Fortnite had to disable nearly every emote in the Martin Luther King event area

You know why

    
95

Perhaps Epic Games assumed the weight and importance of its special area dedicated to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. would inspire Fortnite players to muster up a little bit of reverence and good behavior, but as it turns out this wasn’t the case, as some players took the opportunity to use their selection of emotes to try and bring disrespect or toxicity to the event. So now Epic is disabling every single custom emote.

Initially the devs had disabled a selection of emotes that would be similarly disruptive such as a tomato throw emote, but others such as a Catwoman whip crack emote were being employed by players to rather obvious effect, so now visitors will only get to use the eight emotes that are available to everyone visiting the area. Reaction from players on the Twitter announcement appears to be a mix between those lauding the decision and others either referring to the move as Orwellian or claiming that people should be allowed to have “fun” in the event. Honestly, we’re not sure what Epic Games expected, but things are more controlled from here on out.

source: Twitter via Kotaku
Advertisement

No posts to display

95
LEAVE A COMMENT

Please Login to comment
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most liked
Subscribe to:
Reader
MaynardKeenanX

Bree: there wiII aIways be racism as Iong as theres miserabiIity.

Was Iike that 1000 years ago and stiII wiII be in 1000 years.

Reader
Castagere Shaikura

This is what happens when you don’t have any Black people in the board rooms or any place where ideas get chosen. MLK a man of peace and equality who was murdered for his beliefs in a game where all people do is kill each other. A game with a toxic community. Where the N-word gets tossed around. You can’t even get mad over it. Just laugh at the dumbs suits that thought this was a good idea.

Reader
styopa

So you’re finding out what religious leaders for centuries have recognized: expecting/insisting others conform to your personal moral codes of behavior – no matter how persuasively you argue or how logical they are – is hard.

“Why can’t you all just be nice?”*
*according to what I think “nice” means

You have, as I see it, three choices for dealing with people that don’t subscribe to your code:
– take control of the reins of government and FORCE them to behave on pain of punishment. This is more or less the method applied by totalitarian governments as well as online games.
– try to persuade them that this is better for them and for everyone; offer them logic, maybe even bribes to ‘see it your way’. This is the path of, for example, missionaries and many online forums.
– ignore them, let them say what they want and let the (you assume) inherent benefits of your approach be obvious to everyone else. You might not convince THEM to change their minds, but you’re more interested in making a persuasive case to everyone else. This is ideal behind Enlightenment concepts such as free speech.

(shrug)
Not everyone agrees with each of us. How we deal with differences of opinion are critical to the cohesion of a society.

Bree Royce
Staff
Bree Royce

Orrrrr they could’ve just disabled the damn emotes ahead of time and put moderators in the exhibit.

MilitiaMasterV
Reader
MilitiaMasterV

I saw that!

Reader
styopa

Yes, as I said:
“– take control of the reins of government and FORCE them to behave on pain of punishment. This is more or less the method applied by totalitarian governments as well as online games.”

:)

Bree Royce
Staff
Bree Royce

It’s a video game, so no, that’s not “taking control of the reins of government” any more than any other mundane video game design decision like how many people make up a dungeon group or how far pixel houses have to be from city limits.

Reader
styopa

Sure it is, at a trivial scale.

This is a dirty secret of online games – the people who run them, run them completely. In any other context, such control over what we say or do, or how we associate, would be seen as utterly totalitarian.

They may be entirely benevolent dictators, but be assured: they are dictators. We can’t change the rules of WoW just because a majority of people vote for a change….we can only (ideally) convince the developers that a change is necessary.

Even Second Life, which had zones explicitly promulgated as ‘rules free’ weren’t exempt (https://nwn.blogs.com/nwn/2003/07/war_of_the_jess.html) eventually, the devs ‘stepped in’ and ‘fixed it’ according to what they ultimately wanted to happen.

That’s what happened here. I completely agree with you that even a low-wattage mod should have recognized the potential for abuse in such a context and just blocked emotes and chats in advance and saved a lot of issues.
But that we agree on this doesn’t make it RIGHT. If we had an MMO in the 1950s (or hell, in the 1990s) there would have been a lot of people ‘agreeing’ that LGBTQ advocacy ‘doesn’t belong’ in an online game space. Hell, some people feel that way today. We can embarrass them, we can vote with our feet and dollars but ultimately, in their game, they can ban whatever they want.

I’m dubious of anyone who believes that they occupy some unimpeachable moral high ground and thus have the ‘right’ viewpoint on everything in 2021.

Accepting blindly that faceless, unaccountable mods somewhere have the ability to control discourse in what are ever-more-like ‘public’ spaces should be at least somewhat troubling.

