I like that no one mentions in all of this the failure of the system that put the innocent man in jail in the first place. That is a failure of both prosecutor and defense regardless of side information. There was in all likelyhood there was evidence to point to the correct person but for some reason the prosecution decided to go after someone else (maybe because it was easier).
In the Logan case, there was exculpatory evidence that the police/prosecution intentionally withheld. It was one of the many cases corrupted by Jon Burge and his ilk.
I focused on the knowledge of innocence piece to show that legal ethics are different than, and occasionally directly go against, what most people would consider moral.
And here's another aspect of that Texas case, from reading the article and not just the headline. The defense wasn't "This girl clearly wanted it, look what she was wearing". The defense was "Multiple people accused say she lied about her age and she consented." The girl herself says she consented. The article further says one of the defendants saying she lied about her age "had no corroborating evidence", but that another witness who says she lied about her age was prohibited from providing that testimony.
Also note all the defendants are black. The race of the victim is unknown, but all the black defendants are being described as a "pack of dogs".
Ultimately it doesn't matter. Last I heard statutory rape was a strict liability crime. Not knowing the victims age, them lying about their age, picking them up in an 18+ club which they got into with a fake id, meeting them on a job they'd gotten with a stolen identity and a legitimately issued state drivers license saying they are over 18, are all not adequate defenses.
But to say it's immoral for a laywer defending their underprivileged clients to make the point of fact claim that they didn't know the victims age, she point of fact consented which nobody disputes, and that she sought it out, is baffling.
But sure, lets get rid of the adversarial system, and ban assorted defenses you find immoral. I'm sure it won't result in more black boys being bused from schools to prisons.
I think the questions was actually - if she did have consensual sex with these people as she testified. Half of whom were juveniles themselves, why was for example a middle school boy charged with statutory rape where as she was not. As you said its a strict liability crime.
And here's another aspect of that Texas case, from reading the article and not just the headline. The defense wasn't "This girl clearly wanted it, look what she was wearing". The defense was "Multiple people accused say she lied about her age and she consented." The girl herself says she consented. The article further says one of the defendants saying she lied about her age "had no corroborating evidence", but that another witness who says she lied about her age was prohibited from providing that testimony.
Also note all the defendants are black. The race of the victim is unknown, but all the black defendants are being described as a "pack of dogs".
Ultimately it doesn't matter. Last I heard statutory rape was a strict liability crime. Not knowing the victims age, them lying about their age, picking them up in an 18+ club which they got into with a fake id, meeting them on a job they'd gotten with a stolen identity and a legitimately issued state drivers license saying they are over 18, are all not adequate defenses.
But to say it's immoral for a laywer defending their underprivileged clients to make the point of fact claim that they didn't know the victims age, she point of fact consented which nobody disputes, and that she sought it out, is baffling.
But sure, lets get rid of the adversarial system, and ban assorted defenses you find immoral. I'm sure it won't result in more black boys being bused from schools to prisons.
I think the questions was actually - if she did have consensual sex with these people as she testified. Half of whom were juveniles themselves, why was for example a middle school boy charged with statutory rape where as she was not. As you said its a strict liability crime.
I've been going down a rabbit hole, reading all manner of articles about that case now, and I cannot for the life of construct a narrative about the events. I'm just left with these seeming random facts.
There were 4 events that all took place in the same trailer. She and the defendants said she consented. Other testimony says she was threatened. Videos of the events circulated around a school. All the defendants appear to be black. 5 of them were themselves minors. One was 27! A lot of them were related. It's an extremely poor area. Some had other run ins with the law. A lot of them didn't.
I have no idea how the victim met the defendants. I have no idea how they all ended up at the same house for a gang rape several times over several months. I have no idea how the girl got there. There is just a bizarre lack of any narrative at all. Most google results are just "How dare that lawyer say that thing."
So I donno. Maybe they scooped her off the street and blackmailed her into being raped. Maybe one of the middle school kids knew her and somehow things escalated from there. Maybe the protests from the defense that she set it all up actually happened, unlikely as that seems. I can't find any article that actually describes how the circumstance came to pass, so I can't say.
