All steam discussions are woke

[Umbreon]

I see a universal, pervasive trend in (almost) every single steam discussion: the mods are woke and won't tolerate anything that violates this postmodern religion's sensibilities, and when you appeal it to steam they tow the line or give a cop-out, such as, "Well it's the dev's discussions it's up to them!". That's not true though. The truth is, Steam and Steam moderators actually have universal, unilateral power over every single discussion thread, period! I got a mod to literally admit that to me! They just don't wanna deal with it. Clearly they should push it off to everyone else and F-U if you disagree! But I digress...

My point is this: all steam discussions and all threads and all moderators (with very few exceptions) all believe in the exact same woke-ness that goes beyond a simple agreeableness. It is a very specific set of beliefs that many like myself find offensive, and if you say anything EVEN SLIGHTLY DIFFERING from this narrative you are warned, or banned. It's absurd, it's basically reddit 2.0 (or the forgotten Stalinism). Does nobody know about the 1st amendment? Steam is an American company, but still: nobody behaves consistently with the 1st amendment, which wasn't to protect protected speech, but to protect CONTROVERSIAL and DISAGREEABLE speech. But that's not how things work 'round here in 'merica, it's all about preaching a certain narrative and set of opinions and everything outside of that is unacceptable. It's quite sad to see what has become of the internet space, and steam is still one of the best remaining platforms in this regard yet it is still extremely compromised by political and religious messaging masquerading as "socially acceptable".

It is sad and all of you working at steam should be ashamed of yourselves for making this the norm, as you can absolutely change it, but it might cut into your profits so you do nothing.

[xBCxRangers]

Originally posted by Soren:

Originally posted by xBCxRangers:

We can see an end to "woke forums", but we'll see a relative end, to any political matters, or otherwise matters our government or states feel should end, or are not being implemented properly, or need to be governed differently, depending on the jurisidiction.

From my perspective we'd see the end of all forums basically. It's certainly one way to get rid of the "woke forums". It'd also get rid all comments sections most anywhere except private 1 on 1 talks with steam's support. No more people warning you of scammers in comments sections. It'd get rid of steam user reviews. It'd get rid of steam profiles having any text based application.

I'd go as far to say the law would kill the internet as we know it. And the politicians in charge would actually be voted out for doing it. First time they'd ever have to take responsibility for their dumbassery.

Well the thing of it is, it may happen here, just give these political currents, and current legal suits, if only because Mr Newell and Valve, just don't want to jump thru all these hoops, or possible hoops. And personally, i wouldn't blame them.

These forums apparently, just a "benefit" they give their users, yet that benefit can certainly go away.

It would just mean, customer services would have to meet todays age and time, and for in game matters, like we do say on Xbox, or PS, go to other places to report issues with a certain game (Reddit, the games official forums etc).

Epic to my knowledge, has no Forums. And if for any issues they may have, not having a forum does not seem to be one of them. My guess is, there is not going to have be any 230 provisions, suits or any of the kind, before Steam Forums, go the way of the Dodo bird.

[Brian9824]

Originally posted by xBCxRangers:

snip

You should try reading this - https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/social-media/1329584/email-user-protected-by-section-230

I still follow law even if i no longer practice it, but this is easy to follow. Section 230 protects people like you, for instance without it Steam could sue you because of comments you've made in the past speaking negatively about them.

However Section 230 protects you from that.

[Paratech2008]

Valve just wants to make money like every other business. They don't want arguments that may drive people away.

So they don't allow people to criticize stuff like LGBTQ and promote LGBTQ as much to get more customers.

They don't want people discussing morals, etc, as that's divisive.

I don't like or agree with it, but this is their turf.

[Leonardo Da Pinchi]

Originally posted by Umbreon:

I see a universal, pervasive trend in (almost) every single steam discussion: the mods are woke and won't tolerate anything that violates this postmodern religion's sensibilities, and when you appeal it to steam they tow the line or give a cop-out, such as, "Well it's the dev's discussions it's up to them!". That's not true though. The truth is, Steam and Steam moderators actually have universal, unilateral power over every single discussion thread, period! I got a mod to literally admit that to me! They just don't wanna deal with it. Clearly they should push it off to everyone else and F-U if you disagree! But I digress...