EVEN (or especially) if we AGREE with what they’re doing and why.

Bree Royce
Staff
Bree Royce

That’s not a secret at all, let alone a dirty secret. Pretty sure everyone’s clear that studios get to make all the design and conduct rules in the game spaces they created and own. That’s exactly what makes them responsible when their bad design decisions – like failing to properly moderate and prevent inevitable toxicity in this exhibit despite decades of evidence suggesting it’d be necessary – go awry.

You seem to be arguing that if a company’s moderation doesn’t allow literally everything including tweens digitally defacing the MLK exhibit in a video game, it’s akin to real-world fascism, which is… OK, it’s the second wackiest thing I’ve read in the comments today.

Reader
styopa

I think you’re reading more into what I’m saying than I intend.

And yeah, I may be overthinking it but I’m concerned when people endorse the slightest trappings of authoritarianism even if they happen to be leaning (for the moment) in a direction I favor.

It’s the exact same mechanism that Fortnight devs use to stop feeble little trolls here, that (say) the Chinese gov’t would use to prevent Hong Kong protesters in any Chinese game. This makes me uncomfortable with the mechanism, no matter the justification.

Reader
Kickstarter Donor
Ken from Chicago

People have a right to their views–but not on someone else’s lawn, property, store, forum, chatroom or website.

Store owners have right to refuse service.

Reader
Kickstarter Donor
Peregrine Falcon

Except when they don’t, as we’ve seen in the case of the baker in Colorado.

Some people want it both ways.

Reader
Kickstarter Donor
Ken from Chicago

Yes, legally, you do not have the right to refuse service on the basis of race, gender, nationality or from one of the EEOC protected categories.

Reader
Utakata

@ Peregrine Falcon:

Except that “law” (or interpretation of) does not excuse them from being ignorant bigots. Nor are we obligated to buy from them for being so. Just so you know what part of their asses this “precedent” does not cover.

Both ways, indeed.

Reader
Kickstarter Donor
Ken from Chicago

Mods ftw! 👍

They’re not perfect but I’ve seen chatrooms and forums without them devolve into a toxic swamp. 😱😱😱

Reader
Kickstarter Donor
Ken from Chicago

When people have a different moral “foundation” upon which they define their moral framework of what is good, evil, nice, rude, appropriate, inappropriate, etc., then to convince them to change you either have to convince them from their moral framework or convince them why your moral framework is better.

Where “convince” means provide enough evidence to someone that it is considered proof. Because people are different, what some consider “evidence” and what they consider “proof” is subjective. In some cases, you might not find the right combination of evidence that they would consider proof.

At that point you stop until you have new evidence to present, recognizing they have the right of free will to believe differently than you do (even though you have the right to say not on my lawn, my house, my store, my company, my city, my nation, my forum, my blog, my website, my chatroom, my comment section).

Or you don’t stop, you don’t recognize their right to differ and bribe or force them to conform–or at least say they’ll confirm.

Reader
Kickstarter Donor
Greaterdivinity

Orwellian

*sigh* The overwhelming majority of the folks I’ve seen talking about anything Orwellian in the past decade or so are the exact kinds of folks that have never read Orwell and don’t understand what the hell they’re talking about. Seems fitting for this, too.

It seems like some of the limits of the Fortnite metaverse are appearing. Like that expecting the general populace to act like decent human beings in an anonymous, online, F2P game is asking WAY too much out of its players.

Reader
Utakata

…it’s seems that Orwell has become it’s own version of doublespeak over the years. /sigh

Reader
Malcolm Swoboda

Orwell’s life was its own version of doublespeak thrown onto paper.

Reader
Utakata

While that’s an interesting discussion for another time, that wasn’t really my point.

Reader
Malcolm Swoboda

Wasn’t yours, but it can connect to mine – anything throwing around ‘Orwellian’ probably isn’t reflective enough to trust with that concept, even Orwell himself.

Reader
Witches

Orwellian refers to 1984/Animal Farm not Orwell himself.

What you are saying is the same as saying George Lucas is not fit to be a Jedi.

Reader
Malcolm Swoboda

Incorrect, by definition.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Orwellian

They’d call it 1984ian/etc otherwise.

Orwellian is often in reference to his political philosophy as put into fictional writing. And he has an interesting political history.

Reader
Kickstarter Donor
Ken from Chicago

That seems ungood. Seems like someone needs to go to … Room 101. 😱😱😱

Turing fail
Reader
Patreon Donor
Loyal Patron
Turing fail

– – ungood!