0
Options
ceresWhen the last moon is cast over the last star of morningAnd the future has past without even a last desperate warningRegistered User, Moderatormod
The topic is "[#MeToo] Comes To Gaming," let's talk about that.
And it seems like all is dying, and would leave the world to mourn
What do you all think we should do to make gaming culture more welcoming to women?
I think the “boys club” perception of gaming, as a profession or a hobby, contributes to the culture of permissibility/protection of abusers.
I have no idea how to go about fixing that other than telling people to stop being shitheels, and the ones who most need to hear will just use it to fuel the next Gamergate.
What do you all think we should do to make gaming culture more welcoming to women?
I think the “boys club” perception of gaming, as a profession or a hobby, contributes to the culture of permissibility/protection of abusers.
I have no idea how to go about fixing that other than telling people to stop being shitheels, and the ones who most need to hear will just use it to fuel the next Gamergate.
Treat them as equal members of the community, and don't tolerate people who won't. The one constant that we keep seeing is that the community turns a blind eye to abusers - we need to stop doing that.
Yeah I'd say the primary thing is stop treating female gamers like a circus freak show. I can't stand how many times when I'm in an MMO chat and the common joke of "there are no girl gamers" comes up.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Yeah I'd say the primary thing is stop treating female gamers like a circus freak show. I can't stand how many times when I'm in an MMO chat and the common joke of "there are no girl gamers" comes up.
There's a disturbing number of people who think playing a game online gives them the right to be an asshole. Ultimately I think it comes down to game developers to moderate their spaces. All too often you see developers just shrug their shoulders at the issue and abdicate responsibility for the play area they're selling.
Yeah I'd say the primary thing is stop treating female gamers like a circus freak show. I can't stand how many times when I'm in an MMO chat and the common joke of "there are no girl gamers" comes up.
There's a disturbing number of people who think playing a game online gives them the right to be an asshole. Ultimately I think it comes down to game developers to moderate their spaces. All too often you see developers just shrug their shoulders at the issue and abdicate responsibility for the play area they're selling.
Yeah this is definitely a part of it. And like the mentality is "don't feed trolls" so a lot of normal every day not sexists just don't engage and so the message that comes across in chats is the sexist message.
I know this because my wife plays MMOs as her primary gaming thing and often has to deal with shitty sexist jokes and comments as "jokes" and is often told to "lighten up" because god forbid not making a dumb comment about wife aggro, that's just a bridge too far.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Yeah I'd say the primary thing is stop treating female gamers like a circus freak show. I can't stand how many times when I'm in an MMO chat and the common joke of "there are no girl gamers" comes up.
All too often you see developers just shrug their shoulders at the issue and abdicate responsibility for the play area they're selling.
I'm not sure that's fair. Moderation requires a huuuge amount of man hours. Which is not a cost most young developers want to shoulder.
This is probably the thread for backlashed to #MeToo, so I'd like to request some help. If I'm doing it wrong, feel free to say so.
There's a whole bunch of harping that some leaked private messages/tweets allegedly reveal inconsistensies in Zoe Quinn's dealings with Alec Holowka, and in a couple of my other haunts these are being interpreted as Zoe being full of crap. I felt kinda gish-galloped by it, but I was wondering if someone could help me put them into context and verify or repute what they're claiming? And also confirm the reliability of the sources themselves for as a Euro I'm probably disconnected from them.
This is probably the thread for backlashed to #MeToo, so I'd like to request some help. If I'm doing it wrong, feel free to say so.
There's a whole bunch of harping that some leaked private messages/tweets allegedly reveal inconsistensies in Zoe Quinn's dealings with Alec Holowka, and in a couple of my other haunts these are being interpreted as Zoe being full of crap. I felt kinda gish-galloped by it, but I was wondering if someone could help me put them into context and verify or repute what they're claiming? And also confirm the reliability of the sources themselves for as a Euro I'm probably disconnected from them.
Small inconsistencies actually prove veracity, not disprove it. Because of how our memories work, we don't usually maintain perfect recollection, and thus recounting will have minor discrepancies.
