'But to be logical is not to be right', and 'nothing' on God's earth could ever 'make it' right!'
Judge Dan Haywood
'As l speak now, the words are forming in my head.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
Edit: I know it may seem petty to some. But I have nieces. I was the guardian of a young boy for 5 years when I was dating my ex. When you report someone for hate speech you aren't just protecting yourself. Some 8 year old that's playing plants vs zombies doesn't need to be exposed to that kind of toxic behavior. It's wrong.
I don't think anyone here would disagree with you.
Several posters already have disagreed, and I'll add my voice to that as well. Firstly there's no agreement about what constitutes "Hate Speech" or even if the term has any meaning at all. Hate Speech mostly seems a broad term used to disenfranchise and silence political/ideological opponents regardless of whether there's any real "hate" behind what they're saying. There's no doubt Zone chat can be filled with rude and trollish people, but as others have pointed out there's already a solution to that.
Lastly parents and guardians are responsible for their children not game developers or other random people playing a video game. I find the idea that game developers ought to put resources into policing the speech of their playerbase so some parent or guardian can relinquish THEIR parental responsibility while a young child plays a video game to be frankly even more obnoxious than the trolls in zone chat.
It's my experience that a lot of people don't want to take personal responsibility for themselves or their children and they like to blame everything else except themselves when they TRIBBLE up.
There is such a thing as hate speech, but it's a much narrower definition that many seem to think it is. I've not seen anything on zone chat that I would consider hate speech, but I have seen a lot of distasteful speech there. And I don't mean the Gorn jokes, I happen to find the Gorn jokes quite a nice distraction from everything else.
Now a LTS and loving it.
Just because you spend money on this game, it does not entitle you to be a jerk if things don't go your way.
I have come to the conclusion that I have a memory like Etch-A-Sketch. I shake my head and forget everything.
I'm sure this won't come as much of a shock to anyone. when ever i am at Earth Spacedock the zone chat gets so toxic and unbearable. It's always the same people every single night, I get the feeling that some of them are only interested in stirring up trouble. I understand that trolls come and go but is there any realistic way besides disabling zone/ignore list to deal with people like this?
Welcome to MMOs.
Formerly known as Armsman from June 2008 to June 20, 2012 PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
I'm sure this won't come as much of a shock to anyone. when ever i am at Earth Spacedock the zone chat gets so toxic and unbearable. It's always the same people every single night, I get the feeling that some of them are only interested in stirring up trouble. I understand that trolls come and go but is there any realistic way besides disabling zone/ignore list to deal with people like this?
Welcome to MMOs.
More like" Welcome to the internet". Seriously, it's not hard to find worse than zone chat if you look.
Firstly there's no agreement about what constitutes "Hate Speech" or even if the term has any meaning at all. Hate Speech mostly seems a broad term used to disenfranchise and silence political/ideological opponents regardless of whether there's any real "hate" behind what they're saying. There's no doubt Zone chat can be filled with rude and trollish people, but as others have pointed out there's already a solution to that.
Spoken like someone that loves to attack things without a shred of knowledge or research. The term 'Hate Speech' has a very clear definition, just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's ambiguous. Any speech that disparages a group based on things like Race, Gender, Religion or Sexual Orientation is clearly branded as 'Hate Speech.' Hate Speech is very clearly 'hateful' and you would know that if you had any idea what you were talking about.
Hate Speech in no way covers idealogical discussion or civil exchange of ideas. The difference is painfully easy to discern.
Firstly there's no agreement about what constitutes "Hate Speech" or even if the term has any meaning at all. Hate Speech mostly seems a broad term used to disenfranchise and silence political/ideological opponents regardless of whether there's any real "hate" behind what they're saying. There's no doubt Zone chat can be filled with rude and trollish people, but as others have pointed out there's already a solution to that.
Spoken like someone that loves to attack things without a shred of knowledge or research. The term 'Hate Speech' has a very clear definition, just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's ambiguous. Any speech that disparages a group based on things like Race, Gender, Religion or Sexual Orientation is clearly branded as 'Hate Speech.' Hate Speech is very clearly 'hateful' and you would know that if you had any idea what you were talking about.
Hate Speech in no way covers idealogical discussion or civil exchange of ideas. The difference is painfully easy to discern.
Yes someone with degrees in Political Science, Philosophy / Ethics, and Media training knows nothing about this BS. You sound like a denizen of clown world with that last post.