MilitiaMasterV
Reader
MilitiaMasterV

I fear for the generations who refuse to take heed of history. I too wish to partake of his dream, and wish that he weren’t murdered for it.

Reader
Bryan Correll

I sometimes wish I were naive enough to be surprised at this.

Reader
IronSalamander8 .

We knew this would be a bad idea. I’m all for celebrating figures like Doctor King, but you know that some nasty folk are going to take every opportunity they can to degrade such a thing. Also, why they’d put it in Fortnite in the first place, and then not near/on MLK day is a very strange thing.

Reader
Kickstarter Donor
Ken from Chicago

It’s almost as if they wanted to get publicity for honoring a beloved person and then get publicity for toxicity and then having to crack down on unruly players and thus get double the publicity.

Naaah. That couldn’t possibly be it. They couldn’t be that diabolical.

Right?

Reader
Mark

Humans are, by far, the most disgusting of all Earth’s creatures.

Reader
Bryan Correll

Humans can be real bastards, but you have to remember that things like Cymothoa exigua exist. Do not click that link if you’re squeamish. Seriously, don’t do it. If you do click it, don’t say I didn’t warn you, cause I did.

MilitiaMasterV
Reader
MilitiaMasterV

OK, now you’ve got me curious enough to click it…

…and of course it promptly says I can’t read it because of ad-block. Fie on thee!

EmberStar
Reader
EmberStar

Maybe next time link to an article that *doesn’t* slam a “turn off Adblock or GTFO” popup in peoples faces?

Anyway, it’s the “tongue eating isopod.” The little critter that’s actually been in a lot of pictures. Which isn’t anywhere near the most “disturbing to humans” creature out there – I can’t remember the name, which makes it difficult to look up. But I’m pretty sure there’s a species of insect that feeds on mushrooms.

They have to have a very fast life cycle, because mushrooms rot very quickly. So… when they’re in their feeding cycle, they’re basically all born female, all born pregnant, and they don’t take time to lay eggs. They just eat until the offspring are ready for the next generation, and then they just sort of chestburster their way out. Repeat until the mushroom has been replaced with a writhing mass of bugs.

Reader
Bryan Correll

I didn’t say they were the MOST disturbing, just an example of nature’s nastiness. There are a lot of species where infants eat their mothers. And aphids can be born pregnant (the full reproductive cycle is pretty darn complex.) I don’t know of a species that does both, but it doesn’t surprise me.

Not (all) truly disgusting, but here’s some critters that got screwed over by evolution:

Reader
styopa

Well they’re the most capable of hyperbole, anyway.
https://www.reddit.com/r/natureismetal/

Bree Royce
Staff
Bree Royce

this is why we can’t have nice things

screenshot_006280.jpg
Reader
somber_bliss

Honestly, and I’m sure I’m a minority here, I think everyone should be given a single username at birth that associates everything they do to themselves. No more anonymous facades to hide behind. You say something, do something, it’s known who you are and associated to your real id.

It’s honestly the only way to stop the horrible internet personas we all know and hate.

Bree Royce
Staff
Bree Royce

This doesn’t work. Facebook is filled with millions of people being awful under their real names and photos.

Epic has enough money that they should’ve known better. These emotes should’ve been disabled ahead of time.

Reader
somber_bliss

I disagree, the level of toxicity in gaming is far higher than that of Facebook. Private groups also shouldn’t exist and everything should be public record but I’m sure others would see it as Orwellian levels that i think we need.

Hold people accountable with fines for everything they say and do and soon people will adjust from taking their frustration out on other random people.

You can’t really blame epic, or any company, from hoping people aren’t going to be massively shitty. People need to be held accountable and you’re shifting the blame from the individuals to a corporation.

Reader
Malcolm Swoboda

“Private groups also shouldn’t exist and everything should be public record”

*GLARES ANGRILY IN LGBT*

Also to be clear, you’re for banning virtual private groups but not physical?

Reader
somber_bliss

I’m not doing anything, I’m not a law maker or anyone of power. But yes, i think all private groups – real or online – is needless. The only things that do deserve to be redacted in any form are victims of crimes. Everything else should follow people around, for better or worse.

Reader
Malcolm Swoboda

You’re a citizen, advocating.

Thankfully just one citizen.

Horrifying.

Bree Royce
Staff
Bree Royce

This is also an argument we’ve all been having for 20+ years. It doesn’t need to be relitigated; just look up Blizzard RealID. Slapping real names on online people does not actually solve this problem, and it creates dozens of new problems that drive good marginalized people out of spaces and cede them to the bad guys, which is what happened to Facebook.