I wonder when Scott Benson is going to get attacked for any alleged inconsistencies in his account by these no doubt wholly impartial seekers of truth.
You can always tell someone is honestly pursuing the truth when the put the person in a thumbnail with glowing red evil eyes.
+42
Options
reVerseAttack and Dethrone GodRegistered Userregular
The Post-Millennial is a Canadian alt-right site, so they're not exactly a trustworthy source. Also, whether or not Zoe Quinn's allegations are 100% truthful or not (and I'm not casting doubt on them), it doesn't change the fact that numerous other people came forward to talk about Aec Holowka's abusive behaviour.
The Post-Millennial is a Canadian alt-right site, so they're not exactly a trustworthy source. Also, whether or not Zoe Quinn's allegations are 100% truthful or not (and I'm not casting doubt on them), it doesn't change the fact that numerous other people came forward to talk about Aec Holowka's abusive behaviour.
The Post-Millennial is less credible than the Beaverton, and that's parody news. Nothing from it is worth discussing.
The Post-Millennial is a Canadian alt-right site, so they're not exactly a trustworthy source. Also, whether or not Zoe Quinn's allegations are 100% truthful or not (and I'm not casting doubt on them), it doesn't change the fact that numerous other people came forward to talk about Aec Holowka's abusive behaviour.
The Post-Millennial is less credible than the Beaverton, and that's parody news. Nothing from it is worth discussing.
Even so, it's worth acknowledging that this argument is getting picked up and distributed, because it will get play, and so we have to be ready.
I'm curious what exculpatory evidence even looks like to some of you, you are so eager to deploy "There is no perfect victim" in response to discrepancies in accounts. It sounds like the writers room at Rolling Stone before they published A Rape On Campus. They were so far down the rabbit hole of "There is no perfect victim" they were so afraid to tug on obvious dangling threads in the story like, does the guy she named even actually exist?
It's worth noting that only publications of extremely ill repute were the ones to question that too, dismissed as cranks and misogynist. Right up until the point when it became mainstream news and everyone was wondering how Rolling Stone could have possibly gotten it so wrong. The shift was so sudden too. One night if you questioned A Rape on Campus you were a woman hating rape apologist, the next morning it was common sense and how did this story even make it to print in the first place?
Yeah, the industry probably could do wonders about some of their problems if they fucking moderated. I suspect if they started shutting down some of the shit that is allowed to fester, they'd realize that they'd likely get an influx of new people because most people are shitty and that would give them less incentive to tolerated sexual predators on stuff because no one would be able to bake a BS argument about being representative of the player base. I hate how the industry uses "but it costs money to moderated." I also have to wonder how long it's going to be before a government forces their hand, for example I'm seeing governments increasingly showing that they aren't going to tolerate cyber bullying as being harmless (it'll probably be bad times for activision-blizzard, when they get told they'll be legal consequences for not dealing with griefers on the WoW PvPer servers). If costs are really an issue, the simple thing to do, is maybe decide keeping the sexual predators off the forums, off the staff and out of the games, should be an industry wide initiative and maybe they pool money to have a body that can provide moderation personnel for everyone (also has the bonus of keeping things more consistent, so easy to shut down arguments like "but A, B, X, Y and Z never said this was unacceptable on their forums!"
I'm pretty sure it's been pointed out before already, but there sure is a difference between one person making an accusation against and individual, and more than one person making an accusation against an individual.
Namely, the number of people who you are accusing of making it all up when saying they are making it all up.
Exculpatory evidence gets presented in a court of law. In the Court of twitter its just mud flinging and incomplete information.
With that in mind I am willing to dismiss some sources of information based on obvious bias, history and just plain theatricality as I mentioned above.
I'm just as biased to want due process for people telling lies or truths..
There will not be a YouTube video that makes me go "Aha! I knew she was lying!" and that's exactly the point of that one. It's garbage.