The concept of "Hate Speech" and especially how "Hate Speech" is applied is ideologically and culturally driven, it's not universally accepted. In past we never had this catch all term, there's no need for it unless you want to lump a whole load of ideas and speech into this forbidden category and silence discussion and debate. The best answer to bad ideas and speech isn't silencing them it's more speech. If for instance you have someone making antisemitic comments and denying the holocaust that's an opportunity to talk about that dreadful period of history and shine some light on it so people remember and understand. Given open discussion I don't think bad ideas are the ones that are going to prevail. Sadly that's the appeal of this whole "Hate Speech" thing, it appeals to a totalitarian mindset. Namely those that know their own bad ideas aren't going to prevail in a genuine free market of ideas, as well as those in power that need to maintain their own manufactured narrative for control that's threatened by the free exchange of ideas.
Firstly there's no agreement about what constitutes "Hate Speech" or even if the term has any meaning at all. Hate Speech mostly seems a broad term used to disenfranchise and silence political/ideological opponents regardless of whether there's any real "hate" behind what they're saying. There's no doubt Zone chat can be filled with rude and trollish people, but as others have pointed out there's already a solution to that.
Spoken like someone that loves to attack things without a shred of knowledge or research. The term 'Hate Speech' has a very clear definition, just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's ambiguous. Any speech that disparages a group based on things like Race, Gender, Religion or Sexual Orientation is clearly branded as 'Hate Speech.' Hate Speech is very clearly 'hateful' and you would know that if you had any idea what you were talking about.
Hate Speech in no way covers idealogical discussion or civil exchange of ideas. The difference is painfully easy to discern.
You sound like a denizen of clown world with that last post.
I disagree. He sounded pretty clear and understandable with it and anybody with a common sense can see that.
Sure, different states define and especially interpret it differently and you cannot find a mutual accepted opinion on the matter especially in a day and age where peeps point out the worst totalitarian stuff in every harmless criticism while others take it easy by simply evading every problem with their oversaturated political correctness. Why should one even bother.
In the end of the day common sence should prevail and sea's post was focussed on that.
Also thanks for bringing ESD zone chat into forums. I almost forgot what I missed.
Looking for a fun PvE fleet? Join us at Omega Combat Division today.
Alright. This conversation has now crossed that inevitable line where one person decides to attack/insult another, which is a violation of forum rules. So, you can either stop doing that, or we can just end this discussion now. Your choice.
Star Trek Online Volunteer Community Moderator and Resident She-Wolf
Community Moderators are Unpaid Volunteers and NOT Employees of Gearbox/Cryptic
Views and Opinions May Not Reflect the Views and Opinions of Gearbox/Cryptic
Yes someone with degrees in Political Science, Philosophy / Ethics, and Media training knows nothing about this BS. You sound like a denizen of clown world with that last post.
Since we don't want to get into forum rules violations, I won't get into the mud here. I would just kindly suggest that the next time you wish to present your argument from the position of an educated authority, perhaps leave out the personal insult. People tend to focus more on that and then proceed against the rest of your discussion from an emotional standpoint instead of a logical one.
Alright. This conversation has now crossed that inevitable line where one person decides to attack/insult another, which is a violation of forum rules. So, you can either stop doing that, or we can just end this discussion now. Your choice.
No problem, I'm done here. It won't get any of us anywhere.
I tend to think statements regarding toxicity of the ESD zone chat tend be exaggerated. I rarely spend time there, but I rarely find outright toxic stuff or hate speech. Maybe it's worse during the US play times or something?
But I also don't find it hard to filter out idiots and instead look for posts that ask for game advice.
That isn't to say that I think chat should not be moderated. The game might be for 16+, but trying to look like reputable company with a clean game can lead to more moderation being necessary. STO is a game at least some people play to get away from the everyday cow excrement.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
Firstly there's no agreement about what constitutes "Hate Speech" or even if the term has any meaning at all. Hate Speech mostly seems a broad term used to disenfranchise and silence political/ideological opponents regardless of whether there's any real "hate" behind what they're saying. There's no doubt Zone chat can be filled with rude and trollish people, but as others have pointed out there's already a solution to that.
Spoken like someone that loves to attack things without a shred of knowledge or research. The term 'Hate Speech' has a very clear definition, just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's ambiguous. Any speech that disparages a group based on things like Race, Gender, Religion or Sexual Orientation is clearly branded as 'Hate Speech.' Hate Speech is very clearly 'hateful' and you would know that if you had any idea what you were talking about.