We definitely can blame Epic for not knowing that there is always going to be a small subset of people who are going to make things shitty and not doing enough to stop that shittiness from occurring in the first place. It is easier *and* wiser to just not give shitty people tools to be shitty than to destroy your community trying to de-anonymize everyone just to hold the shitties accountable. Nobody’s shifting the blame from the perps to Epic; I’m saying both are responsible for what they did. And Epic should’ve known better.

Reader
somber_bliss

I’m not saying a realid, I mean that you are given a digital passport that has everything tied into a code you’d have to register to every website, app, game, what have you that is directly linked to you.

I know that I’m in the minority here and that’s okay. I just think if people saw real consequences- like being jailed or fined over racist remarks even if online – the world would be a better place.

Bree Royce
Staff
Bree Royce

What you are describing is a hundred times worse than RealID, which was such a bad idea that people boycotted and Blizzard backed down and apologized for even suggesting it.

Reader
somber_bliss

Well, everyone is entitled to their opinions, I’m stating mine. I still believe if it’s done correctly with real consequences in real life – things will improve. I have yet to see anyone post a real reason it’s bad other than, this is horrible!

I’m opem to civil discussion with real points to discuss and not just people telling me it’s a bad idea without any reasons.

Eliot Lefebvre
Staff
Eliot Lefebvre

People are giving you plenty of reasons: Facebook makes it clear that a lack of anonymity in no way changes people’s behavior, LGBT people would be placed in instant danger and be outed without cause, other marginalized people would be driven off the platforms. A few moments of thought would give way to dozens of other problems (hey, that lady with an abusive former spouse wants to interact with people online, good luck to her keeping some anonymity/not being tracked down).

Being entitled to your opinions doesn’t mean you’re entitled to not do the slightest research into what you’re proposing before stating that you really think this would work. Lesser forms of this have been tried. They haven’t worked.

Reader
somber_bliss

Facebook has no consequences – that’s the problem. Maybe I’m not making my thoughts clear but I’m talking one id for everything. Literally everything and your countries laws are tied in. You harass others – you see fines and jail time.

Get muted in wow because of hate speech, muted in every aspect of your online life. Victims could use chat logs as evidence against their harassers. Facebook doesnt do any of that.

Eliot Lefebvre
Staff
Eliot Lefebvre

Your plan is perfectly clear. It’s just a terrible plan.

MilitiaMasterV
Reader
MilitiaMasterV

Facebook has so many no consequences that both my mom and I have been silenced within the past year or so for posts we made against the ‘status quo’…. /sarcasm

Bree Royce
Staff
Bree Royce

I already told you why. When you force everyone to go by real names, marginalized people (women, minorities, LGBTQ people, trans people, kids, disabled people, fat people, a million other groups) have to flee to avoid real-life harassment by the very people you’re purporting to hold accountable, and the worst people become emboldened to keep being terrible until they take the space over. You cannot shame the shameless. They are proud of being terrible and are reinforced by other terrible people. The jerks spamming whip emotes at Dr King’s face in a video game are the same types who would find a minority kid’s real identity and bully him online.

This is not an opinion; this is literally what happens, and Facebook is just one chunk of living evidence.

As I said, the MMO genre has been having this discussion for decades. If you’re actually serious about learning more, do the reading.

Reader
somber_bliss

If everything was linked would only take a single block to stop harassment. A mute would carry a lot more weight if it happened in every aspect of someone’s online life.

Every chat log would be saved and presented as evidence before a court and if someone is found guilty of harassing anyone, they see real progressive discipline with real world consequences. Which could carry fines, jail time, forced sensitivity training, what have you.

No more creating ghost accounts just to harass others – no more hiding behind VPNs to bypass IP bans, this would all serve to force others to stop harassment. Facebook is just another mmo like scape where people aren’t held accountable. They use real names and pics but no justice or discipline is enforced which is greatly needed.

Bree Royce
Staff
Bree Royce

What fresh authoritarian hell is this? What company or government agency is gonna be responsible for running this online behavior court? They can’t manage to turn off toxic emotes or ban gold sellers or make the goddamn trains run on time.

Reader
Malcolm Swoboda

“What company or government agency is gonna be responsible for running this online behavior court?”

One with plenty of elites inside them that will have plenty of waivers for private gatherings in name of security or whatever the hell they want.

Reader
Tanek

I think they must have stopped teaching Animal Farm in schools. Rules rarely apply to those in charge of enforcing them. (And if the rules ever do negatively impact those in charge, well, just change the rules.)

Turing fail
Reader
Patreon Donor
Loyal Patron
Turing fail

Ministry of Love, please.

