Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
CENSORSHIP AND SECURITY PARADOXES
Posts
Shinan
4314
Shinan
View playlists
Closeauthor=kory_toombs
nothing is free, there's a price for everything.
RPGmaker.net hosts free games.
author=Shinanauthor=kory_toombsRPGmaker.net hosts free games.
nothing is free, there's a price for everything.
Is it a free website? Did it cost nothing to make? Is there no cost in its upkeep? Does it demand no personal time to maintain the website? There's a price for everything. Not everything costs money, but everything has a price.
Shinan
4314
author=kory_toombs
Is it a free website? Did it cost nothing to make? Is there no cost in its upkeep? Does it demand no personal time to maintain the website? There's a price for everything. Not everything costs money, but everything has a price.
That's just the first law of thermodynamics.
The price for freedom is having to fight against people who would try and use their freedom to eliminate the freedom of others.
author=slash
The price for freedom is having to fight against people who would try and use their freedom to eliminate the freedom of others.
The price of freedom is freedom. In order to have some freedom you need to give up a lot of freedom.
That is almost certainly true but is also too metaphysical and vague to respond to properly.
In this specific situation, I think these companies are right to restrict Alex Jones' because otherwise they are responsible for helping promote him. I do think that a few powerful companies like this wield way too much power and control over what we see and hear, but I don't think we can pretend that doing nothing and taking no responsibility in these situations while also profiting off it is somehow the higher ground.
With regards to hate speech - hate speech abuses the notion of "free speech" to actively impede the freedoms of others, by encouraging people to mistreat the marginalized and remove their freedoms.
In this specific situation, I think these companies are right to restrict Alex Jones' because otherwise they are responsible for helping promote him. I do think that a few powerful companies like this wield way too much power and control over what we see and hear, but I don't think we can pretend that doing nothing and taking no responsibility in these situations while also profiting off it is somehow the higher ground.
With regards to hate speech - hate speech abuses the notion of "free speech" to actively impede the freedoms of others, by encouraging people to mistreat the marginalized and remove their freedoms.
StormCrow
2877
author=kentona
btw, every one of your talking points and arguments sound like they are baked in some weird alt-right chatroom and only sound reasonable if you are already willingly drowning yourself in that bullshit. The leaps in logic and over-inflated sense of worth are astounding. You sound like you believe yourself to be some sort of righteous champion. It's frankly a little mindboggling. My brow is furrowed in consternation.
As a relatively neutral observer I think you are being a little harsh, man. I'm a liberal Democrat and certainly not drowning myself in that bullshit, but I do think SOME points of bulma's general points are kind of reasonable, even if I would not use anything like the language he uses, nor would I go out of my way to defend Alex fucking Jones of all people. But I do think the value of free speech--one of the pillars of western liberal democracy--is in danger in these divisive times.
author=Darkenauthor=stormCrowThe problem I have with the whole "FREE SPEECH IS SACRED AND NO ONE SHOULD QUESTION IT" thing is that it's almost always used in the defense of racism and other sorts of bigotry. It's a little shield that extremists use to hide along with neutral defenders.
That said, I find the still-relatively-recent arrest and conviction by a Scottish court of a comedian for telling a distasteful joke far more worrisome than Alex Jones being denied a platform...okay, being denied like ALL the platforms.
The Count Dankula thing and the nature of it is encouraging anti-semitism or at least adding to the normalization of it. Punishing him is a form of self-defence for jewish people at large (as abstract as that might sound). It's the same reason why holocaust denialism is dangerous.
As a Jewish person, it was a fucking joke, man. Speaking for the Jewish people (not that like I have any special right to do that but what the fuck ever), we can take a fucking joke.
Jokes are not the same as holocaust denial, my dude, not even in the same ballpark. You realize how many shit 'oven' jokes I've heard over the years? No, I didn't find them funny, because I had relatives that died in the Holocaust. But that doesn't matter. They were fucking jokes. One of my friends makes a tasteless joke, they might get a dirty look from me. Anyone says the Holocaust didn't happen, that person isn't my friend (anymore) and to paraphrase Run The Jewels, top of the morning, my fist to they face like fuckin' Folgers.
Basically, Count Dankula teaching his girlfriend's pug to raise his paw to "gas the jews" is very unlikely to lead to a rampant rise in anti-Semitism. Arresting people for telling jokes very likely to lead to the government having blanket power of suppression of free speech. And in my country, which UNFORTUNATELY ISN'T A STRONG ENOUGH WORD is run by the Trump administration, that's a terrifying thought.
And FWIW Count Dankula didn't get locked up by 'The Jews' (a group that includes me; incidentally, not saying you said he did, just clarifying), he got locked up by anal retentive Scottish PC police that clearly can't take a joke. Ricky Gervais is absolutely right to be pissed off about this shit and I wish more celebrities would take up the cause but clearly they are too scared of the climate of EXTREME political correctness.
Anyway, that's all I can say about that without knocking this thread completely off the rails.
