this post was submitted on 27 Mar 2024
99 points (83.7% liked)
PC Gaming
8615 readers
913 users here now
For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules:
- Be Respectful.
- No Spam or Porn.
- No Advertising.
- No Memes.
- No Tech Support.
- No questions about buying/building computers.
- No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
- No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
- No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
- Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's hilarious to me when people argue for more censorship, especially when they do the 'everyone should be treated like children' argument. It's just so dumb especially as it's coming from people who'll cry if they ban violent video games or any of the other equally problematic things that they like.
Omg a woman is wearing a bikini, it'll melt children's brains if they see that! They should only be watching murder and crime and delusion political takes from manipulative liars and idiots...
Banning violent video games is government censorship and is a 1st amendment issue.
Banning certain behaviors on their own platform is entirely the perogative of the platform owners.
The two are not alike whatsoever.
Your argument is akin to saying that not allowing strangers to fill your home and smoke crack is "censorship" and is "just so dumb."
Disagreeing with the rule or the underlying reasoning is anyone's right, but disagreeing with a private owner's right to decide who and what is allowed on their property is insincere at best as you would never agree to your own rights being infringed.
You're confused, you muddled your taking points - the 1st amendment applies to the us governments but the word censorship has no relation to that
So no I'm not talking about the first ammendment at all I'm talking about whiney babies crying that twitch doesn't censor things they don't like and if the topic is twitch banning content then I'm entirely accurate in doing so
Please try to focus and think through what you're saying in future
You made it a 1st amendment topic by comparing private platform censorship to banning violent video games, which would be a government action that eventually gets a lawsuit seen before the supreme court.
I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I make it a point not argue with people who resort to name calling and shaming others - these people aren't here to debate facts or allow their opinions to be changed.
I'm providing a counterpoint to your erroneous logic for other people to see and choose for themselves.
I'm very clearly talking about banning them on twitch, you really need to follow along. I never mentioned governments once.
You think it's OK for twitch to show gta6 to children as long as they don't go in the strip club? A lot of people would argue that murder, drug dealing, theft, and all the other crime and immorality is actually worse. You might end up with a platform that only allows Nintendo's most family-friendly shit.
I think it's ok for the owners of a privately owned platform to make decisions for that platform. If they want to exclusively show nudity, GTA6, or drying paint, I'm all for their autonomy.
Your autonomy allows you to utilize their platform or not based on their choices. If the absence of a focus on the groin, butt, and breasts on a green screen offends your values, I would suggest not visiting Twitch.
To bring it back your original comment, enjoying a platform's decision to desexualize content while also being opposed to a government ban on violent video games is perfectly reasonable. The two scenarios are entirely different in scope and and context.
So you've totally changed your tone, why would you have commented what you did instead of saying 'valid opion, I'm sure they'll choose to do whatever they want based on public sentiment so you expressing your opion is a totally normal and acceptable thing to do'?
You seem to want only people who agree with you to express their opinion, I'm not shocked of course that's how censorship lovers slways think.
The first paragraph of this is brilliant projection.
You've also made up a lot of weird lies and confusion simply to get around the fact that your assertion that only governments can do censorship is wrong and all this to defend a totally meaningless point because my argument is still 100% as valid if we use a more cumbersome word or phrase instead of censorship.
Seriously read your own comment history and work on your issues.
Oh and anyone interested in how deceptive he's being in this rant, his statement about me being into conspiracies is from a post talking about knowledge fight and the absurdity of conspiracy theories. This is not someone that even understands the concept of arguing in good faith.
Censorship is something the government does, and I have a problem with that. What a private business allows and does not allow is not censorship.
As for, it'll melt children's brains crap. I happen to be a very fucked up person from sexualization as a child. I can tell you first hand, that being exposed to sex as a little kid is not something you want.
Now, when the government starts doing shit in the name of 'protecting the children', you know that's not the reason, and that's much more dangerous.
I think you're getting the two confused.
No you're confused, go read the Wikipedia article or a dictionary, you're making the same mistake as the other guy trying to shoe horn in the '1stA only applies to government' talking point where it doesn't fit
If I'm mistaken, you should provide a source for that not just tell me to go read a dictionary. But, I'm not.
It's pretty well established case law that private companies are more or less free to enforce their own platform rules as long as it doesn't discriminate.
Yeah that is the law, it has nothing to do with anything I said. I am very aware the first amendment doesn't apply to private companies and it certainly doesn't here because my country doesn't even have a constitution let alone amendments to it.
I was talking about people asking a private company for more censorship - if you read the Wikipedia article you'll see in the first paragraph it explains your misconception that censorship is only something governments can do. Private companies can and do do it, I think it's silly when people ask twitch to increase censorship because you'll all be crying when people can't stream gta6 because society got so slap happy on the censorship that murder, drug taking and crime got caught up in your crusade against seeing the human body.
I don't think you understand what the definition of censorship is. In either case, I'm not gonna keep arguing with you bcz its not really a fruitful discussion for either of us.
I believe they've completely lost the plot. They invoked the word "Wikipedia" as a cited source, they were unable to follow any point being made, but their comment in a different thread from a couple hours ago actually helped me start to understand what's going on:
They started calling everyone a misogynist for no obvious reason. They were unable to communicate their thoughts in a meaningful way or interpret information presented to them.
Further, 17 hours ago, on a post that was clearly pro-piracy and not AI related at all, they commented, "AntiAI bros raging at this." There's zero relationship to the post.
I'm seeing a trend where they have their own opinions (censorship is always bad, misogyny is bad, AI is good) and then decide to share those opinions with tangential or no connection to that which they're replying. They're also fond of personal attacks and several common argument fallacies. Their comment history reads like a tribute to /r/im13andthisisdeep.
I hope it's merely age and maturity-related and not something more permanent.
I used Wikipedia and the dictionary as a source for the established usage of a word, a totally reasonable usage of the resources.
Yes in another thread entirely I made an observation that a joke is misogynistic and got upvoted by people who agree. I also made a joke that people saying ai learning from images it viewed is theft from artists would be angry at the statement made in post that piracy is not they because the original owner doesn't get deprived of the original - none of this had anything to do with the topic at hand.
Your effort to dismiss my options with (incorrect) semantics and now whatever this weird display is make it very clear you're simply against the conclusion I come to but are incapable of coming up with am actual argument against them, very typical emotional response tbh but digging into my comment history is a bit of an obsessive act and hints to me that you're not seeking truth especially as you refuse to spend less effort reading the first paragraph of a Wikipedia article and learning your already meaningless argument on word definition is wrong.
But again pro censorship person tries to use methods to silence someone or divert from their original point rather than address the actual argument is par for the course.