Andy McAdams
Staff
Kickstarter Donor
Loyal Patron
Andy McAdams
Turing fail
Reader
Patreon Donor
Loyal Patron
Turing fail

MeowMeowBeenz FTW!

Reader
Kickstarter Donor
Greaterdivinity

If everything was linked would only take a single block to stop harassment. A mute would carry a lot more weight if it happened in every aspect of someone’s online life.

Ceding the ENTIRETY of our online lives to a single centralized entity like this has such massive, huge, downright troubling consequences that I don’t think anyone wants to live in this hell. This would be the online equivalent of the government following EVERYTHING you do in real life and recording all of it. Nobody would tolerate that, either.

Reader
somber_bliss

We already do, it’s just split between google and apple. People keep saying we are going to get chip implants blah blah blah, we dont need it when we willing carry the chip with our lives, locations, data and personal information on us at all times giving out said data with every terms of service we agree to.

There’s nothing to lose at this point, only to gain.

Reader
Kickstarter Donor
Greaterdivinity

We already do, it’s just split between google and apple.

No…that’s not analogous AT ALL. In the slightest. Sure their trackers are following you everywhere (and Facebook), but you’re not obligated to use those logins for everything. Google has little idea about what my online gaming habits are, for example, because it has nothing to do with my gaming accounts. It also can’t throw me in jail or ban me from internet access as a whole.

Your arguments are awful and the begging for an authoritarian government that invades every aspect of your personal life is, quite frankly, kinda terrifying.

Reader
Rndomuser

No more creating ghost accounts just to harass others – no more hiding behind VPNs to bypass IP bans, this would all serve to force others to stop harassment.

I feel sorry that simple-minded people like you exist. People who falsely assume it would be impossible to abuse this system by creating fake digital IDs or using someone else’s digital ID (by stealing it from existing databases or using social engineering) so that person would be falsely marked as “undesirable” for the actions you would do under that person’s ID. I still remember when my FFXIV account got banned because someone else got the login information for it somehow even though I never gave it to anyone, luckily the person who stole my account information only used my account for gold selling purposes and not for something like typing racial or homophobic slurs in local chat (which would lead to a lot of players blocking me permanently and it would be very hard or impossible to convince them that “it was not me, someone hacked my account and used it instead of me”) and Square Enix was able to verify that is was not me who used my account and they restored access to it after several days.

Same goes for using the system you described to quickly find the person who did something you consider “wrong” in the game so you can physically harass that person in real life, or do worse things. It would be much easier to use such digital ID to do things like these to people:
https://www.insider.com/twitch-streamer-says-she-has-stalker-threatening-to-kill-her-2020-7
Note the FACT that police can’t really do anything about the person like this even if they know who that person is and what that person threatened you with until it may be too late. Re-read my sentence I highlighted. Then re-read it again, then do it again several times before you may consider replying to me with some further nonsense about “universal digital ID which will solve all harassment issues”.

Reader
Utakata

@ somber_bliss

You should post using your real name is you’re going to argue this, unless that’s your real name you are posting under. If not, this makes your argument disingenuous at best. Because you don’t trust your position enough to be posting using your given name…then it’s pointless to make that argument outside of flat out trolling. Just saying.

Reader
somber_bliss

My arguement? I’m just saying we need to actually centralize our online personas to be governed by people and to have real consequences. By using my real name here it serves no purpose as there aren’t any of the safe guards in suggesting or that would be needed.

Everyone agrees that something needs to change to make thr online world safer, especially for the young and vulnerable. Yet no one wants to discuss radical changes that are needed.

It would require a staggering amount of global resources but the job creation could serve as a great place for those on welfare, disability and any number of other walks of life that don’t want or can’t work a normal job. Having them get paid to moderate various places would benefit everyone.

People always want freedom but forget it has a cost. The current cost is 12 year olds killing themselves from online bullying (mostly from classmates), pedofile rings – especially bad in Facebook, and other loathsome acts I can’t even imagine nor care to describe.

Is it worth being able to be somber_bliss on this website? Is it worth having a login for every website so you have to have an application like lastpass to even keep some security? Or would it be better to be something that is biometrically part of you with various checks?

We already give all our data to apple or google and if Cambridge analytics has taught us anything it’s that all those terms of service se agree to already gives up all rights to our data and lives. Each string has its own identification code that is easily combined with algorithms to form a whole picture of someone’s online persona and life. Why noy give you the power to sell that instead?

But I’m obviously out numbered here but mark my words, we will have to address this before long or the corporations will write their own rules and lawmakers are already so far behind.

Reader
Utakata

“Everyone agrees that something needs to change to make thr online world safer, especially for the young and vulnerable. Yet no one wants to discuss radical changes that are needed.”