My point is this: all steam discussions and all threads and all moderators (with very few exceptions) all believe in the exact same woke-ness that goes beyond a simple agreeableness. It is a very specific set of beliefs that many like myself find offensive, and if you say anything EVEN SLIGHTLY DIFFERING from this narrative you are warned, or banned. It's absurd, it's basically reddit 2.0 (or the forgotten Stalinism). Does nobody know about the 1st amendment? Steam is an American company, but still: nobody behaves consistently with the 1st amendment, which wasn't to protect protected speech, but to protect CONTROVERSIAL and DISAGREEABLE speech. But that's not how things work 'round here in 'merica, it's all about preaching a certain narrative and set of opinions and everything outside of that is unacceptable. It's quite sad to see what has become of the internet space, and steam is still one of the best remaining platforms in this regard yet it is still extremely compromised by political and religious messaging masquerading as "socially acceptable".

It is sad and all of you working at steam should be ashamed of yourselves for making this the norm, as you can absolutely change it, but it might cut into your profits so you do nothing.

Reminds me of the quote "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's."

Which has been effectively the "go to" when it comes between Christianity, secular government, and society.

These are the same teachings that teach you that if the way a woman dresses should make you want to sin, pluck out your own eye.

So personal accountability is kinda big in the bible.

Misrepresenting the first amendment in such a way, seems more self serving, than taking personal accountability.

[Pheace]

Denying reality seems to be becoming harder and harder every day. These 'anti-woke' people just figured they'd give their dislikes a name and pretend this is some legit issue when they're just trying to stuff the facts about the real world they do NOT like into a box and hide it away.

[xBCxRangers]

Originally posted by brian9824:

Originally posted by xBCxRangers:

snip

You should try reading this - https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/social-media/1329584/email-user-protected-by-section-230

I still follow law even if i no longer practice it, but this is easy to follow. Section 230 protects people like you, for instance without it Steam could sue you because of comments you've made in the past speaking negatively about them.

However Section 230 protects you from that.

I cannot read that link, only about a matter in PA in regards to emails. That being said, you can be sued, just in that Steam is apparently protected.

Like what happened with Mr Jones, in that he used Google (You Tube) to commit an assault on others with his slander, and given that, Google protected from the suit, though he fully liable.

And that i feel needs to change. If you use these companies to harm others, you should, and can be sued, and so should these companies, that allow that material to be presented, and another issue about 230 that needs change.

Of course as Mango brought up and is correct, would cause issues for these companies in regards to moderation, and like every Tuesday we get the waiting in queu bug for the comments to go thru, is likely what will happen, in that comments, as to protect these companies will have to be filtered before presentation.

[C²C^Guyver |NZB|]

OP mis clicked and thought this was OT.

[Boblin the Goblin]

Originally posted by xBCxRangers:

Originally posted by brian9824:

You should try reading this - https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/social-media/1329584/email-user-protected-by-section-230

I still follow law even if i no longer practice it, but this is easy to follow. Section 230 protects people like you, for instance without it Steam could sue you because of comments you've made in the past speaking negatively about them.

However Section 230 protects you from that.

I cannot read that link, only about a matter in PA in regards to emails. That being said, you can be sued, just in that Steam is apparently protected.

Like what happened with Mr Jones, in that he used Google (You Tube) to commit an assault on others with his slander, and given that, Google protected from the suit, though he fully liable.

And that i feel needs to change. If you use these companies to harm others, you should, and can be sued, and so should these companies, that allow that material to be presented, and another issue about 230 that needs change.

Of course as Mango brought up and is correct, would cause issues for these companies in regards to moderation, and like every Tuesday we get the waiting in queu bug for the comments to go thru, is likely what will happen, in that comments, as to protect these companies will have to be filtered before presentation.

It was a federal case. Meaning the ruling in that case stretches over the whole US, not just that state.

Since there's a refusal to read it, I can break it down for you.

Without article 230, you would be liable for sharing anything that could be claimed as defaiming a company, regardless of if you created it or not. If you so much as share and article/picture/meme/etc. through email or text and the company it's about finds out, you can be held liable for damages they claim it causes.

Article 230 removes that possibility.

[C²C^Guyver |NZB|]

Originally posted by xBCxRangers:

Originally posted by brian9824:

You should try reading this - https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/social-media/1329584/email-user-protected-by-section-230

I still follow law even if i no longer practice it, but this is easy to follow. Section 230 protects people like you, for instance without it Steam could sue you because of comments you've made in the past speaking negatively about them.

However Section 230 protects you from that.

