Some notes on Censorship

[Jakubian]

Hello,

I've been watching and engaging with some discussions on censorship in the game, and I have seen some rather egregious points repeated over and over again that either are not true, disingenuous, or have more nuance to them that gets ignored. In particular, I see most of the arguments coming from people defending censorship. From this point onward, I will go through several bad arguments I have found, and discuss what is wrong with them.

First of all, I will be starting with an argument for censorship that I have heard often. "Freedom of speech only protects you from the government, private entities are free to do as they please". This, from a legal perspective is correct, but missing nuance that undermines it. In particular, there is a growing argument against this provision due to governmental abuse of private corporations. One such example would be when the FBI influenced Facebook to censor content around Joe Biden's son in the lead-up to the 2020 election. In addition, the nature of online private censorship is dubious at best, thanks to the speed of law making in the modern era being akin to a snail in a glue trap. Most censorship on the internet hinges on a sort-of loophole in law in relation to publishers and platforms. Publishers are allowed to censor speech, and are able to be held liable for what they publish. Platforms cannot censor speech, and are not able to be held liable for what its users publish. Thanks to a residual provision left in a gutted law, most modern media companies, like social media companies, claim to be both. Allowing them to more or less pick and choose benefits from either. This situation is a bit of a legal bubble, and is not likely to stand up to any real scrutiny. It is possible that Battlebit may not qualify as these, but considering just how many people use Battlebit, and interact through it daily, it, and by extensions games of that style, are likely to be regulated. So yes, freedom of speech is something that regulates the government, but there is also plenty of regulation based around it that governs how corporations can interact with that.
Sources:
https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2021/01/six-constitutional-hurdles-platform-speech-regulation-0
https://reason.com/volokh/2020/05/28/47-u-s-c-%c2%a7-230-and-the-publisher-distributor-platform-distinction/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-62688532

Next, another argument I have heard quite frequently is, "Hate speech is not free speech". This is categorically false. In the supreme court case Brandenburg v Ohio, A member of the KKK was acquitted, as the charges where on the basis of speech he made in said organization. The supreme court stated thus, "Whitney has been thoroughly discredited by later decisions. See Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, at 507 (1951). These later decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action".
Sources:
https://www.thoughtco.com/hate-speech-cases-721215

The last, and perhaps most common argument I have heard in this discussion is that "People who are arguing for free speech just want to be racist." This argument is extremely disingenuous. There is a sizable chunk of the population, at least in the US, that
are free speech absolutists. This means that they hold the free speech as an absolute value that cannot, and should not be violated. They typically tend to be very vocal in regards to issues relating to free speech, and will defend the right to say anything, including slurs, insults, etc. To them, it is a matter of principle. While free speech absolutism as an ideal is not fully consolidated, and still subject to debate on exact meaning, many believe that all forms of expression via speech should be unrestricted.
Sources:
https://areomagazine.com/2017/07/06/why-i-am-a-free-speech-absolutist/
https://www.liberties.eu/en/stories/free-speech-absolutist/44213

I have found it deeply disheartening to see how many people have so vigorously defended censorship. At the end of the day, censorship is a slippery slope ripe for abuse by whatever group is instituting it, and some of those who have defended such actions may very well find themselves on the other side of such systems, if not in Battlebit, then in something else they prize and enjoy. Such things have happened to me in other things I enjoy, such as in Squad, where the simple act of saying any word on their ban list, regardless of context involved, leads to being barred from a server.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
-Evelyn Beatrice Hall

Edit: Some good discussion on this thread forum, though I have also seen several people make arguments that are countered by what I have already written. Please take the time to read the post before commenting. Of course, at the end of the day, I cannot stop you, thats your freedom of speech. :)

[envis10n]

Originally posted by Jakubian:

Originally posted by Many-Named:

And what does any of this have to do with Battlebit, please? Do people get censored ingame?

Yes, have you read that agreement they flash in front of the screen when you load into a match? It censors what speech is allowed, and has a chilling effect on other speech for fear of being banned.

lol then don't play

[Screwshank]

I just wish if they were going to be so heavy handed on the censorship, they would crackdown on all of the sexting and general degenerate sex talk that happens in seemingly every lobby.

[Soren]

Originally posted by GroovyHobo:

Since you're so concerned with formatting, I will reply this way. No they are not unaddressed. I have addressed them multiple times saying I do not defend them. That is addressing it. Even in the reply that you are replying to I even alluded to them being reprehensible.

I also already have quoted another time where I addressed it.

