397
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 05 Dec 2023
397 points (91.1% liked)
Games
16409 readers
636 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Really? Now I'm curious, how do you imagine that?
I assume the company still pays for the platform, hosting, development, etc. Since it's public, are they now subsidised by taxes?
Who moderates the platforms then? Are is it all just unmoderated?
Will companies get compansated for lost revenue?
I genuinely curious how you imagine this working.
Yeah, because it's theirs. They own it.
If I let everyone into my house for a party, doesn't mean I lose the right to kick people out.
I'm okay with an echo chamber if it means I don't have to put up with CP and jihadi execution footage in my cute cat feed.
I assume it would be no problem for you.
I'm only coming from the standpoint of how dangerous it is for a mass media outlet to control who has a voice. I don't know how we can articulate this fairly and would like help for that, but I'm not gonna find help in a sea of people who just wanna take sides and ignore the means.
Why should anyone get to own the only effective avenues of communication? Communication is what determines how the world works.
CP is illegal obviously, and jihad doesn't make sense in the cute cats category the way 'straight only game mod' makes sense in the 'game mod' category.
Who currently owns the "only effective avenues of communication"?
"Sometimes you gotta put up with some ugly if you don't want people silenced for their perspective." Seems there's a limit to the ugly you're willing to put up with, and you're quite willing to silence perspectives yourself.
You cleaely still want people to moderate social networks. I assume you'd want these people to outside the company?
Hell, we're on a site where you can literally filter what content you see. No one is so pro communication that they'll happily chat away to someone that they don't want to be around.
The line should be drawn at actual harm of course. That can also be indirect.
Ah, so you're pro moderation when you personally find the contect to be even indirectly harmful.
"Double standards are bad, no matter which side."