Everyone? I’m pretty sure those who are perps of toxicity think everything is fine left the way it is at best.

Radical? What you are proposing seems to more reactionary than radical, IMO.

Safer? All evidence suggests it wont be. And will likely have the opposite effect if ever implemented.

…but that wasn’t my point or argument for calling your position out. Rather posting on your “decentralized” name is invalidating your positions and claims. So you’re starting with zero credibility to begin with, IMO. It’s like you’re screaming, “Stop using that fucking language in front of kids!” /shrug

Reader
somber_bliss

Again, it doesn’t work to have real names (mine is Andrew Christensen) implemented without some kind of system in place that holds people accountable. That’s the whole point of my position – to hold everyone accountable for what they do and say.

By giving a real name here ot would do nothing because no such system is or will be in place because people want their freedoms for free. Just look at the covid situation. Mai freedummmss.

Reader
Kickstarter Donor
Loyal Patron
Jack Pipsam

Heh, I’ve heard ideas like this before from some of my nation’s worst politicians. Oh it’s all under the under the guise of protecting children or recently women as well, recently a proposal was pitched as “Protecting the age of innocence”, but make no mistake, these laws and powers can and WILL be weaponised. Against political opponents, against whistle-blowers, against the free media and of course against minorities.

“Think of the children” is a disease rotting away many of our nations and it ironically will only hurt children in the end by taking away their voices.

Reader
Utakata

Yeah…it’s all reactionary gibberish. The danger here though is that people actually believe in this stuff. And there goes our civil liberties.

….not that those perpetuating toxicity mind, as they’ll get what they want in the end. Either by lynching it out or by getting those in power to stamp it out. /bleh

Reader
somber_bliss

You’re welcome to your opinion.

Reader
Kickstarter Donor
Loyal Patron
Jack Pipsam

Yes and you’re welcome to yours. Isn’t it wonderful that the free and open internet allows for such things! 😇

Reader
Utakata

*The pigtails saw what you did there* o.O

Reader
Kickstarter Donor
Loyal Patron
Jack Pipsam

Not to mention what it’s like for say the LGBTI+ folks living in the nightmare which is Hungary or Poland right now, what if they couldn’t hide or talk to each-other safely through the anonymity of the internet?
Or no thought given to the trans folks who change their names etc.

Reader
Utakata

@ somber_bliss

But you’re not arguing about holding people into account to what they say and do (ie, consequence culture). You’re arguing instead about creating a system that would “supposedly” hold people into account that probably won’t work. Big difference, lol.

EmberStar
Reader
EmberStar

This is not an opinion; this is literally what happens, and Facebook is just one chunk of living evidence.

Another would be Twitch. Right now. Apparently there’s a thing going on over there, where literally anyone who isn’t a strait white male (and even some of them, if they have “radical” notions that someone doesn’t like, such as actually supporting any “undesirable” thinking like Black Lives Matter) is getting “hate raids.”

What’s a Hate Raid? It’s what happens when people who think that they are right and no one else should be allowed to speak have direct access to someone online. While the current problem has escalated to fake accounts and bots, some of the ringleaders are quite open about being behind this.

In short: On Twitch, you can “raid” another channel when your stream ends. All of your viewers who don’t click the “bail out” prompt are taken and dropped into another streamer’s channel. Theoretically this is a good thing, allowing a popular streamer to send their viewers to watch a friend or boost a smaller channel.

Realistically, what’s it is being used for right now is for racist, sexist (lots of words ending in -ist) howler monkeys to dogpile onto anyone they dislike, jamming up their chat with gibbering nonsense and abusing the “bits” tipping system to spam the creator with irritating alerts. Possibly *offensive* irritating alerts that will get permanently etched into their video-on-demand recording if they’re trying to “engage” with viewers by having the bits donation and attached note flashed on screen or read by a text-to-speech bot.

The people doing this started out using their “real” accounts, some of the ringleaders are openly using their main channels to promote this. They are doing it because to them, *being black* or gay, or a woman, and daring to be online is OFFENSIVE. The entire point is to exhaust the targeted creators, offend their audience, wear out their moderators, and (on a “good” day) get them banned when the automated systems that Twitch *does* have in place trigger on the offensive chat or pictures the raiders are spamming… and ban the *channel they are attacking* for hosting offensive content.

Twitch IS a centralized authority in this. They have the tools, and the tech, and the absolute authority to stamp this behavior dead and ban everyone doing it. (And in the current instance, to make it much more difficult to make disposable spambot accounts.) Instead they choose to do nothing. By doing nothing, they send the implied statement that *someone* in charge does not see the raiders as a problem that needs to be fixed.

