ there.
As for the mini-skirt argument… that one didn’t uphold at any time. No, obviously not at fault, also another situation.
In comparison if they go like that knowingly into a district with a high number of such crimes while even making a detour for whatever reason (thrill seeking could be one) then there’s suddenly partial fault on their part. Obviously doesn’t excuse it happening in the first place but you can’t reasonably deny partial fault there, because intentionally putting yourself in danger you know is taking a part of responsibility for it happening in the first place.
If you deny this concept by itself you deny taking responsibility for actions overall, which would be a problem.
As mentioned above: Nuance.
Things are barely ever black and white, even in the worst situations.
Yes, false flags, I’m also for a loss of online anonymity and hence accountability, take that into consideration.
And I’m also for ‘punishment fitting the crime’ which means in case of breaking rules of conduct for the chat (mild) two warnings following a permanent chat-ban. By severely overstepping it (harassment or similar) instantaneous permanent chat-ban.
This way not even a filter would be needed at all, but sadly we have the aspect of extremely lowered inhibition because of anonymity.
And the second they do so they accept partial responsibility for it happening. It’s like taking candies from a stranger. Yes, obviously it sucks when you get poisoned then… but you should damn well know not to do it in the first place.
And as said, active sexual harassment needs to be accordingly prosecuted in the real life.
That’s not done.
Therein lies the problem.
First of all ‘I don’t have to’ but instead my mind didn’t give me a better example to use at that time.
Differentiate between that.
And yes, I don’t wanna go down the route because it’s so far away from the initial topic of the profanity filter that it doesn’t make sense.
Though if it becomes a reasonable topic to have then sure, there’s several distinct pointers nowadays for which crimes it happens for, and those are generally the ones which are extremely hard to prove guilt/innocence after it happens. You should know which direction I’m going there.
That bold bit isn’t what R&D is. I’m not quite sure what you mean by investment, are you talking about a company investing in themselves (eg, buying new, more efficient/better equipment that may give them more/better capabilities) or investing in other companies (which is the bedrock of our economic system, access to capital so you can do more, build a new factory/etc)? Either way, not giving any form of tax relief would have a massive chilling effect on the economy, there’s a reason why governments don’t do that.
Ahh, socialism. Personally I’d be interested in seeing how that works in practice without all of the “other side”'s commentators getting all emotional/hysterical about it. Society would certainly look very different.
If you’re at the point of the previous section, what’s the point of money?
Yes. But you need to remember that there are 2 people in the conversation & that if there’s miscommunication it’s not automatically the other person’s fault, nor are you right by default. And if you go with the “but that’s not what I’ve said”, it’s how you come across, consistently.
How did that go for Blizzard when they wanted to have people’s IRL names in battlenet instead of usernames?
Well, it does sound like you’re ok with opening them up to IRL harassment as well…
Yes, which by itself is fine, though taxation should happen before re-investment, with a balancing accordingly to not cause businesses or people to avoid taxation by instead solely re-investing (which at times they can sell respectively needed assets for a profit later on, in the end-result avoiding taxation solely)
Yes, in the current situation it can’t be done, there’s absolutely massive changes needed to make it a possibility, informed investment versus informed time usage rather then ‘growth is everything’ mentality. Which has proven to be detrimental long-term already.
Yes, neither socialism nor capitalism are bad, they become though - like the majority of things - when taken to an extreme.
In Europe for example healthcare is quite good. But… it’s a socialistic setup of the system. Hence we can clearly see that such systems aren’t automatically negative or positive, it’s fully situational and with differents ups and downs attached.
Status, progress beyond the basis. To allow the ‘self made man’ to exist and distinct between those not willing or able to further themselves. This is a important aspect of a society, pure socialism fails because there is no motivation, motivation is created by either bettering your own circumstances (which alone is a surprisingly weak motivator) or comparing yourself to others and wanting to be ahead (which is a surprisingly strong motivator, wish it would be the other way around but it isn’t).
Well, that’s why the ‘oof’ is not targeted
It’s a ‘the whole thing is ‘oof’’
That’s not a loss of anonymity, this shoving identity down people’s throats.
As above with socialism… there’s magnitudes of things to be done.
A loss of anonymity can still adhere to the right of privacy. You as the user don’t know the identity of others, you’re anonymous towards them.
The company though knows and has the ability to forward it when needed, while also be by law demanded to keep it under wraps and safe.
