Overwatch dev talks about baning players over facebook posts

[Machismo]

I'm talking about the power of the platform itself. If the Kremlin can use Facebook to harm America then Facebook can use Facebook to harm America. I'm not commenting on the morality of either action.

- - - Updated - - -



Your stance doesn't address my argument.

Your argument is one of authoritarian bullshit.

I have stated that I support the free markets. Kremlin trolls did influence the election, as did ignorant America trolls. My issue is with government intervention, people will always be ignorant assholes.

I don't care if a company is big and powerful. Google is a fucking search engine, and has plenty of viable alternatives. The same can be said for Facebook. They simply offered a better product, one that people liked more.

[Endus]

The consequences is what differed, not the tactics. I agree completely if you are arguing that the consequences are not the same. I do not think that anyone will die as a result of what Blizzard. I find the tactics themselves to be morally reprehensible though. You also don't have other alternatives if the specific things you want are Blizzard games.

The "tactic" is "owners reserve the right to require customers to abide by the rules while on the owner's property, or they'll be removed from the premises".

That's literally it. That's the windmill you're tilting at.

We're talking about the statements from 2:30-3:00 in the linked video in the OP, right?

Yes, the ones that clearly talk about people posting clips of them acting toxic in Blizzard games.

There's nothing in there about the toxic behavior actually needing to take place within a Blizzard game.

This is why I'm pointing out that you're lying. Because that's a lie. He specifically mentions looking for toxic behaviour related to actions in Blizzard games. None of the rest of that quoted section makes the least bit of sense if that's not the context he's talking about.

You're either deliberately lying for some reason, or you're so deep down your own rabbit hole you can't see your own fictions for the fantasies they are. What you're complaining about is not what Blizzard has at any point said they are doing.

To quote my Accounting 101 instructor from ages ago, "A corporation is a separate legal entity." If Google does something shady and gets sued for it, then it comes out of Google's money. If Google can't pay the money they could get shut down. The legal responsibility though, will in no way transfer to the CEO, even if the CEO is the one that ordered the behavior that Google is being sued over. Being a corporation limits the liability of the people that run the corporation. At least in the US. Maybe it's different in Canada. That's kind of the concept behind an LLC. You get corporate protections without actually having to be a corporation.

Well, it is different in Canada. There's no such thing as an LLC here. People are liable, period.

But I'm speaking of the American context, anyway. There's no additional rights a corporation earns, by being a corporation.

I have checked the facts and I don't believe my interpretation is incorrect. If you have a different interpretation or new facts that you want to bring forward I am all ears.

Your history in the thread already shows that's not true. I pointed out what the facts were, and you've been trying to bite my head off ever since, rather than admit that just maybe, you made up a bunch of stuff that Kaplan didn't say and then blamed Kaplan for the stuff you made up.

[OrcsRLame]

Your argument is one of authoritarian bullshit.

I have stated that I support the free markets. Kremlin trolls did influence the election, as did ignorant America trolls. My issue is with government intervention, people will always be ignorant assholes.

I don't care if a company is big and powerful. Google is a fucking search engine, and has plenty of viable alternatives. The same can be said for Facebook. They simply offered a better product, one that people liked more.

Could Facebook harm American democracy if they chose to do so? Yes or no. It's a straightforward question with a straightforward answer.

[Endus]

Could Facebook harm American democracy if they chose to do so? Yes or no. It's a straightforward question with a straightforward answer.

Only in the same sense that a farmer with a big load of fertilizer could harm American democracy, by making a bomb and blowing something up.

It isn't a useful standard for anything.

[OrcsRLame]

The "tactic" is "owners reserve the right to require customers to abide by the rules while on the owner's property, or they'll be removed from the premises". That's literally it. That's the windmill you're tilting at.

Exactly. Now you're finally starting to get what I'm driving at. Now apply the logic consistently. If the aforementioned tactic can be used to kill kids or do basically nothing of consequence, depending on the context, then simply stating that the owners have a right to deny services is not a valid defense of any kind of action. Context is always required.

Yes, the ones that clearly talk about people posting clips of them acting toxic in Blizzard games.

But I'll give you an example of one thing that we've been doing that has proven very positive. We now proactively seek out social media sites like YouTube for example, and look for incidents of very toxic behavior and track down the accounts that are participating in those and action them, oftentimes before anybody's even reported them or they've shown up in any other place.