Hate Speech in no way covers idealogical discussion or civil exchange of ideas. The difference is painfully easy to discern.
In the USA, your definition of "hate speech" is irrelevant. It is constitutionally protected by 1A. The reason for that is very apparent in this day and age, because even with your "clear" definition of hate speech, it is actually very ambiguous. Racial jokes, recognizing common stereotypes, even stating statistical facts gets shut down by people and governments screaming "hate speech" when they are nothing even close to being remotely hateful. This is especially true of religious discussion as there are some very hateful ideas in certain religions. How can you discuss the bad ideas in those religions if you can't disparage those very ideas because they are religious ideas?
Further there is a very large line between words and actions. It is irrelevant if someone says "brown people suck," because they are doing nothing but speaking. If they start doing something to hurt brown people based on their ideas, that is when the problem starts, not before. Thoughtcrime is an Orwellian dystopian fantasy that is sadly becoming reality in much of the world because people are too lazy to distinguish between words and actions, too cowardly to challenge someone's bad ideas when they speak them, and are made to be completely defenseless to stop them when they cross the line to action.
Silencing people does not make their ideas go away, in fact it only cements their ideas. The best way to challenge bad ideas is to actually challenge them, show counter examples, to simply question the logic of it. When free speech breaks down, you better be very worried for that society. Every dictatorship of the 20th century had that problem, and it seems like more are coming in the 21st century, and in formerly free countries.
Finally, the internet, especially zone chat, lacks any way to convey the intent of the speaker, things that are far more easily conveyed through tone of voice, the pacing of the statement, the facial expressions and body language of the speaker, and so on. Far more of human communication comes from the things unsaid than the actual words. You don't know what someone is really saying when all you have to go on is the written words, especially if they aren't even bothering with punctuation.
Just imagine Jim Carrey playing Khan, saying all the same lines but with his comedic style. It would completely change the meaning even though the words are the same. Conversely, imagine someone raging with anger screaming "I love you" while they murder the object of their affection. Same words, different meanings, but writing down the words can't convey the differences, and that is what many trolls like to do, say weird things that they don't even mean just to see what happens.
Firstly there's no agreement about what constitutes "Hate Speech" or even if the term has any meaning at all. Hate Speech mostly seems a broad term used to disenfranchise and silence political/ideological opponents regardless of whether there's any real "hate" behind what they're saying. There's no doubt Zone chat can be filled with rude and trollish people, but as others have pointed out there's already a solution to that.
Spoken like someone that loves to attack things without a shred of knowledge or research. The term 'Hate Speech' has a very clear definition, just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's ambiguous. Any speech that disparages a group based on things like Race, Gender, Religion or Sexual Orientation is clearly branded as 'Hate Speech.' Hate Speech is very clearly 'hateful' and you would know that if you had any idea what you were talking about.
Hate Speech in no way covers idealogical discussion or civil exchange of ideas. The difference is painfully easy to discern.
In the USA, your definition of "hate speech" is irrelevant. It is constitutionally protected by 1A. The reason for that is very apparent in this day and age, because even with your "clear" definition of hate speech, it is actually very ambiguous. Racial jokes, recognizing common stereotypes, even stating statistical facts gets shut down by people and governments screaming "hate speech" when they are nothing even close to being remotely hateful. This is especially true of religious discussion as there are some very hateful ideas in certain religions. How can you discuss the bad ideas in those religions if you can't disparage those very ideas because they are religious ideas?
Further there is a very large line between words and actions. It is irrelevant if someone says "brown people suck," because they are doing nothing but speaking. If they start doing something to hurt brown people based on their ideas, that is when the problem starts, not before. Thoughtcrime is an Orwellian dystopian fantasy that is sadly becoming reality in much of the world because people are too lazy to distinguish between words and actions, too cowardly to challenge someone's bad ideas when they speak them, and are made to be completely defenseless to stop them when they cross the line to action.
Silencing people does not make their ideas go away, in fact it only cements their ideas. The best way to challenge bad ideas is to actually challenge them, show counter examples, to simply question the logic of it. When free speech breaks down, you better be very worried for that society. Every dictatorship of the 20th century had that problem, and it seems like more are coming in the 21st century, and in formerly free countries.