Reader
Kickstarter Donor
Ken from Chicago

That’s like saying everyone’s Social Security Number should be made public and linked publicly to every account you make.

So those with wealth, influence and power will be able to know all the names and info about everyone who disagrees with them.

Everyone who have zero self control about bullying someone who disagrees them would know exactly who disagrees with them.

You have good intentions but this method has been tried and it has failed. People have abused the tools given them. That’s why Bree and others are arguing Epic should have taken away those tools to minimize possible damage. Otherwise you can get something like this happening:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mercurynews.com/2021/07/22/ebay-sued-over-harassment-of-couple-who-were-sent-live-bugs-creepy-mask/amp/

Fisty
Reader
Fisty

No way gamers are more toxic than Facebook. My area has a ton of actual racists, bigots, misognists, and worse. They let you know every time a local news story comes out.

We are past the anonymity stage. People really believe in themselves now.

Turing fail
Reader
Patreon Donor
Loyal Patron
Turing fail

Venn diagram of Facebook and gamer trolls likely shows overlap. Shitters gotta shit…

Reader
Kickstarter Donor
Patreon Donor
Loyal Patron
krieglich

“I disagree, the level of toxicity in gaming is far higher than that of Facebook.”

Obviously (and luckily I want to add) you have seen nearly nothing of Facebook.

Reader
Malcolm Swoboda

My Facebook circle is nearly pristine, with publicly wholesome persons and my block list with less than 5 people I know personally, and unfriending being super rare and almost always just about its several years so I barely know the people anymore. Its nice nice nice nice.

I leave that circle and it is Mad Max and generally worse than almost any online gaming experience I’ve had (when out as gay to people). Almost all of these people are using their real names and are publicly acting and sometimes even promoting themselves.

Reader
Kickstarter Donor
Patreon Donor
Loyal Patron
krieglich

Yep. If you’re a reasonable person the Facebook outside your bubble is pure hell.

MilitiaMasterV
Reader
MilitiaMasterV

As a side note, there’s nothing wrong with being gay. It’s a part of nature. The people arguing against it are the ones who aren’t natural.

Reader
IronSalamander8 .

I don’t do much with Facebook as I don’t like it much, but mine isn’t bad overall, only when a friend comments outside of my normal groups (board games, PvZ, local design group, science groups like sci babe, and Vincent Price), do I see some of these things, and wow, are some of those awful. It goes from; ‘Here’s how you play x board game’ or ‘Science lesson for the week’ to Racism, anti-vaxx, and other insanity in a big hurry.

Stefan
Reader
Stefan

I recommend watching a documentary on the content Facebook moderators have to deal with if you believe that when the veil of anonymity drops people behave better. Not even if they paid me 10.000 a month would i do that work, some employees ended up with PTSD while Mark Zuckerberg handwaves the staff complaints.

The reality is there are so many opinions out there and so many opinions are downright vile, in addition to that facebook enables behavior you like so you end up in echo chambers where people who are toxic can easily create circle jerks and worse, much worse.

There is a reason why Facebook dislike tackling extremists groups on their platform they are a good segment of their income.

EmberStar
Reader
EmberStar

And who gets to say what’ acceptable? Oh, that group that thinks anyone with autism, or anyone anywhere at all in the LGBTQ spectrum is deviant behavior? They get to say? Or how about the politcal fanatics who worship a bleached dead muskrat that rides around a a fat white imbecile? Do they get to decide? Because I sure as hell don’t agree with that.

As for “real usernames,” no. Just no. I don’t even tell people my real gender, and I STILL have faced harassment. Because in many games I have characters of both genders, and anyone who notices (and is deranged enough to care) will realize that *one* of those probably doesn’t match. So I get hate because they assume I’m a woman pretending to be male, or a man disguised as a woman. (Whichever they decide offends them more.)

Honestly, I lack both the skill at words and the vulcan-like calm to explain all the ways you manage to be completely wrong in such a small space. What you are asking for though is “All Internet should be China Internet.” Go live there for a while, follow their rules. Let me know how that works out for you.

EmberStar
Reader
EmberStar

And I do blame Epic for not paying attention. This kind of thing has been an issue *in real life,* with people showing up to heckle and harass even when there’s a very real possibility of consequences ranging from “I break your car windows” to “I punch you in the throat” to “I shoot you.” (And often it’s the *hecklers* that are the most likely to do all of those, because they show up in packs and have mob courage on their side. “Yeah? You don’t like? Me and my six friends and our pet baseball bats will be happy to explain why you’re wrong.”)