Yeah, the industry probably could do wonders about some of their problems if they fucking moderated. I suspect if they started shutting down some of the shit that is allowed to fester, they'd realize that they'd likely get an influx of new people because most people are shitty and that would give them less incentive to tolerated sexual predators on stuff because no one would be able to bake a BS argument about being representative of the player base. I hate how the industry uses "but it costs money to moderated." I also have to wonder how long it's going to be before a government forces their hand, for example I'm seeing governments increasingly showing that they aren't going to tolerate cyber bullying as being harmless (it'll probably be bad times for activision-blizzard, when they get told they'll be legal consequences for not dealing with griefers on the WoW PvPer servers). If costs are really an issue, the simple thing to do, is maybe decide keeping the sexual predators off the forums, off the staff and out of the games, should be an industry wide initiative and maybe they pool money to have a body that can provide moderation personnel for everyone (also has the bonus of keeping things more consistent, so easy to shut down arguments like "but A, B, X, Y and Z never said this was unacceptable on their forums!"
I don't see how any of that helps with the basic fact that even paying someone minimum wage to sit there and monitor general chat in every zone on every server is going to cost $Texas. And if you don't do that then you have to rely on a reporting system, and then it means far more people can fall through the cracks...
Moderation is not a trivial solution.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Is Zoe Quinn being attacked in bad faith again like she was during GG, or did she enjoy getting harassed by the internet so much that she falsely accused someone (in conspiracy with the many people who confirmed other instances of his behavior)
That is no excuse for zero moderation. Hell, compared to the post, they do have some technically solutions that could make it easier, but they tend to half-ass those options when used because they'd rather be cheap fuckers. For example instead of pure automation for moderation, you train the AI to flag shit for a human operator. This negates the need for have human go through every line of chat. Also once you start enforcing some standards instead of having none, chances are pretty good the work load will decrease because people either learn to stop being shit or you figure out who needs a perma-ban.
AI moderation is a feel good answer that never works.
Look at every chat bot ever made.
Humans would get around AI moderators on the first day in the first hour.
You need actual human minds and it's gonna cost a lot. We should spend that money in my opinion.
That is no excuse for zero moderation. Hell, compared to the post, they do have some technically solutions that could make it easier, but they tend to half-ass those options when used because they'd rather be cheap fuckers. For example instead of pure automation for moderation, you train the AI to flag shit for a human operator. This negates the need for have human go through every line of chat. Also once you start enforcing some standards instead of having none, chances are pretty good the work load will decrease because people either learn to stop being shit or you figure out who needs a perma-ban.
No place has zero moderation.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
Which is why I stated that the good solution is that the AI flags stuff for a human to look out. The cheap ass solution, which doesn't work, is pure automation.
A fair number of places on the net are a cesspit because the companies that run them don't want to spend time or effort on policing the spaces they make. They either leave it to inept bots or do token moderating (as in only step in if something is likely to get them sued or fined, Youtube and twitter are probably two of the best examples of both shitty AI policing and only stepping if their are concerns about the company getting burned if they don't). This creates the issue where cleaning up seems daunting because they've allowed a shitty culture to fester there and people that don't like it, feel it's a waste of time to fight it. Good moderation means people that what to be part of the community will learn to follow standards and those that like those standards will feel it's worth their time to report people for breaking the standards.
Honestly, fighting rape culture seems to run into the same issues that getting people to partcipate in government runs into. There seems to be a ton of "well that won't work or it's hard." Well it wouldn't be a fucking issue if it was an easy thing to solve and shit isn't going to get better or not regress if people keep insisting on being nihilistic or grumbling about it not being easy. Plus, good annoying old "but it aint' perfect!" So stop letting perfect get in the way of making things better.
Honestly I hate how game companies get to hide behind perfect being the enemy of good for moderation. Their current policy is doing pretty much fucking nothing so any moderation would be better than zero.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Honestly I hate how game companies get to hide behind perfect being the enemy of good for moderation. Their current policy is doing pretty much fucking nothing so any moderation would be better than zero.
For a company its an unwinable fight. Not it the no solutions perfect way, but that no solution is satisfactory.