Finally, the internet, especially zone chat, lacks any way to convey the intent of the speaker, things that are far more easily conveyed through tone of voice, the pacing of the statement, the facial expressions and body language of the speaker, and so on. Far more of human communication comes from the things unsaid than the actual words. You don't know what someone is really saying when all you have to go on is the written words, especially if they aren't even bothering with punctuation.
Just imagine Jim Carrey playing Khan, saying all the same lines but with his comedic style. It would completely change the meaning even though the words are the same. Conversely, imagine someone raging with anger screaming "I love you" while they murder the object of their affection. Same words, different meanings, but writing down the words can't convey the differences, and that is what many trolls like to do, say weird things that they don't even mean just to see what happens.
Edit: I know it may seem petty to some. But I have nieces. I was the guardian of a young boy for 5 years when I was dating my ex. When you report someone for hate speech you aren't just protecting yourself. Some 8 year old that's playing plants vs zombies doesn't need to be exposed to that kind of toxic behavior. It's wrong.
I don't think anyone here would disagree with you.
Several posters already have disagreed, and I'll add my voice to that as well. Firstly there's no agreement about what constitutes "Hate Speech" or even if the term has any meaning at all. Hate Speech mostly seems a broad term used to disenfranchise and silence political/ideological opponents regardless of whether there's any real "hate" behind what they're saying. There's no doubt Zone chat can be filled with rude and trollish people, but as others have pointed out there's already a solution to that.
Lastly parents and guardians are responsible for their children not game developers or other random people playing a video game. I find the idea that game developers ought to put resources into policing the speech of their playerbase so some parent or guardian can relinquish THEIR parental responsibility while a young child plays a video game to be frankly even more obnoxious than the trolls in zone chat.
Just a clarification for those who want to cite US First Amendment and other free speech rights: those only apply to government censorship. This is a corporately owned forum and video game service. They are allowed to apply any censorship rules they see fit on their service. I see the flame messages all the time in forum and via PM about how someone's free speech rights were "violated" by moderation. Not true. You broke a community rule. If you can't operate within those rules, you will face the consequences. Works the same way in-game as here on the forum: if you see it, report it. The GMs (They exist. We talk to them.) will talk care of in-game violations.
Star Trek Online Volunteer Community Moderator and Resident She-Wolf
Community Moderators are Unpaid Volunteers and NOT Employees of Gearbox/Cryptic
Views and Opinions May Not Reflect the Views and Opinions of Gearbox/Cryptic
Firstly there's no agreement about what constitutes "Hate Speech" or even if the term has any meaning at all. Hate Speech mostly seems a broad term used to disenfranchise and silence political/ideological opponents regardless of whether there's any real "hate" behind what they're saying. There's no doubt Zone chat can be filled with rude and trollish people, but as others have pointed out there's already a solution to that.
Spoken like someone that loves to attack things without a shred of knowledge or research. The term 'Hate Speech' has a very clear definition, just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's ambiguous. Any speech that disparages a group based on things like Race, Gender, Religion or Sexual Orientation is clearly branded as 'Hate Speech.' Hate Speech is very clearly 'hateful' and you would know that if you had any idea what you were talking about.
Hate Speech in no way covers idealogical discussion or civil exchange of ideas. The difference is painfully easy to discern.
Yes someone with degrees in Political Science, Philosophy / Ethics, and Media training knows nothing about this BS. You sound like a denizen of clown world with that last post.
The concept of "Hate Speech" and especially how "Hate Speech" is applied is ideologically and culturally driven, it's not universally accepted. In past we never had this catch all term, there's no need for it unless you want to lump a whole load of ideas and speech into this forbidden category and silence discussion and debate. The best answer to bad ideas and speech isn't silencing them it's more speech. If for instance you have someone making antisemitic comments and denying the holocaust that's an opportunity to talk about that dreadful period of history and shine some light on it so people remember and understand. Given open discussion I don't think bad ideas are the ones that are going to prevail. Sadly that's the appeal of this whole "Hate Speech" thing, it appeals to a totalitarian mindset. Namely those that know their own bad ideas aren't going to prevail in a genuine free market of ideas, as well as those in power that need to maintain their own manufactured narrative for control that's threatened by the free exchange of ideas.
