Steam installieren
Anmelden
|
Sprache
简体中文 (Vereinfachtes Chinesisch)
繁體中文 (Traditionelles Chinesisch)
日本語 (Japanisch)
한국어 (Koreanisch)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarisch)
Čeština (Tschechisch)
Dansk (Dänisch)
English (Englisch)
Español – España (Spanisch – Spanien)
Español – Latinoamérica (Lateinamerikanisches Spanisch)
Ελληνικά (Griechisch)
Français (Französisch)
Italiano (Italienisch)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesisch)
Magyar (Ungarisch)
Nederlands (Niederländisch)
Norsk (Norwegisch)
Polski (Polnisch)
Português – Portugal (Portugiesisch – Portugal)
Português – Brasil (Portugiesisch – Brasilien)
Română (Rumänisch)
Русский (Russisch)
Suomi (Finnisch)
Svenska (Schwedisch)
Türkçe (Türkisch)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamesisch)
Українська (Ukrainisch)
Ein Übersetzungsproblem melden
Dieses Thema wurde geschlossen 
Diskussionsregeln
Diesen Beitrag melden
"Every country oppresses it's people to some degree or another why complain when your country is slightly better comparatively speaking to most"
But to answer your question: Because speech matters? Just because people nowadays somehow think it's OK for corporations to be able to control the new discourse forum, since nearly NOTHING is public property on the internet, doesn't mean that this thinking isn't fundamentally wrong or that it won't have really bad consequences in the future.
Like for example facebook, twitter or reddit banning of people with one or another political leaning to influence elections. Something that's probably going to matter more as time progresses but I guess "PRIVATE CAN DO WHAT IT WANT" is more important than the people having transparency or true freedom of speech.
And some of those dare call themselves left while they defend multi-billion dollar corporations dictating what they can or can't say.
Ah I see you support the Kotaku way of "Gamers are worse than ISIS" mentality.
That's irrelevant when said information doesn't belong in the reviews in the first place. Valve would be well within their right to remove the off-topic reviews completely for violating their rules.
You're aon someone else's property, they get to define the rules by which you remain upon their property. That has been the case since the Ammendment was written and it was the case even before the amendment was penned. To quote what every parent has said at some point 'My house, My rules"
Yep, it's basically the same rules that say you can't walk into a business and start screaming and causing a scene. Or walk into someones house.
By some people's logic I could walk into a person's house and start showing their little kids graphic content because of freedom of speech...
Rules are upheld for the most part by a simple Honor system we carry out in an effort at assured mutual respect.
"My house, my rules" is a tyrannical point that has since a more ancient and tyrannical rule of the world become recognized as mirroring and reflects the notion of mutual respect, concedes that the other person being spoken to in this way, in the modern non-peasant era, may have their own home or that they will one day and that how the owner treats them now is how they'll be treated when the roles are reversed, to suggest to keep this consideration in mind even if it may never physically happen, the old "walk in another person's shoes" idea to foment an ability to cope in mutual respect versus merely go to war, in that that the future may lead to a necessity for cooperation.
This is not to be confused with how a parent may say "my house, my rules" to their child, context is important.
In fact, enforcement of trespassing requires someone call and report the person to the authorities (government) for it (although there are other means to address it these require far greater justification or the owner of the property may be the one serving a life term in prison or executed). If not , the would be trespasser is to be assumed a guest of the person who owns or is in charge of the premises. If the guest speaks out of turn it can be said they "outstayed their welcome" and they either leave on their own or are removed for trespassing, and generally after full notice they've become a nuisance.
Actually dealing with people and not devices provides a plethora of information on the nuances, the "courtship" and dance, of civility the common code that the idea in the minds of members of civil society of "decorum" assures our manners in SELF-restraint, that we uphold the "outdated" notion of decency.
"Restraining orders" enforced by authorities are generally intended not to restrain but to assure a record can more easily be made against an unwanted guest and require a complaint and some sort of substantiation. This can be useful if the situation is or can escalate and become felonious. The substantiation is necessary to assure a slight disagreement doesn't result in one person being able to walk with little care or concern while the 500 others who are their co-employees they got a restraining order against, including their boss, have to evacuate the building every time they arrive and likely lose their jobs. Thus substantiation avoids how restraining orders could all too easily be used just to harass others/each other.
"The Duel" where two people go out and fire a gun at each other (or may have used swords too), If I remember correctly the way Alexander Hamilton died was by duel, was in relation to mutual Honor, the date scheduled, the treatment of not showing up a form of yield, and sometimes they'd both shoot at the ground to intentionally miss each other just to end the duel but the circumstances of being so heated you'd lose sight of the import of the situation and even to arrive on the idea you may lose yours or take another's life often brought both people a new perspective and sobriety that led to a more amicable relationship, even a friendship.