But political advocacy for unsavoury things like paedophilia isn't illegal you know? Your excuse is if they're doing something illegal then it's a no go. But they weren't doing something illegal in the hypothetical. So what am I supposed to assume here?

And for that matter. Hate Speech is illegal in most first world countries. So if legality is your new metric then why does Hate Speech get the pass? Because Valve is located in America? In that case, the BB devs aren't from America you know?

Originally posted by GroovyHobo:

Mutahar is not a reliable source. But why would a youtube video or mediamatters undo all of the pictures and videos that you can find on twitter or tiktok of the opposite? Do you not even know that there's a literal gay organization called "gays against groomers"? It's a thing and it exists and even gay people are acknowledging it.

Ironically you are accusing me of the same thing that you're saying I can't accuse them of. Why is that?

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't force it to drink it I suppose. There is documented proof of 4chaners basically personally insulting your intelligence thinking you "normies" are actually so stupid that you'd love to spread their lies while actually believing it. And you are proving them right at every turn.

Also, Gays Against Groomers (GAG) is an American far-right and anti-LGBT organization. Gays against groomers is a hate organisation as recognised by most groups that catalogue those things. I can see now why you don't want to get banned for your behaviour. Considering the people you listen too and cite as credible sources.

[GroovyHobo]

Originally posted by Soren:

Originally posted by GroovyHobo:

Since you're so concerned with formatting, I will reply this way. No they are not unaddressed. I have addressed them multiple times saying I do not defend them. That is addressing it. Even in the reply that you are replying to I even alluded to them being reprehensible.

I also already have quoted another time where I addressed it.

But political advocacy for unsavoury things like paedophilia isn't illegal you know? Your excuse is if they're doing something illegal then it's a no go. But they weren't doing something illegal in the hypothetical. So what am I supposed to assume here?

And for that matter. Hate Speech is illegal in most first world countries. So if legality is your new metric then why does Hate Speech get the pass? Because Valve is located in America? In that case, the BB devs aren't from America you know?

Originally posted by GroovyHobo:

Mutahar is not a reliable source. But why would a youtube video or mediamatters undo all of the pictures and videos that you can find on twitter or tiktok of the opposite? Do you not even know that there's a literal gay organization called "gays against groomers"? It's a thing and it exists and even gay people are acknowledging it.

Ironically you are accusing me of the same thing that you're saying I can't accuse them of. Why is that?

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't get it to drink it I suppose. There is documented proof of 4chans basically personally insulting your intelligence thinking you "normies" are actually that stupid that you'd love to spread their lies while actually believing it. And you are proving them right at every turn.

Gays Against Groomers (GAG) is an American far-right and anti-LGBT organization.And gays against groomers is a hate organisation as recognised by most groups that catalogue those things. I can see now why you don't want to get banned for your behaviour. Considering the people you listen too and cite as credibly sources.

Sure it isn't illegal but it should be. There are certain behaviors that are not acceptable. However you already know that I have this stance. You already know that I disagree with any other sort of deviant sexuality so that's how it goes. You already are calling for me to be banned for those opinions. You already know that I think advocacy for free speech does not include those behaviors. It's like accusing a Christian of being an atheist. It's cognitive dissonance. Notice how I'm not replying to each line of your post? Because it's easier but I'm sure you'll strawman me again.

You're correct. I cannot get you to drink it neither. The things I state are obvious and the average person can see it.

Reminds me of 1984, “The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”

I don't need mediamatters or lukewarm Mutahar to tell me what to see or hear. I can do that for myself. The fact you're denying this is just an indication of your blindness and loyalty to the state. It's ironic how everyone that I debate on the your side of free speech always ends up exposing themselves like this. You are not the good guy.

[Soren]

Originally posted by GroovyHobo:

The fact you're denying this is just an indication of your blindness and loyalty to the state. It's ironic how everyone that I debate on the your side of free speech always ends up exposing themselves like this. You are not the good guy.

Yes, I'm denying this because the arguments for why it is a hoax, who planned it, and who is spreading it at their benefit seem to be valid forms of proof for why it isn't actually a thing.

And you're dismissing all of that because anecdotal examples, collected entirely from far right astroturfed orgs. Truly I am the blind and loyal one here and you are the free thinker. I tip my hat off too you sir flat earther.

[GroovyHobo]

Originally posted by Soren:

Originally posted by GroovyHobo:

The fact you're denying this is just an indication of your blindness and loyalty to the state. It's ironic how everyone that I debate on the your side of free speech always ends up exposing themselves like this. You are not the good guy.

Yes, I'm denying this because the arguments for why it is a hoax, who planned it, and who is spreading it at their benefit seem to be valid forms of proof for why it isn't actually a thing.