I agree with you but do not agree with attacking someone and calling them a denizen of clown world. I disagree with seaofsorrows because I come from a different worldview but I am not going to insult them. One, that should be common sense. Two, it is against the forum rules. Thirdly, the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Now, can we return to civil debate and discuss the subject ESD Toxic Zone Chat? Personally, sometimes I have it open, sometimes I don't. It all depends. I do close it when it gets intense and have even called out some people when they were going after somebody.
The game provides the means to block messages from people you don't want to read yourself. I've found this is far superior in both speed of action and quality of result to waiting for a third-party to maybe do it, even in games that actually do have chat moderators.
Just a clarification for those who want to cite US First Amendment and other free speech rights: those only apply to government censorship. This is a corporately owned forum and video game service. They are allowed to apply any censorship rules they see fit on their service. I see the flame messages all the time in forum and via PM about how someone's free speech rights were "violated" by moderation. Not true. You broke a community rule. If you can't operate within those rules, you will face the consequences. Works the same way in-game as here on the forum: if you see it, report it. The GMs (They exist. We talk to them.) will talk care of in-game violations.
Firstly, as I think it was my post first mentioning 1A, the legality is entirely irrelevant to what I said. My point had to do with the fact that it protects "hate speech" and why, among those reasons being that its too vague and nebulous to not also protect. Where is that line between bad taste joke, racist joke, and overt racism? It can be very blurry, and will no doubt vary from listener to listener. This is why people bring up 1A in these kinds of discussions, because these rulings routinely hinge on basic principles and truths that are still applicable well beyond the reach of US governments, regardless of any legality.
With the understanding that hate speech is not well defined nor a precise concept, its silly to then try and extend the already weak concept of hate speech to internet text communication which itself is even less precise as to the intended meaning. As we see with the general censorship by non US governments and the big tech firms, their policies, stated or in action, are ridiculously vague and lead to nonsensical censorship and banning of people who have done nothing remotely approaching hate speech, yet are still branded as hateful in some way.
Again its not that 1A protects these things, its why. Something like "hate speech" is simply too vague of a concept, and that is why SCOTUS routinely upholds the rights of people to say nearly whatever they want. I'm not saying it directly applies to STO, again its the concept and reasoning behind those rulings and why 1A protections on free speech are so broad, because you can't really nail down any nebulous concept like hate speech. This is in large contrast to, say, banning certain words via chat filter, because even as that is equally silly in principle, its easier to apply with a clear cut to it. There's also much more distinct line between speech and actions.
Now as an aside, yes it is entirely true 1A specifically protects from government tyranny, and not private censorship, generally, however SCOTUS has ruled in Marsh v. Alabama that it is not a blanket exception for private entities, as in that case a corporation owned the entire town and didn't want someone coming onto their property and saying certain things. Essentially, because it was open to the public, and offered public functions of a town, they could not restrict the constitutional rights of the public, despite it being private property.
Does that apply to social media sites? No doubt there will be court cases in the future where that is decided and its hard to imagine it not going the same way as Marsh v. Alabama. For STO specifically, forums or otherwise, that's less clear and I think less likely, even as an open to the public F2P game, in no small part because STO does not brand itself as a public forum. Still the whole legality of it is not particularly relevant to the discussion.
What is clear is that moderation on the topic of "hate speech" or just "toxic" speech in the broader internet tends to be arbitrary, unevenly applied, and definitely does not solve any problem it claims to solve. This is why I don't see any reason for STO to start doing this, because If STO wants to start moderating ESD and other zones, the lesson should already be clear. While it may be legal, its not going to be effective, its going to make people mad on both sides, and it will cost a lot of money. Why do all that for no real benefit? Why do all that when the solution is already there for offended parties: put them on your ignore list or leave the area.
Comments
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
Several posters already have disagreed, and I'll add my voice to that as well. Firstly there's no agreement about what constitutes "Hate Speech" or even if the term has any meaning at all. Hate Speech mostly seems a broad term used to disenfranchise and silence political/ideological opponents regardless of whether there's any real "hate" behind what they're saying. There's no doubt Zone chat can be filled with rude and trollish people, but as others have pointed out there's already a solution to that.
Lastly parents and guardians are responsible for their children not game developers or other random people playing a video game. I find the idea that game developers ought to put resources into policing the speech of their playerbase so some parent or guardian can relinquish THEIR parental responsibility while a young child plays a video game to be frankly even more obnoxious than the trolls in zone chat.