I cannot read that link, only about a matter in PA in regards to emails. That being said, you can be sued, just in that Steam is apparently protected.

Like what happened with Mr Jones, in that he used Google (You Tube) to commit an assault on others with his slander, and given that, Google protected from the suit, though he fully liable.

And that i feel needs to change. If you use these companies to harm others, you should, and can be sued, and so should these companies, that allow that material to be presented, and another issue about 230 that needs change.

Of course as Mango brought up and is correct, would cause issues for these companies in regards to moderation, and like every Tuesday we get the waiting in queu bug for the comments to go thru, is likely what will happen, in that comments, as to protect these companies will have to be filtered before presentation.

lol....Every Tuesday is maintenance.

[Brian9824]

Originally posted by xBCxRangers:

I cannot read that link

Then here is the entire thing since its only 3 paragraphs

Here's a case decided by a federal court in Pennsylvania that is more significant than it appears on first blush. The facts are relatively simple. Dr. Deborah Thomas, a professor at Penn emailed to a listserv maintained by the American Black Anthropologists articles critical of a Dr. Janet Monge. Dr. Monge is a member of the organization. Dr. Monge sued Dr. Thomas for defamation based on her forwarding the material, which Dr. Monge contended was defamatory.

The federal court made a straightforward ruling that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protected Dr. Thomas. Put simply, email is an interactive computer service, which Dr. Thomas used to forward content created by a third party. Section 230 provides that Dr. Thomas, under these facts, can't be deemed the publisher of the content. Case closed.

Here's the significance, however. There is a lot of rhetoric out there pushing for the repeal or amendment of Section 230. Part of that rhetoric argues that Section 230 is merely a tool for big tech - like Twitter, Facebook, etc. - to defame people without consequence. But this decision illustrates the point that Section 230 just as effectively protects the "little guy" and helps ensure that people can share controversial content without fear of liability. And that is a worthy attribute.

Originally posted by xBCxRangers:

, only about a matter in PA in regards to emails. That being said, you can be sued, just in that Steam is apparently protected.

Nope, the link explains that if you send someone an article that is negative about a person or a company without Section 230 you could be sued for sending that article. It was a FEDERAL case.

So i know you are unfamiliar with the law but since it was a FEDERAL court and not a STATE court it applies to the entirety of the US.

You unfortunately have no clue what section 230 covers, as you don't even know its name. It is not designed for Social media. its designed for the entire internet and protects individuals as much as the company. it would result in you losing ALL ability to communicate online such as email, voice chat, etc.

As Sony would be liable for every word someone said in a game on their servers or every message posted. Every email you send would open you up to a lawsuit like in that article where the person was protected under section 230.

[Brian9824]

Originally posted by SlowMango:

It was a federal case. Meaning the ruling in that case stretches over the whole US, not just that state.

Since there's a refusal to read it, I can break it down for you.

Without article 230, you would be liable for sharing anything that could be claimed as defaiming a company, regardless of if you created it or not. If you so much as share and article/picture/meme/etc. through email or text and the company it's about finds out, you can be held liable for damages they claim it causes.

Article 230 removes that possibility.

Yep, hence why its important to actually know the law before you start commenting on it. When you don't even know the name of Section 230 let alone what it does nor understand the difference between State and Federal courts you don't really have any basis to be offering suggestions

[xBCxRangers]

Originally posted by brian9824:

Originally posted by xBCxRangers:

I cannot read that link

Then here is the entire thing since its only 3 paragraphs

Here's a case decided by a federal court in Pennsylvania that is more significant than it appears on first blush. The facts are relatively simple. Dr. Deborah Thomas, a professor at Penn emailed to a listserv maintained by the American Black Anthropologists articles critical of a Dr. Janet Monge. Dr. Monge is a member of the organization. Dr. Monge sued Dr. Thomas for defamation based on her forwarding the material, which Dr. Monge contended was defamatory.

The federal court made a straightforward ruling that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protected Dr. Thomas. Put simply, email is an interactive computer service, which Dr. Thomas used to forward content created by a third party. Section 230 provides that Dr. Thomas, under these facts, can't be deemed the publisher of the content. Case closed.

Here's the significance, however. There is a lot of rhetoric out there pushing for the repeal or amendment of Section 230. Part of that rhetoric argues that Section 230 is merely a tool for big tech - like Twitter, Facebook, etc. - to defame people without consequence. But this decision illustrates the point that Section 230 just as effectively protects the "little guy" and helps ensure that people can share controversial content without fear of liability. And that is a worthy attribute.