Heraldry was a means of trial by ordeal where the claims were laid before the Herald, then you fight until one yields either verbally or by no longer being able to make their claim for they are no longer alive to do so.
Honor that leads to people treating each other with mutual respect has been used for a very long time and obviously with a variety of less civil means chosen and accepted by societies yet provided a means for voice when there is disagreement before populations had any genuine right to speak on the matters of their government and how they are governed.
Speaking of, some of these situations were forced by governments upon anyone and everyone, there were no private property rights (rights are property too) but in the Crown generally at those times, and yet this regime of means to allow voice to disagreement existed.
So to treat this like there's some "electronic cattle prod" that jolts us if we are somewhere and then act to speak out of turn in the modern day when out and about in the physical world, when it is our own conscience and desire not to achieve self-ridicule (that I often do) that usually results in self-constraint, is to set aside the key ingredient of intention of rules: mutual respect that has come to the forefront by our ability to show self-restraint since the past overlording slavery at the whim of tyrants "model" is no longer desired.
My hope is this may have clarified the basis for review removal resulting in a sense of offense. Sure sometimes the owner may have to act in a very strict way, and often the weight of why is justified in the minds of those who are effected by it. That acceptance is achieved by one simple principle: mutual respect. Consider when a gamer posts to forums, even puts in tickets, and their entire view is ignored, then they state all of this in a review, it is their effort to achieve mutual respect. If they are ignored, their commitment, and not necessarily rightly, will result in making up negatives, but not in the interest of lying or misleading people, but in an effort to be heard for what they've brought up because the idea anyone even looked at what they said hasn't been acknowledged.
Yes, a simple acknowledgement is all that may be required because it shows mutual respect. Merely using the two little words "thank you" versus "we appreciate very much" or "to show appreciation" etc. because it's a conversation between people, not encyclopedias and degrees. Two words that are very important for a customer to hear when not in exchange of money.
People generally are peculiar, picky, finicky in these way even when they pretend they aren't.
You all have a great day and game well :)
Valve restricts a lot of speech for good reason. We're not allowed to discuss politics or religion because too many fights would ensue. We're not allowed to be sexist, racist, homophobic, because that's attacking members. We can't name and shame because of false reports and mob mentality.
If you want WWIII in the forums, that's what you'd get with an anything goes freedom of speech and its true of reviews as well.
That first thing you said, happens every day, and to address the variety of ways:
-- It can be the coronavirus quarantine person dragging you out of your home in China for not wearing a mask, or the Sheriff who quarantines you in the United States for having a very contagious pneumonia.
-- It can be the solicitor who comes to your door and you have no interest in their product but they've been showing up at your door, usually the same person, from time to time for years even decades.
-- It can be the neighbor who took offense to something you did or said, shows up in your garage shortly after opening the garage door, and poses to to have a conversation with you and even gets heated, to then politely say to you, "I just had to get that off my chest" and walks back to their property, never to having that happen again for years, and the cordiality they showed before this and afterward remains.
To jump to WWIII and speak for what the rules mean without being in the decision making loop is dramatic.
The 3 instances I just mentioned are generally kept from escalating, in fact, by the very Honor system I mentioned above. It's the reason the town I am in 90% of the 50,000 people living here own guns, and we've had one shooting in 20 years and it was to thwart a burglary, and almost no crime otherwise.
It'd be mutual respect if this wasn't ignored to justify needing something literal or the truth of the situation can't be accepted, rejecting that there's any restraint without some edict from somewhere is some people need something that provides for use of force on what they don't accept or just because they do not believe there is any restraint without that literal. Amazingly they'll use that literal force against any they disagree with in completely blatant disregard for mutual respect and proving it is mutual respect that keeps things from going one-sided and destructive. From the atom out is balance a suggestion from physical existence of the necessity of mutual respect and that it is a binding force, that binding force is the rule not the words and parsings.
Again. Valve is a private entity. The storefront and the review feature are their property and usage of it is to be done in accordance with their guidelines. They can at their own discrecion, delete content, or bar you from use of it. Much in the same way your neighbhor can allow you to cut through their yard or bar you from setting foot in it. if your neighbor has a weird no talking rule while in their house then you either follow it or they are free to remove you from their premises and bar you from it.
None of that is affected by the First ammendment which pecifically addresses/limits CONGRESS.
It does not speak tyo private entities. The only thing Valve cannot do is alter or edit the content placed for obvious reasons.