And you're dismissing all of that because anecdotal examples, collected entirely from far right astroturfed orgs. Truly I am the blind and loyal one here and you are the free thinker. I tip my hat off too you sir flat earther.

You're the kind of guy who believes that the okay hand sign is white supremacist dog whistle or the ((())) thing started in 4chan rather than some media journalist who 4chan mocked and start coopting that coded language. It's hilarious.

[Soren]

Originally posted by GroovyHobo:

You're the kind of guy who believes that the okay hand sign is white supremacist dog whistle or the ((())) thing started in 4chan rather than some media journalist who 4chan mocked and start coopting that coded language. It's hilarious.

Yeah, I don't really care about the okay sign one way or another. That was a psyop. The triple parenthesis is a nazi dogwhistle though. It started seeing use on neo nazi sites to refer to jewish people, long before 4chan started using it too. I've personally got people banned for using it to imply jewish people (saying they in triple parenthesis) on the Steam forums before. So Valve's mods agree with me on this sorry to say.

Also contextually, none of those things are hate signs unless used in very specific ways. You gotta pay attention to who is using them and what they're using them for or signalling to whom. A bunch of people are doing what look like nazi salutes at the base of the eiffel tower every day cause they are posing for photos where they are pretend holding up the leaning tower. These people aren't nazis, but if you see a swastika tattooed skin head doing it, chances are they're just a neo nazi.

[GroovyHobo]

Originally posted by Soren:

Originally posted by GroovyHobo:

You're the kind of guy who believes that the okay hand sign is white supremacist dog whistle or the ((())) thing started in 4chan rather than some media journalist who 4chan mocked and start coopting that coded language. It's hilarious.

Yeah, I don't really care about the okay sign one way or another. That was a psyop. The triple parenthesis is a nazi dogwhistle though. It started seeing use on neo nazi sites to refer to jewish people, long before 4chan started using it too. I've personally got people banned for using it to imply jewish people (saying they in triple parenthesis) on the Steam forums before. So Valve's mods agree with me on this sorry to say.

Also contextually, none of those things are hate signs unless used in very specific ways. You gotta pay attention to who is using them and what they're using them for or signalling to whom. A bunch of people are doing what look like nazi salutes at the base of the eiffel tower every day cause they are posing for photos where they are pretend holding up the leaning tower. These people aren't nazis, but if you see a swastika tattooed skin head doing it, chances are they're just a neo nazi.

No it didn't. I was literally on 4chan the day the ((())) meme started. The /pol thread started by them linking to a hilarious leftist site and after that everyone started using it. You are literally believing 4chan deceptions and psyops.

You don't need to explain to me how those signs works. I was there for the inception of many of those hilarious memes. I remember them getting people to microwave iphones thinking that they could charge up their phones.

Most of their psyops are not "gasp terrible liberals are groomers" but rather the opposite. Getting you to believe everything is secretly a white supremacy code. They could get you to believe that toast is white supremacy. Half of the stuff ADL lists as white supremacy is literally 4chan memes. Remember the news coverage of Ghost of Kiev with a picture of Sam Hyde. Mainstream media is so gullible and falls for the traps every time. I love it. They even recently had a warning that working out in the gym is secretly connected with white supremacy.

[Soren]

Originally posted by GroovyHobo:

No it didn't. I was literally on 4chan the day the ((())) meme started. The /pol thread started by them linking to a hilarious leftist site and after that everyone started using it. You are literally believing 4chan deceptions and psyops.

Is it really that hard to google it? The Right Stuff neo nazi blog started using it 4 years before 4chan picked it up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_parentheses
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Right_Stuff_(blog)


.... unless, you're saying 4chan is full of time travelers maybe?

[GroovyHobo]

Originally posted by Soren:

Originally posted by GroovyHobo:

No it didn't. I was literally on 4chan the day the ((())) meme started. The /pol thread started by them linking to a hilarious leftist site and after that everyone started using it. You are literally believing 4chan deceptions and psyops.

Is it really that hard to google it? The Right Stuff neo nazi blog started using it 4 years before 4chan picked it up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_parentheses
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Right_Stuff_(blog)


.... unless, you're saying 4chan is full of time travelers maybe?

Yes 2014 is about right when I saw that thread. I thought it was earlier more like 2013 but the timeframe matches. And yes, it started with them linking to a MSNBC article I believe where some crazy broad saw this on a stormfront site and claimed this was a secret code used everywhere. After that /pol thread it started appearing everywhere. Hilarious how gullible the average person is.