There is such a thing as hate speech, but it's a much narrower definition that many seem to think it is. I've not seen anything on zone chat that I would consider hate speech, but I have seen a lot of distasteful speech there. And I don't mean the Gorn jokes, I happen to find the Gorn jokes quite a nice distraction from everything else.
Welcome to MMOs.
PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
My character Tsin'xing
Spoken like someone that loves to attack things without a shred of knowledge or research. The term 'Hate Speech' has a very clear definition, just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's ambiguous. Any speech that disparages a group based on things like Race, Gender, Religion or Sexual Orientation is clearly branded as 'Hate Speech.' Hate Speech is very clearly 'hateful' and you would know that if you had any idea what you were talking about.
Hate Speech in no way covers idealogical discussion or civil exchange of ideas. The difference is painfully easy to discern.
Yes someone with degrees in Political Science, Philosophy / Ethics, and Media training knows nothing about this BS. You sound like a denizen of clown world with that last post.
The concept of "Hate Speech" and especially how "Hate Speech" is applied is ideologically and culturally driven, it's not universally accepted. In past we never had this catch all term, there's no need for it unless you want to lump a whole load of ideas and speech into this forbidden category and silence discussion and debate. The best answer to bad ideas and speech isn't silencing them it's more speech. If for instance you have someone making antisemitic comments and denying the holocaust that's an opportunity to talk about that dreadful period of history and shine some light on it so people remember and understand. Given open discussion I don't think bad ideas are the ones that are going to prevail. Sadly that's the appeal of this whole "Hate Speech" thing, it appeals to a totalitarian mindset. Namely those that know their own bad ideas aren't going to prevail in a genuine free market of ideas, as well as those in power that need to maintain their own manufactured narrative for control that's threatened by the free exchange of ideas.
I disagree. He sounded pretty clear and understandable with it and anybody with a common sense can see that.
Sure, different states define and especially interpret it differently and you cannot find a mutual accepted opinion on the matter especially in a day and age where peeps point out the worst totalitarian stuff in every harmless criticism while others take it easy by simply evading every problem with their oversaturated political correctness. Why should one even bother.
In the end of the day common sence should prevail and sea's post was focussed on that.
Also thanks for bringing ESD zone chat into forums. I almost forgot what I missed.
Looking for a fun PvE fleet? Join us at Omega Combat Division today.
Views and Opinions May Not Reflect the Views and Opinions of Gearbox/Cryptic
Moderation Problems/Issues? Please contact the Community Manager
Terms of Service / Community Rules and Policies / FCT
Facebook / Twitter / Twitch
Since we don't want to get into forum rules violations, I won't get into the mud here. I would just kindly suggest that the next time you wish to present your argument from the position of an educated authority, perhaps leave out the personal insult. People tend to focus more on that and then proceed against the rest of your discussion from an emotional standpoint instead of a logical one.
This snapped me back, thanks for that. This is just Zone chat on the forums, simply not worth it.
No problem, I'm done here. It won't get any of us anywhere.
But I also don't find it hard to filter out idiots and instead look for posts that ask for game advice.
That isn't to say that I think chat should not be moderated. The game might be for 16+, but trying to look like reputable company with a clean game can lead to more moderation being necessary. STO is a game at least some people play to get away from the everyday cow excrement.
In the USA, your definition of "hate speech" is irrelevant. It is constitutionally protected by 1A. The reason for that is very apparent in this day and age, because even with your "clear" definition of hate speech, it is actually very ambiguous. Racial jokes, recognizing common stereotypes, even stating statistical facts gets shut down by people and governments screaming "hate speech" when they are nothing even close to being remotely hateful. This is especially true of religious discussion as there are some very hateful ideas in certain religions. How can you discuss the bad ideas in those religions if you can't disparage those very ideas because they are religious ideas?
Further there is a very large line between words and actions. It is irrelevant if someone says "brown people suck," because they are doing nothing but speaking. If they start doing something to hurt brown people based on their ideas, that is when the problem starts, not before. Thoughtcrime is an Orwellian dystopian fantasy that is sadly becoming reality in much of the world because people are too lazy to distinguish between words and actions, too cowardly to challenge someone's bad ideas when they speak them, and are made to be completely defenseless to stop them when they cross the line to action.
Silencing people does not make their ideas go away, in fact it only cements their ideas. The best way to challenge bad ideas is to actually challenge them, show counter examples, to simply question the logic of it. When free speech breaks down, you better be very worried for that society. Every dictatorship of the 20th century had that problem, and it seems like more are coming in the 21st century, and in formerly free countries.