The text right above this one is an exact quote of the 2:30-3:00 section of the interview. There's no mention of the term 'clips'. There's no assertion that the behavior must take place within a game at all. It's literally right fucking there. You can read it. Quote the exact section of the sentence where you think the dev says that this is only about toxic behavior within the games themselves.

This is why I'm pointing out that you're lying. Because that's a lie. He specifically mentions looking for toxic behaviour related to actions in Blizzard games. None of the rest of that quoted section makes the least bit of sense if that's not the context he's talking about.

That's an inference you're making. That's inductive reasoning not deductive reasoning Endus. You're saying that my interpretation doesn't make sense, not that your own is logically certain. You're calling me a liar because I think your inference is wrong.

But I'm speaking of the American context, anyway. There's no additional rights a corporation earns, by being a corporation.

Yes, but the people running the corporation get to use said corporation as a shield. Also, a corporation cannot be imprisoned or put to death. It's just a social construct. That means if a corporation does something that would get a person thrown in prison, all the people running the corporation need to do is pay some fines, or at worst, liquidate the company and start a new one that does the exact same thing. Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

Your history in the thread already shows that's not true. I pointed out what the facts were, and you've been trying to bite my head off ever since, rather than admit that just maybe, you made up a bunch of stuff that Kaplan didn't say and then blamed Kaplan for the stuff you made up.

You know what, I have been a little mean to you, and I apologize for that. Sometimes I let my temper get the better of me. That doesn't mean I agree with you though, because I don't.

- - - Updated - - -

Only in the same sense that a farmer with a big load of fertilizer could harm American democracy, by making a bomb and blowing something up.

It isn't a useful standard for anything.

So you think that the Kremlin using social media to influence politics is the same level of threat as the Kremlin having ready access to fertilizer? I'm not trying to strawman you here; if you're making some greater point I clearly don't understand it.

[Shaderas]

But I'll give you an example of one thing that we've been doing that has proven very positive. We now proactively seek out social media sites like YouTube for example, and look for incidents of very toxic behavior and track down the accounts that are participating in those and action them, oftentimes before anybody's even reported them or they've shown up in any other place.

I personally would interpret the above to mean they are looking at youtube posted Overwatch clips, showing toxic behavior of players in game (again Overwatch) and then take action against the involved Overwatch accounts. Since youtube was the example (a vid website), it does lead me to believe that they will be looking at the video evidence before taking action. Not the comment section. Just my two cents.

[OrcsRLame]

I personally would interpret the above to mean they are looking at youtube posted Overwatch clips, showing toxic behavior of players in game (again Overwatch) and then take action against the involved Overwatch accounts. Since youtube was the example (a vid website), it does lead me to believe that they will be looking at the video evidence before taking action. Not the comment section. Just my two cents.

And as I said, that interpretation may be correct. I might be wrong. Time will tell. If it turns out that interpretation is wrong though, then I will be very smug about it. Actually I'll probably be more sad than smug.

[Nurasu]

And as I said, that interpretation may be correct. I might be wrong. Time will tell. If it turns out that interpretation is wrong though, then I will be very smug about it. Actually I'll probably be more sad than smug.

It's really, incredibly simple - there is absolutely no way for Blizzard to "take action against involved Overwatch accounts" unless the incident took place in Overwatch. Do you think they're watching Youtube and hiring private investigators to hunt down people they don't like?

[OrcsRLame]

It's really, incredibly simple - there is absolutely no way for Blizzard to "take action against involved Overwatch accounts" unless the incident took place in Overwatch. Do you think they're watching Youtube and hiring private investigators to hunt down people they don't like?

Hiring PIs? No. The people I'm arguing against though, are explicitly arguing that Blizzard does have people watching YouTube videos though, so I don't know, you tell me.

[Endus]

Exactly. Now you're finally starting to get what I'm driving at. Now apply the logic consistently. If the aforementioned tactic can be used to kill kids or do basically nothing of consequence, depending on the context, then simply stating that the owners have a right to deny services is not a valid defense of any kind of action. Context is always required.

This is abject nonsense and doesn't make any sense. Of course the owner can't break the law in establishing those rules, but kicking people off your premises for being assholes to other customers isn't remotely against the law.

That's the context. You keep trying to distract from that with bullshit like "killing kids".

The text right above this one is an exact quote of the 2:30-3:00 section of the interview. There's no mention of the term 'clips'. There's no assertion that the behavior must take place within a game at all. It's literally right fucking there. You can read it. Quote the exact section of the sentence where you think the dev says that this is only about toxic behavior within the games themselves.