So it boils down to 'Their house, their rules. Don't like 'em, there's the door."
If you're renting a home or apartment from someone you can have limited rights usually in a contract with the owner.
If you're attending a school, whether it be grade school to college, you don't have the "freedom of speech" described here.
Social media, websites, can restrict rights. You can be fired from a job over what you say or how you behave on the clock.
Your ISP can limit what you do online and when or where you go, You pay for the service but even then there are rules regarding usage of the tech.
Clarity:
- 1, 2, 3 as they are in the same paragraph and generally are construed as in relation to the rights of a Natural person in actual ownership and not merely a subject in possession and are true thereby.
- 4 is entirely dependent on if you have a simple agreement or a contract, the former is merely an element of contract known as "a meeting of the minds." The latter contains rights recitals for both parties and isn't likely to be deemed unconscionable for anyone to subscribe to. Look into this and you'll gain a lot of useful information, whether you agree with what I've said or not.
- 5 has changed over time and requires looking at history because in high school we had rifle racks in our trucks, would even show our guns in the school talking about hunting with them or merely appreciating and comparing stats. No school shootings. So something changed ant it wasn't our Right to Bear Arms but easily was administrators who had more concern for their power and less concern for the culture. Public and Private school also has an impact on this one, overall public schools have a duty to protect Freedom of Speech as mentioned here and used to honor that outright, now they apply a bias that they haven't a right to in light of public funds that help afford the school that include money from those who believe those rights are sacred. There are court battles about this stuff and have been for at least a good 50 years. You may want to look into that to understand this isn't settled.
-- 6 Is assertions but unsettled and the government currently in America, on both sides, isn't happy with these companies and how they treat their customers, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-internet-pai/fccs-pai-addressing-net-neutrality-rules-calls-twitter-biased-idUSKBN1DS2LB. And do understand "net neutrality" was about Netflix not wanting to pay for the bandwidth that users of an ISP were using and had been paid for by other customers. After the ISP asked them to pay for the excess so the ISP wouldn't have to raise rates or buy more equipment that would also have caused rates to rise, Comcast throttled Netflix Users. Netflix then appealed to have "net neutrality" and the FCC at that time agreed that the ISP can't throttle users. But the cost for bandwidth and technology advances both paid the price and thereby we did. After the doom and gloom predictions of net neutrality, in the market, we who use the web saw marked increases in available speed and for a lesser price. I went from a 10 meg connection to a 200 meg fiber for the same price in my smaller town, to give you an idea. The idea of what social media companies can do is unsettled because they are trying to get further immunity protections by becoming a public utility, and a lot of what they do to users is in hopes we raise concerns that lead to that happening.
-- 7 So long as they don't violate rules in that regard yes, but it's not entirely settled in their favor as you've put forth and that's because of the amount of use of the technology is causing it to be seen along the path of a "lifeline" for communications. Apple watches calling 911 when someone is stuck on the side of a mountain are only bolstering that idea, and of course that can aid in looking at the companies involved and treating them as public utilities, so what's hype and intended to achieve that purpose is anyone's guess.
Hopefully you can see the public and private difference, and how the licensing and the public body that is funded by the very same folks that become customers who pay for the legislators who pass the laws to provide that licensing privilege cause a need for mutual respect of the customer from the licensed party. I won't explain this again so I really do hope you look into things and get a better idea about it all.
Enjoy your day and game well :)
Its not my apartment, their housing, their rules, like it or get evicted and never allowed affordable housing again.
Correct.
So in light of this seeming to be moving in the right direction....
What I've explained
A) No different than the rules governing the license a business agrees to operate by. They "light up a cigarette" in a no smoking area when they decide to have disrespect for the very citizens who afford the existence of the government that has made those rules on the public behalf.
or
B) Like HUD's governance, when Steam collects information on behalf of the EU, as an agent, they agree to be bound by the rules that govern government in the country they are domiciled for they're engaging in a public act, collecting information for a public purpose, and therefore all the rights that would apply to a government doing it apply to them, including, but not limited to, Freedom of Speech, Expression, Right to Redress of Grievance (see the Administrative Procedures Act) and violations thereof are subject to administrative challenge and may also be subject to judicial review under 42 USC Sections 1983 and 1985.
And this may even be the Civile Case parallel to a criminal enhancement (or can be pleaded as such) because their actions are for a foreign government while also denying substantial rights to Americans.
This is not the position ANY corporation wants to be in in B.
And A is where the mutual respect you show HUD provides that their rules protect you in being able to stay there.
I pray I communicated better with you this time :)
The poor just have to deal with it. Steam customers can get their games elsewhere or get a new hobby.