Originally posted by xBCxRangers:

, only about a matter in PA in regards to emails. That being said, you can be sued, just in that Steam is apparently protected.

Nope, the link explains that if you send someone an article that is negative about a person or a company without Section 230 you could be sued for sending that article.

You unfortunately have no clue what section 230 covers, as you don't even know its name. It is not designed for Social media. its designed for the entire internet and protects individuals as much as the company. it would result in you losing ALL ability to communicate online such as email, voice chat, etc.

As Sony would be liable for every word someone said in a game on their servers or every message posted. Every email you send would open you up to a lawsuit like in that article where the person was protected under section 230.

That apparently in regards to a case in PA, that has not yet been appealed, if it is. But as i just explained, in how Alex Jones was apparently sued for more than a billion, whilst Google to my knowledge were absolved.

As you would know if you knew the law, that cases and judgements therein, are based on "damages" and what could have brought up, in effort to damage someone. Not that someone got materiel wrong in regards to an Anthropology matter.

If that were the case, you, and many others would be sued for many matters. What you have to do, and the key is "i think", "my opinion", "if i have this right", "from what i've seen", these are matters i almost always put on my posts, and are overlooked.

But you should do that, as to cover yourself in case you make a mistake, particularly for those who claim they are lawyers, being there is no stopping anyone suing anyone, and depending on the jurisidiction, may not be protected at all.

I'm careful on the Off Topic subjects, say in regards to law enforcement and matters thererin, where i worked, and what happened at that time. Not that what happens in NYC, happens in other jurisdictions. These are matters that we need to be careful.

[Mensis]

"Woke" really is such a brainrot word. I'd also love to see people who compare getting banned on a forum to a totalitarian regime actually live under one because I cannot imagine that comparison would hold up for them if they did.

Though, being serious, that's kind of cruel - but I'd love it for them to visit a country where the government is just a little more restrictive on "free speech" and see what it's actually like to experience open government censorship. A place like Indonesia or Malaysia or Vietnam where the governments force ISPs to block you from accessing certain websites or publishing material critical of the government. They're not fully totalitarian but they give you a good taste of what it's actually like to have your government censor you and censor private businesses.

[Brian9824]

Originally posted by xBCxRangers:

That apparently in regards to a case in PA, that has not yet been appealed, if it is. But as i just explained, in how Alex Jones was apparently sued for more than a billion, whilst Google to my knowledge were absolved.

Nope, you need to actually read the article, its in laymans terms so you should be able to understand it.

That case was someone sent an article written by someone else, they weren't the author but without Section 230 they could be liable for it just as if they said it themselves.

Alex Jones was liable because he actually SAID those things. Without section 230 anyone who emailed an article or shared a show of Alex Jones could also have been sued and found liable for Alex Jone's words...

So if you sent your friend an article about how much your local sports team sucks they could sue you without section 230

Originally posted by xBCxRangers:

As you would know if you knew the law, that cases and judgements therein, are based on "damages" and what could have brought up, in effort to damage someone. Not that someone got materiel wrong in regards to an Anthropology matter.

Umm if you read the article you would know that the case wasn't even allowed to proceed because the person was protected under section 230. Also yes, I do know how defamation works and more specifically the concept of PUNITIVE damages that has no correlation to damages done.

Originally posted by xBCxRangers:

If that were the case, you, and many others would be sued for many matters. What you have to do, and the key is "i think", "my opinion", "if i have this right", "from what i've seen", these are matters i almost always put on my posts, and are overlooked.

Yes, you do have rights, in part granted to you by section 230 that if you repost an article or send it to someone you aren't personaly liable for the content in the article. Without Section 230 every article you send someone you are liable for what it says even though you didn't write it.

Originally posted by xBCxRangers:

, being there is no stopping anyone suing anyone,

The irony in that the article I posted was LITERALLY about section 230 stopping that person from suing the one who sent the email.....

Let me know if you actually read the article, because you clearly haven't read it yet.

[xBCxRangers]

I'm sorry Brian, but i don't get paid to read all that. Needless to say, i'm on firm ground as to what i've mentioned in my views, and you are welcome to yours.

Alex Jones was sued, even though Google was not. That's likely the most famous case to look at, without going into to the weeds on some small case in PA. And so 230, protects the companies, and is made for such. Not individuals, and so we have to be careful what is said here.