Even just limiting it to online spaces – when Leonard Nimoy passed away, Star Trek Online set up in-game memorials to Spock. A group of trolls immediately set up camp around them, spamming disco balls and fireworks and obnoxious cosmetic pets. Knowing full well that a lot of people just wanted to come and quietly pay their respects. The devs took AGES before confiscating their ability to harass other people, even though the devs were *perfectly* capable of tracking the accounts and inflicting whatever punishement seemed fitting. Why? Because the people in charge of *moderating* such things “didn’t really see it as a problem at first.”

Let’s not forget that you’re asking for *goverment* control here. A government that is usually firmly in the control of people old enough to be your grandparents, only they understand LESS about modern life and culture and technology. The same people who censored movies, and comics, and music for ages – not through direct legislation, but through pearl clutching and instituting “for the children!” codes of conduct that imposed massive penalties on anyone who broke them. (Good guys shall be clearly good – no complex morality or anti-heroes allowed. Comics are for children, no horror comics allowed. Music could be heard by children, no swearing on the radio!)

And when these geriatric dinosaurs aren’t simply out of touch, they’re being willfully obstructive and/or pandering to their *real* constituents – whichever massive corporation or ancient billionaire threw the most money into their pockets during their last fundraiser. (See: the entire circus when the government repealed Net Neutrality, because corporations didn’t like it but they promise not to carve up the Internet and charge more / bandwidth throttle their competitors, honest.)

Reader
somber_bliss

If we stopped progress just because of past precedent, we wouldn’t have flying or anything else. Every idea can be bent or broken but we still have to strive to be better, to do better.

I’m not saying this is something that can be done overnight but it is something that will need to be discussed and sooner rather than later because as you said, governments and lawmakers are so far behind that the dystopia you see coming from this is already taking place. Just look at Cambridge analytics.

We need to get a central agency with pristine transparency and rules that is multinational and all encompassing if we want to have true freedom. Yes there will be pitfalls and setbacks but we need to do something before it’s too late.

Turing fail
Reader
Patreon Donor
Loyal Patron
Turing fail

“We need to get a central agency with pristine transparency and rules that is multinational and all encompassing if we want to have true freedom.”

Human nature precludes this.

Eliot Lefebvre
Staff
Eliot Lefebvre

No, this will totally work, we’ll just build a brand-new agency that crosses governmental lines and is less corrupt than every institution in human history. How hard can that be?

MilitiaMasterV
Reader
MilitiaMasterV

I loves me some sarcasm, especially the dripping kind, but many people are totes oblivious to it’s usage online/in written form…beware. They might think you’re serious… :P

Eliot Lefebvre
Staff
Eliot Lefebvre

If we stopped progress just because of past precedent, we wouldn’t have flying or anything else.

Reader
somber_bliss

Love me some corn.

EmberStar
Reader
EmberStar

You aren’t asking for progress. You’re asking for a multi-century step *backwards,* to a point where saying that the local magistrate looked like a buffoon was grounds for being slapped in the stocks for three days. (Why? Because he’s the local magistrate, he gives orders to the local sheriff and what’s that? Oh, you apparently owe “everything you own” in back taxes now too. Go ahead, say you don’t like his shoes.)

You want to make this nightmare *multinational?* So now the Saudi Kingdom, where basically being a WOMAN is illegal and requres a male chaparone at all times, gets to say what’s allowed and decent? Russia, where being gay is literally ILLEGAL right now? Any number of authoratorian states where free speech of ANY kind is an inconvenience to those in power, and who *already* do everything they can to track down people online and crush any point of view that differs from theirs?

Do you even LISTEN to yourself? Because I’m pretty sure you have NOT thought this through. Since I lack the language skills to try to debate with you *without* saying something to get myself banned, I’m done talking to you now.

Reader
somber_bliss

How else can we actually move forward as a society or species if we don’t work to change the way things are now? There are alreqdy requirements to get into NATO and such, why not include another agency that has basic human rights that are able to work together outside of their borders.

We should strive to be better not just assume the darkest timeline is before us with every change.

EmberStar
Reader
EmberStar

We need to get a central agency with pristine transparency and rules that is multinational and all encompassing

Oh, you mean something like THIS?

Yeah, that’s *totally* a future I want to live in.

Reader
Kickstarter Donor
Ken from Chicago

If only that were true. People have been total jerks on Facebook which requires real names, and before then in letters to newspapers, letters to magazines, callers to talk radio and in person at rallies, town meetings, in classrooms, offices, bars, on the streets, etc.

But this is a problem of more than anonymity, more than gamers or geeks but of people in general.