Finally, the internet, especially zone chat, lacks any way to convey the intent of the speaker, things that are far more easily conveyed through tone of voice, the pacing of the statement, the facial expressions and body language of the speaker, and so on. Far more of human communication comes from the things unsaid than the actual words. You don't know what someone is really saying when all you have to go on is the written words, especially if they aren't even bothering with punctuation.
Just imagine Jim Carrey playing Khan, saying all the same lines but with his comedic style. It would completely change the meaning even though the words are the same. Conversely, imagine someone raging with anger screaming "I love you" while they murder the object of their affection. Same words, different meanings, but writing down the words can't convey the differences, and that is what many trolls like to do, say weird things that they don't even mean just to see what happens.
I agree.
I agree.
Views and Opinions May Not Reflect the Views and Opinions of Gearbox/Cryptic
Moderation Problems/Issues? Please contact the Community Manager
Terms of Service / Community Rules and Policies / FCT
Facebook / Twitter / Twitch
I agree with you but do not agree with attacking someone and calling them a denizen of clown world. I disagree with seaofsorrows because I come from a different worldview but I am not going to insult them. One, that should be common sense. Two, it is against the forum rules. Thirdly, the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Now, can we return to civil debate and discuss the subject ESD Toxic Zone Chat? Personally, sometimes I have it open, sometimes I don't. It all depends. I do close it when it gets intense and have even called out some people when they were going after somebody.
It all comes down to doing it yourself or insisting someone else do it for you.
Personally, I'd rather do it myself and get it right the first time.
Firstly, as I think it was my post first mentioning 1A, the legality is entirely irrelevant to what I said. My point had to do with the fact that it protects "hate speech" and why, among those reasons being that its too vague and nebulous to not also protect. Where is that line between bad taste joke, racist joke, and overt racism? It can be very blurry, and will no doubt vary from listener to listener. This is why people bring up 1A in these kinds of discussions, because these rulings routinely hinge on basic principles and truths that are still applicable well beyond the reach of US governments, regardless of any legality.
With the understanding that hate speech is not well defined nor a precise concept, its silly to then try and extend the already weak concept of hate speech to internet text communication which itself is even less precise as to the intended meaning. As we see with the general censorship by non US governments and the big tech firms, their policies, stated or in action, are ridiculously vague and lead to nonsensical censorship and banning of people who have done nothing remotely approaching hate speech, yet are still branded as hateful in some way.
Again its not that 1A protects these things, its why. Something like "hate speech" is simply too vague of a concept, and that is why SCOTUS routinely upholds the rights of people to say nearly whatever they want. I'm not saying it directly applies to STO, again its the concept and reasoning behind those rulings and why 1A protections on free speech are so broad, because you can't really nail down any nebulous concept like hate speech. This is in large contrast to, say, banning certain words via chat filter, because even as that is equally silly in principle, its easier to apply with a clear cut to it. There's also much more distinct line between speech and actions.
Now as an aside, yes it is entirely true 1A specifically protects from government tyranny, and not private censorship, generally, however SCOTUS has ruled in Marsh v. Alabama that it is not a blanket exception for private entities, as in that case a corporation owned the entire town and didn't want someone coming onto their property and saying certain things. Essentially, because it was open to the public, and offered public functions of a town, they could not restrict the constitutional rights of the public, despite it being private property.
Does that apply to social media sites? No doubt there will be court cases in the future where that is decided and its hard to imagine it not going the same way as Marsh v. Alabama. For STO specifically, forums or otherwise, that's less clear and I think less likely, even as an open to the public F2P game, in no small part because STO does not brand itself as a public forum. Still the whole legality of it is not particularly relevant to the discussion.
What is clear is that moderation on the topic of "hate speech" or just "toxic" speech in the broader internet tends to be arbitrary, unevenly applied, and definitely does not solve any problem it claims to solve. This is why I don't see any reason for STO to start doing this, because If STO wants to start moderating ESD and other zones, the lesson should already be clear. While it may be legal, its not going to be effective, its going to make people mad on both sides, and it will cost a lot of money. Why do all that for no real benefit? Why do all that when the solution is already there for offended parties: put them on your ignore list or leave the area.
Can confirm it works after many years of online gaming :P.
also stop feeding the trolls