As soon as you set a policy you are also saying "this is what we are okay with". And there will always be groups of people who will use that to skirt your rules, groups of people that will complain that the rules didn't go far enough (sometimes in response to the first group) and enshrine whatever their personal bugaboo is as sacrosanct, and groups of people that are pissed that something they consider okay is banned.
"We don't moderate online interactions" is neutral. "These are the 173 proscribed words" just earns you "Why not word 174", "Me and my friends just call each other 92" and "Fuck you, you are such a 1_0_9". Its not worth the headache because no one is happy with the result.
+2
Options
NEO|PhyteThey follow the stars, bound together.Strands in a braid till the end.Registered Userregular
Which is why you don't enshrine rigid guidelines for what is acceptable. Don't say "you are not allowed to use these specific words", say "you are not allowed to use shitty language" (or whatever wording is company-appropriate).
It was that somehow, from within the derelict-horror, they had learned a way to see inside an ugly, broken thing... And take away its pain.
Warframe/Steam: NFyt
Honestly I hate how game companies get to hide behind perfect being the enemy of good for moderation. Their current policy is doing pretty much fucking nothing so any moderation would be better than zero.
For a company its an unwinable fight. Not it the no solutions perfect way, but that no solution is satisfactory.
As soon as you set a policy you are also saying "this is what we are okay with". And there will always be groups of people who will use that to skirt your rules, groups of people that will complain that the rules didn't go far enough (sometimes in response to the first group) and enshrine whatever their personal bugaboo is as sacrosanct, and groups of people that are pissed that something they consider okay is banned.
"We don't moderate online interactions" is neutral. "These are the 173 proscribed words" just earns you "Why not word 174", "Me and my friends just call each other 92" and "Fuck you, you are such a 1_0_9". Its not worth the headache because no one is happy with the result.
That seems pretty demonstrably untrue just by looking at these forums. Moderation can work very well , and even toxic wastelands like Twitter have huge advantages over 8chan and 4chan by doing the absolute bare minimum
Which is why you don't enshrine rigid guidelines for what is acceptable. Don't say "you are not allowed to use these specific words", say "you are not allowed to use shitty language" (or whatever wording is company-appropriate).
Totally, otherwise you get bullshit where the scumbags try to be cute and argue that technically they aren't violating the rules because the phrase they used that is more or less saying they'll commit sexual assault doesn't violate the TOS and is kosher, since they used stamen instead of dick. It also puts a damper on people trying to play cat and mouse with rules and allows them to be flexible when the unforeseen happens.
This is probably the thread for backlashed to #MeToo, so I'd like to request some help. If I'm doing it wrong, feel free to say so.
There's a whole bunch of harping that some leaked private messages/tweets allegedly reveal inconsistensies in Zoe Quinn's dealings with Alec Holowka, and in a couple of my other haunts these are being interpreted as Zoe being full of crap. I felt kinda gish-galloped by it, but I was wondering if someone could help me put them into context and verify or repute what they're claiming? And also confirm the reliability of the sources themselves for as a Euro I'm probably disconnected from them.
Why is this even here? My damn youtube recommendations are going to be fucked for weeks after watching 2 minutes of that trash.
I think that if you're still at the point of deciding whether or not this is "he said, she said" and not a conversation about how the gaming industry needs to do a better job about not being an abusive cesspit for certain individuals you should spend a bit more time reading the accounts of victims as opposed to youtube videos from young white men who know nothing about the industry or abuse.
I don't suppose mods here read every word. They react to reports, and there's probably some simple AI spotting spam and hate speech. Works fine.
We do need jobs for people who can't do regular jobs. Professional social media moderation would be an ideal job for disabled or isolated people. Minimum wage for smacking down teen Nazis might be a pretty good job for someone with a disability in the Rust Belt. People in that situation willingly do worse jobs like Mechanical Turk.
I don't suppose mods here read every word. They react to reports, and there's probably some simple AI spotting spam and hate speech. Works fine.
We do need jobs for people who can't do regular jobs. Professional social media moderation would be an ideal job for disabled or isolated people. Minimum wage for smacking down teen Nazis might be a pretty good job for someone with a disability in the Rust Belt. People in that situation willingly do worse jobs like Mechanical Turk.