The clip only makes sense if he's talking about behaviour in the games themselves. Kaplan isn't God. Blizzard has no interest in behaviour outside their games. This is where you start blatantly making shit up and pretending Kaplan said it, rather than going with the obvious context of the clip in question.

That's an inference you're making. That's inductive reasoning not deductive reasoning Endus. You're saying that my interpretation doesn't make sense, not that your own is logically certain. You're calling me a liar because I think your inference is wrong.

There's nothing wrong with inductive reasoning. It's logic, like any other form of reasoning. The difference is that my reasoning follows from the context of what Kaplan is saying, whereas your reasoning requires you to invent a whole lot of things Kaplan never said, and pretend he said them, to manufacture the context to justify your own inferences.

And I'm telling you to cut that out and stick with the obvious context we actually have.

Your argument is like hearing Kaplan say "we're going to ban people for swearing", and thinking if you swear in your room in the dark of knight, Kaplan will know and ban you, psychically. It's that ridiculous. He's talking about Overwatch. That's the context. You don't get to just ignore that.

So you think that the Kremlin using social media to influence politics is the same level of threat as the Kremlin having ready access to fertilizer? I'm not trying to strawman you here; if you're making some greater point I clearly don't understand it.

No, I think people making bombs is a much bigger threat than people saying fake shit on Facebook. The simple fix to social media manipulation is teaching your citizens to think critically, rather than blindly believing bullshit propaganda.

The point is that fearmongering about the widespread use of Facebook is ridiculous, because the standard of "threat to democracy" that you're using can be achieved by basically anyone. The specific example I was hinting at with the fertilizer example was Timothy McVeigh. A random dude, working with a grand total of three other people, using fertilizer to make a bomb, and blowing up a government building in Oklahoma City. Four people, a truck, and some fertilizer. It doesn't take much.

[Antiganon]

can you imagine if every business in society would be like this?

The bank "yeah we just looked at your social media profile and we decided we're going to shut down your account"
Your landlord "yeah i just looked at some of the comments you said and i don't want toxic people on my property i'm evicting you"

I'm really not going to support this type of morality and it only seems to be acceptable in the video game industry.

You mean, how it is in reality?

The bank "Yeah, we looked at your records from your previous banking history and decided we're going to shut down your account."
Your landlord "Yeah, the neighbors are complaining because you are a giant douchebag to them, I don't want people like that on my property I'm evicting you."

- - - Updated - - -

Hiring PIs? No. The people I'm arguing against though, are explicitly arguing that Blizzard does have people watching YouTube videos though, so I don't know, you tell me.

They are watching YouTube videos of PEOPLE PLAYING OVERWATCH and banning people based on SHIT THEY DID IN OVERWATCH AND POSTED TO YOUTUBE FOR THE LULZ.

[Waniou]

Oh good grief, I feel like most people commenting haven't even watched the video.

The first thing that I wanted to talk about was our progress on toxicity. As you all know, it is a major initiative of the Overwatch team and everyone here at Blizzard to minimize the amount of toxicity that takes place in online games, not just our games but games in general. So we've been putting a lot of effort against this and I think making some good progress.

He's specifically talking about in game behaviour. Not your rants on Facebook.

Some stuff about console reporting here, which isn't relevant, then about warnings for people who were about to be actioned against, then about giving feedback to players who are actually reporting players, and the results of these improvements.

We've instituted some really interesting programs on that front as well. I'll just give you one example. A lot of these we don't like to talk about because we don't want players gaming the system or knowing what we can catch you for or action you for, but I'll give you an example of one thing that we've been doing that has proven very positive.

We now proactively seek out social media sites like YouTube for example and look for incidents of very toxic behaviour and track down the accounts that are participating in those and action them, often times before anybody's even reported them or shown up in any other place.

Again. He's clearly talking about in game behaviour here. How are players apparently reporting other players for their Facebook posts? You can't say "action them before anybody's reported them" if it's not even a thing that it's possible to report for.

It's quite clear what they're talking about. People are just deliberately taking things out of context to make it sound worse.

[OrcsRLame]

This is abject nonsense and doesn't make any sense. Of course the owner can't break the law in establishing those rules, but kicking people off your premises for being assholes to other customers isn't remotely against the law.That's the context. You keep trying to distract from that with bullshit like "killing kids".