[Trio]

Implying anyone gives a ♥♥♥♥ about an opinion from an american who just wants to spout his racist BS with impunity,

[Soren]

Originally posted by GroovyHobo:

Originally posted by Soren:

Is it really that hard to google it? The Right Stuff neo nazi blog started using it 4 years before 4chan picked it up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_parentheses
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Right_Stuff_(blog)


.... unless, you're saying 4chan is full of time travelers maybe?

Yes 2014 is about right when I saw that thread. I thought it was earlier more like 2013 but the timeframe matches. And yes, it started with them linking to a MSNBC article I believe where some crazy broad saw this on a stormfront site and claimed this was a secret code used everywhere. After that /pol thread it started appearing everywhere. Hilarious how gullible the average person is.

The neo nazi blog using it started in 2012. It is the first example of it seeing use, so 2 years before 4chan decided to start adopting it, not 4. Either way the point stands.

[GroovyHobo]

Originally posted by Soren:

Originally posted by GroovyHobo:

Yes 2014 is about right when I saw that thread. I thought it was earlier more like 2013 but the timeframe matches. And yes, it started with them linking to a MSNBC article I believe where some crazy broad saw this on a stormfront site and claimed this was a secret code used everywhere. After that /pol thread it started appearing everywhere. Hilarious how gullible the average person is.

The neo nazi blog using it started in 2012. It is the first example of it seeing use, so 2 years before 4chan decided to start adopting it, not 4. Either way the point stands.

Oh well the timeframe matches and that confirms my suspicion that it started earlier than 2014.

Also this is another example where you get sudden amnesia. Earlier you were saying 4chan started hoaxes and now you're saying they didn't start this one. I hate to tell you but this may have been a secret code in some obscure forum but /pol made it explode all as part of a hoax mainly due to a media journalist's hilarious coverage of it. You can argue formatting and schematics and technicalities all you want but the only reason you even know about this is because it all stems from 4chan's drumming it up and popularizing it everywhere. Even the whole Chad/virgin meme started there as well as the blonde chad "yes" reply image was a huge /pol meme.

[f**k cancer]

Originally posted by Jebus™:

Im so concerned that people who want this, just want the freedom to scream slurs and not be held responsible for pushing their childish venting on others. lmao.

PVP games are already a super hostile place to minority groups.
I don't care about your free speech on a videogame if nobody feels comfortable playing the game.

Reminder that if we didnt censor things, Nobody would stick around.
Whenever a platform decides to be free speech absolutist, people vacate the area because its miserable for everyone. Every. Time.

LOL ABSOLUTE WAFFLE Xd

[GoldenSnowflake]

Originally posted by Soren:

Originally posted by GroovyHobo:

No. I am not defending pedos. We both know that you used that as a strawman to prove that people who are pushing for actual illegal things are somehow being defended by the "free speech absolutists crowd" which is hyperbole. I ignored that entirely and did not even reply to that ridiculous scenario because it's not something relevant to this debate.

If you ignored it entirely. You probably shouldn't have kept it in my quote as the first paragraph of what I was saying. With you basically responding to it's general point with your first paragraph. Eh screw it. I can literally just pull up the quote so you can't accuse me of strawmaning either

Originally posted by GroovyHobo:

It's irrelevant if the majority of the world hates something, they still have the right to exist. Allowing them to basically be deleted from the public sphere is literally what you liberals would define as "genocide". Obviously I don't agree that it's genocide but I do think it's the first step to it. The majority destroying the minority are never the good guys in history books. Did you not learn anything from history class? I wouldn't be surprised. They don't teach this anymore.

Like, if this isn't you directly responding too the point most of us would deplatform pedos if we could... than I don't know what is.

Some people don't understand that Saying what they mean, on the internet, is a perfect record of their actual thoughts.

There are rules for a reason, stop asking to harass folks online, people are not your Toys, they do not belong to you.

In a public space, if you begin harassing folks, you should be removed, disturbance of the peace is an american law, and you will be removed, enough nonsense already, if you want absolutely no rules, then we can follow that to its obvious conclusion.

3-4% of all humans, have Zero emotional function in the brain, nada, zip, zilch.
Folks aren't arguing for regular folks to be ruled on, they are arguing for those causing actual harm to folks to get punished for their actions.

The people with Zero emotional function, like to call everyone weak when they can't handle certain social situations, when guess what?

They have an actual functioning emotional system.
So lets stop the disingenuous arguments, lets not leave the folks with Antisocial Personality Disorder in charge of what can or cannot be said.

Lets leave it up to the 96-97% of humans that can actually experience emotions.