Posts
In the Logan case, there was exculpatory evidence that the police/prosecution intentionally withheld. It was one of the many cases corrupted by Jon Burge and his ilk.
I focused on the knowledge of innocence piece to show that legal ethics are different than, and occasionally directly go against, what most people would consider moral.
I think the questions was actually - if she did have consensual sex with these people as she testified. Half of whom were juveniles themselves, why was for example a middle school boy charged with statutory rape where as she was not. As you said its a strict liability crime.
I've been going down a rabbit hole, reading all manner of articles about that case now, and I cannot for the life of construct a narrative about the events. I'm just left with these seeming random facts.
There were 4 events that all took place in the same trailer. She and the defendants said she consented. Other testimony says she was threatened. Videos of the events circulated around a school. All the defendants appear to be black. 5 of them were themselves minors. One was 27! A lot of them were related. It's an extremely poor area. Some had other run ins with the law. A lot of them didn't.
I have no idea how the victim met the defendants. I have no idea how they all ended up at the same house for a gang rape several times over several months. I have no idea how the girl got there. There is just a bizarre lack of any narrative at all. Most google results are just "How dare that lawyer say that thing."
So I donno. Maybe they scooped her off the street and blackmailed her into being raped. Maybe one of the middle school kids knew her and somehow things escalated from there. Maybe the protests from the defense that she set it all up actually happened, unlikely as that seems. I can't find any article that actually describes how the circumstance came to pass, so I can't say.
I think the “boys club” perception of gaming, as a profession or a hobby, contributes to the culture of permissibility/protection of abusers.
I have no idea how to go about fixing that other than telling people to stop being shitheels, and the ones who most need to hear will just use it to fuel the next Gamergate.
1. Free tampons in ladies rooms.
2. Don't hound women gamers who speak up online until they quit social media and/or gaming.
Treat them as equal members of the community, and don't tolerate people who won't. The one constant that we keep seeing is that the community turns a blind eye to abusers - we need to stop doing that.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Both among gamers, game developers, and in game characters/stories.
There's a disturbing number of people who think playing a game online gives them the right to be an asshole. Ultimately I think it comes down to game developers to moderate their spaces. All too often you see developers just shrug their shoulders at the issue and abdicate responsibility for the play area they're selling.
Yeah this is definitely a part of it. And like the mentality is "don't feed trolls" so a lot of normal every day not sexists just don't engage and so the message that comes across in chats is the sexist message.
I know this because my wife plays MMOs as her primary gaming thing and often has to deal with shitty sexist jokes and comments as "jokes" and is often told to "lighten up" because god forbid not making a dumb comment about wife aggro, that's just a bridge too far.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I'm not sure that's fair. Moderation requires a huuuge amount of man hours. Which is not a cost most young developers want to shoulder.
There's a whole bunch of harping that some leaked private messages/tweets allegedly reveal inconsistensies in Zoe Quinn's dealings with Alec Holowka, and in a couple of my other haunts these are being interpreted as Zoe being full of crap. I felt kinda gish-galloped by it, but I was wondering if someone could help me put them into context and verify or repute what they're claiming? And also confirm the reliability of the sources themselves for as a Euro I'm probably disconnected from them.
Some Sources
https://www.thepostmillennial.com/exclusive-alec-holowkas-private-messages-reveal-zoe-quinns-abuse/
Small inconsistencies actually prove veracity, not disprove it. Because of how our memories work, we don't usually maintain perfect recollection, and thus recounting will have minor discrepancies.
I wonder when Scott Benson is going to get attacked for any alleged inconsistencies in his account by these no doubt wholly impartial seekers of truth.
The Post-Millennial is less credible than the Beaverton, and that's parody news. Nothing from it is worth discussing.
Even so, it's worth acknowledging that this argument is getting picked up and distributed, because it will get play, and so we have to be ready.
It's worth noting that only publications of extremely ill repute were the ones to question that too, dismissed as cranks and misogynist. Right up until the point when it became mainstream news and everyone was wondering how Rolling Stone could have possibly gotten it so wrong. The shift was so sudden too. One night if you questioned A Rape on Campus you were a woman hating rape apologist, the next morning it was common sense and how did this story even make it to print in the first place?