The defense that a lot of people have been using, including you, is 'It's okay because Blizzard has the right to keep other people from using their services.' The two of us have just worked out that that is logically invalid. The point of view that you seem to actually hold, is that it's okay because it's not harming anyone. Those are moral judgments, they're subjective. I think we're having a big disconnect on this because unless I've missed the mark, I think you're a consequentialist, whereas I'm closer to a deontologist or virtue ethicist. I find the idea of letting someone use your services, and then changing the rules on them after they've gotten used to those services, scummy. I'm actually explicitly trying not to distract with the whole dead kids shtick. I'm saying it doesn't matter if no one gets hurt; I find it reprehensible regardless.

The clip only makes sense if he's talking about behaviour in the games themselves.

I disagree.

Blizzard has no interest in behaviour outside their games.

Prove it.

This is where you start blatantly making shit up and pretending Kaplan said it,

What did I make up? Quote the exact sentence where I made something up.

rather than going with the obvious context of the clip in question.

Just because context is obvious from your point of view doesn't mean it's obvious from mine. Once again, me having a different interpretation doesn't make me a liar.

There's nothing wrong with inductive reasoning. It's logic, like any other form of reasoning.

There's nothing wrong with inductive reasoning per se, but it also cannot prove with certainty. That's an inherent limit to the power of induction. This matters because flawless inductive reasoning can still lead you to conclusions that are incorrect.

The difference is that my reasoning follows from the context of what Kaplan is saying, whereas your reasoning requires you to invent a whole lot of things Kaplan never said, and pretend he said them, to manufacture the context to justify your own inferences.

I'm still not seeing what I invented.

Your argument is like hearing Kaplan say "we're going to ban people for swearing", and thinking if you swear in your room in the dark of knight, Kaplan will know and ban you, psychically. It's that ridiculous. He's talking about Overwatch. That's the context. You don't get to just ignore that.

He's also talking about social media. If he was exclusively talking about Overwatch and there was no mention of social media, then you would be right. You seem to be the one intent on ignoring context. Blizzard is monitoring social media to do something. We agree on that right? What we disagree on is the something.

No, I think people making bombs is a much bigger threat than people saying fake shit on Facebook. The simple fix to social media manipulation is teaching your citizens to think critically, rather than blindly believing bullshit propaganda. The point is that fearmongering about the widespread use of Facebook is ridiculous, because the standard of "threat to democracy" that you're using can be achieved by basically anyone. The specific example I was hinting at with the fertilizer example was Timothy McVeigh. A random dude, working with a grand total of three other people, using fertilizer to make a bomb, and blowing up a government building in Oklahoma City. Four people, a truck, and some fertilizer. It doesn't take much.

I actually agree with you to a large extent here. I think the damage social media has caused to society is somewhat overblown, and that a bomb is demonstrably more dangerous. A lot of people disagree with me on that. And I don't mean on this forum. So many people disagree with my assessment that it actually gives me pause and makes me think that maybe I'm wrong. I think if I am wrong and those concerns are valid, then Facebook absolutely needs to be broken up. If it's as dangerous as the media makes it out to be, then it's the sort of weapon that no one should have access to.

Just out of curiosity... Do you agree with me in principle concerning our main argument? Because I agree with you in principle. Our main disagreement seems to be one of facts. If you are correct and Blizzard is just looking at social media to find toxic behavior that happens within the game, then I agree that that's fine and I have been making a fuss over nothing. However, I want to know what you would do if I'm correct. If Blizzard is banning people from Overwatch for things done totally outside the game, would you have a problem with that; even though they legally can?

- - - Updated - - -

They are watching YouTube videos of PEOPLE PLAYING OVERWATCH and banning people based on SHIT THEY DID IN OVERWATCH AND POSTED TO YOUTUBE FOR THE LULZ.

You have no proof of that claim. It's just an inference that you're making.

[Nurasu]

You have no proof of that claim. It's just an inference that you're making.

Blizzard has zero agency outside that context. They would be defending against a class action lawsuit were it any other context. That inference is far more grounded than your delusion.

[Waniou]

The text right above this one is an exact quote of the 2:30-3:00 section of the interview. There's no mention of the term 'clips'. There's no assertion that the behavior must take place within a game at all. It's literally right fucking there. You can read it. Quote the exact section of the sentence where you think the dev says that this is only about toxic behavior within the games themselves.

From earlier in the video:

As you all know, it is a major initiative of the Overwatch team and everyone here at Blizzard to minimize the amount of toxicity that takes place in online games, not just our games but games in general.

They're talking about toxic behaviour in the games themselves.

From your quote:

look for incidents of very toxic behavior and track down the accounts that are participating in those and action them, oftentimes before anybody's even reported them

You can't report someone for behaviour that doesn't take place in game. How can you? You have no idea what people's Facebook posts are. This sentence only makes sense if they're talking about in game behaviour.

[Endus]

The defense that a lot of people have been using, including you, is 'It's okay because Blizzard has the right to keep other people from using their services.' The two of us have just worked out that that is logically invalid.

No. "We" haven't. It's a true statement.

The point of view that you seem to actually hold, is that it's okay because it's not harming anyone. Those are moral judgments, they're subjective.

A> the harm principle is objective, not subjective.
B> the harm principle is a reason to overrule the principle above, which otherwise stands up just fine.

I think we're having a big disconnect on this because unless I've missed the mark, I think you're a consequentialist, whereas I'm closer to a deontologist or virtue ethicist.

I'm definitely not consequentialist. Your problem is that your arguments are irrational and do not follow from proper premises in the first place.

I find the idea of letting someone use your services, and then changing the rules on them after they've gotten used to those services, scummy.

Literally not what's happening.

This is where you start lying, again. Why do you keep doing that?

What did I make up? Quote the exact sentence where I made something up.

Just for yuks, see above. The claim that Blizzard's "changing the rules" in any appreciable sense.

He's also talking about social media. If he was exclusively talking about Overwatch and there was no mention of social media, then you would be right. You seem to be the one intent on ignoring context. Blizzard is monitoring social media to do something. We agree on that right? What we disagree on is the something.

The only reason we "disagree" on that is because you're ignoring context. See, now you're misrepresenting the arguments you've been presented with, not just what Kaplan said.

Just out of curiosity... Do you agree with me in principle concerning our main argument? Because I agree with you in principle. Our main disagreement seems to be one of facts. If you are correct and Blizzard is just looking at social media to find toxic behavior that happens within the game, then I agree that that's fine and I have been making a fuss over nothing. However, I want to know what you would do if I'm correct. If Blizzard is banning people from Overwatch for things done totally outside the game, would you have a problem with that; even though they legally can?

Even if that were happening, then no, not really. They just have no real reason to want to do that.

I've worked plenty of jobs where my actions outside of work can easily get me fired, get me decertified permanently, etc, if they show a failure of ethics on my part. Same difference. This isn't unusual behaviour, at all.

If it were happening. Which nobody at Blizzard ever stated. The only thing they're deciding is who can use their services, and the grounds for denying service aren't a protected class of persons, so it's not something to be concerned with.

And no, I don't agree that "toxic assholes" should be a protected class, either.

[Deleted]

can you imagine if every business in society would be like this?

The bank "yeah we just looked at your social media profile and we decided we're going to shut down your account"
Your landlord "yeah i just looked at some of the comments you said and i don't want toxic people on my property i'm evicting you"

I'm really not going to support this type of morality and it only seems to be acceptable in the video game industry.

It's already done: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5497778/

[OrcsRLame]

No. "We" haven't. It's a true statement.



A> the harm principle is objective, not subjective.
B> the harm principle is a reason to overrule the principle above, which otherwise stands up just fine.



I'm definitely not consequentialist. Your problem is that your arguments are irrational and do not follow from proper premises in the first place.



Literally not what's happening.

This is where you start lying, again. Why do you keep doing that?



Just for yuks, see above. The claim that Blizzard's "changing the rules" in any appreciable sense.



The only reason we "disagree" on that is because you're ignoring context. See, now you're misrepresenting the arguments you've been presented with, not just what Kaplan said.



Even if that were happening, then no, not really. They just have no real reason to want to do that.

I've worked plenty of jobs where my actions outside of work can easily get me fired, get me decertified permanently, etc, if they show a failure of ethics on my part. Same difference. This isn't unusual behaviour, at all.

If it were happening. Which nobody at Blizzard ever stated. The only thing they're deciding is who can use their services, and the grounds for denying service aren't a protected class of persons, so it's not something to be concerned with.

And no, I don't agree that "toxic assholes" should be a protected class, either.

I'm tired of this discussion. I won't be posting again because I no longer see a point. It's a waste of time. I am bookmarking this page though. If it does turn out that I am correct, I will have a lot of people to quote very smugly, including you.

[George Costanza]

I post the n word regulary in overwatch and other things call people retarded soyboy cucks, yet i dont get banned for it.

feelsgoodman.

[Babadoo]

This is why you should never EVER connect your facebook account with any other media. You gain nothing out of it and you lose your privacy as shown by OP.