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
Namely, the number of people who you are accusing of making it all up when saying they are making it all up.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
With that in mind I am willing to dismiss some sources of information based on obvious bias, history and just plain theatricality as I mentioned above.
I'm just as biased to want due process for people telling lies or truths..
There will not be a YouTube video that makes me go "Aha! I knew she was lying!" and that's exactly the point of that one. It's garbage.
I don't see how any of that helps with the basic fact that even paying someone minimum wage to sit there and monitor general chat in every zone on every server is going to cost $Texas. And if you don't do that then you have to rely on a reporting system, and then it means far more people can fall through the cracks...
Moderation is not a trivial solution.
What are the Vegas odds on that do you think
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
Look at every chat bot ever made.
Humans would get around AI moderators on the first day in the first hour.
You need actual human minds and it's gonna cost a lot. We should spend that money in my opinion.
No place has zero moderation.
A fair number of places on the net are a cesspit because the companies that run them don't want to spend time or effort on policing the spaces they make. They either leave it to inept bots or do token moderating (as in only step in if something is likely to get them sued or fined, Youtube and twitter are probably two of the best examples of both shitty AI policing and only stepping if their are concerns about the company getting burned if they don't). This creates the issue where cleaning up seems daunting because they've allowed a shitty culture to fester there and people that don't like it, feel it's a waste of time to fight it. Good moderation means people that what to be part of the community will learn to follow standards and those that like those standards will feel it's worth their time to report people for breaking the standards.
Honestly, fighting rape culture seems to run into the same issues that getting people to partcipate in government runs into. There seems to be a ton of "well that won't work or it's hard." Well it wouldn't be a fucking issue if it was an easy thing to solve and shit isn't going to get better or not regress if people keep insisting on being nihilistic or grumbling about it not being easy. Plus, good annoying old "but it aint' perfect!" So stop letting perfect get in the way of making things better.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
pleasepaypreacher.net
For a company its an unwinable fight. Not it the no solutions perfect way, but that no solution is satisfactory.
As soon as you set a policy you are also saying "this is what we are okay with". And there will always be groups of people who will use that to skirt your rules, groups of people that will complain that the rules didn't go far enough (sometimes in response to the first group) and enshrine whatever their personal bugaboo is as sacrosanct, and groups of people that are pissed that something they consider okay is banned.
"We don't moderate online interactions" is neutral. "These are the 173 proscribed words" just earns you "Why not word 174", "Me and my friends just call each other 92" and "Fuck you, you are such a 1_0_9". Its not worth the headache because no one is happy with the result.
Warframe/Steam: NFyt
That seems pretty demonstrably untrue just by looking at these forums. Moderation can work very well , and even toxic wastelands like Twitter have huge advantages over 8chan and 4chan by doing the absolute bare minimum
Totally, otherwise you get bullshit where the scumbags try to be cute and argue that technically they aren't violating the rules because the phrase they used that is more or less saying they'll commit sexual assault doesn't violate the TOS and is kosher, since they used stamen instead of dick. It also puts a damper on people trying to play cat and mouse with rules and allows them to be flexible when the unforeseen happens.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
Why is this even here? My damn youtube recommendations are going to be fucked for weeks after watching 2 minutes of that trash.
I think that if you're still at the point of deciding whether or not this is "he said, she said" and not a conversation about how the gaming industry needs to do a better job about not being an abusive cesspit for certain individuals you should spend a bit more time reading the accounts of victims as opposed to youtube videos from young white men who know nothing about the industry or abuse.
We do need jobs for people who can't do regular jobs. Professional social media moderation would be an ideal job for disabled or isolated people. Minimum wage for smacking down teen Nazis might be a pretty good job for someone with a disability in the Rust Belt. People in that situation willingly do worse jobs like Mechanical Turk.
Professional moderation ends up really messing with the mental and physical health of those who do it full-time. Outsourcing that job to people on disability and minimum wage without support or benefits seems abusive.