So for the sake of topicality: Alex Jones is a crazy motherfucker, discuss.
author=kentona
you can pay me in backrubs
What about Crown Royal?
author=slash
In this specific situation, I think these companies are right to restrict Alex Jones' because otherwise they are responsible for helping promote him. I do think that a few powerful companies like this wield way too much power and control over what we see and hear, but I don't think we can pretend that doing nothing and taking no responsibility in these situations while also profiting off it is somehow the higher ground.
They did not help promote him. His fans promoted him. If they give a platform to CNN, Buzzfeed, and the like, they cannot suddenly turn around and say "but not you guys." Especially when this group earns them money (they get money from ads, the ads get used when ppl view pages).
I just watched a show last night. The show was called Insatiable, and I saw this on Netflix. At one point, the guy, a lawyer and beauty pageant judge (it's weird, don't ask) is basically accused of hitting on the underage contestants. As with all of this stuff, being accused has basically become a career ender. It doesn't matter if nobody finds any proof, unless you're Donald Trump (somehow escapes all such accusations) you're toast.
author=US Constitution
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
People banned on Facebook are given vague at best reasons for ban (nix to knowing the nature of one's crime), they also don't get to see the faceless goons who banned them, they don't have any kinda witnesses or attorney to help them. They're just thrown to the wolves.
When someone is accused of something, then banned, and in fact banned in such a way that all content is removed (how banning works on Facebook and Youtube), it's basically like a witch trial. No ability to defend yourself. People don't know what you have to say. People don't even know what you said that led to punishment. You were declared guilty of hate crime with no defense. For the record, Alex Jones did make a video apologizing to the families and saying he never intended people to harass them... oh, I'm sorry you can't see it on Youtube. Exactly.
In Alex Jones's video he said that when every evidence of what someone says is wiped like this, you can put up just a picture of a person, and write that they said ANYTHING, and people will pretty much wind up believing it. That, that's the scary thing about censorship. People cannot defend themselves, because they can no longer speak.
To drive the point home:
(We're assuming Slash can't say anything to this)
author=National EnquirerSlash just said, "I eat babies. And not just any babies. Baby kittens."
Picture and a caption + complete censorship = any accusation at all works.
author=slash
With regards to hate speech - hate speech abuses the notion of "free speech" to actively impede the freedoms of others, by encouraging people to mistreat the marginalized and remove their freedoms.
For the record, I've been marginalized by people's hate. And I've been censored before. Being censored is far worse. "Hate speech" is not a valid excuse for being censored. Everyone, including those people we don't like to hear from, has the right to be heard.
Dyhalto
7536
bulma, you need to take a seat.
Citing the US Constitution as it relates to criminal indictments is totally irrelevant and just puts your ignorance on display. A Facebook ban is not a criminal act anymore than an RMN ban is, nor does it warrant any kind of judicial inquiry. Every website, and every bricks and mortar business too, has some rules in place that must be observed, be it an official TOS Agreement or just a "No shirts, no shoes, no service" sign.
Lots of people have been banned from RMN because they went too far. Do you have a problem with that too? Because it's the same thing.
Citing the US Constitution as it relates to criminal indictments is totally irrelevant and just puts your ignorance on display. A Facebook ban is not a criminal act anymore than an RMN ban is, nor does it warrant any kind of judicial inquiry. Every website, and every bricks and mortar business too, has some rules in place that must be observed, be it an official TOS Agreement or just a "No shirts, no shoes, no service" sign.
Lots of people have been banned from RMN because they went too far. Do you have a problem with that too? Because it's the same thing.
Bulma, you're essentially demanding that these corporation enforce and act upon regulations as a government agency, insisting that they should treat their customers as though they were a presiding state office. What else should they do? Hire private police and jail us should they find that we did violate their terms of service?
Shade_Hunter
1139
Oboy... Seeing RMNet go to flames over politics is... facinating
People are discussing about how everyone can be banned from private platforms if owners of those platforms so choose. There is an argument.
But what if your platform is so global and with millions of users from tens of countries around the world? Should there be a small fraction of people controlling what millions of people are talking about, even if what they are talking about might be questionable?
Should there be own legislation for these platforms such as Facebook and Twitter which have extensive authority over what is discussed about? Legislation such as preventing a certain group silencing another just based on politics?
People are discussing about how everyone can be banned from private platforms if owners of those platforms so choose. There is an argument.
But what if your platform is so global and with millions of users from tens of countries around the world? Should there be a small fraction of people controlling what millions of people are talking about, even if what they are talking about might be questionable?
Should there be own legislation for these platforms such as Facebook and Twitter which have extensive authority over what is discussed about? Legislation such as preventing a certain group silencing another just based on politics?
Shinan
4314
There are various laws that attempt to prevent monopolies. Though they don't always work and some countries probably don't even have them.
author=Dyhalto
bulma, you need to take a seat.
Citing the US Constitution as it relates to criminal indictments is totally irrelevant and just puts your ignorance on display. A Facebook ban is not a criminal act anymore than an RMN ban is, nor does it warrant any kind of judicial inquiry. Every website, and every bricks and mortar business too, has some rules in place that must be observed, be it an official TOS Agreement or just a "No shirts, no shoes, no service" sign.
Lots of people have been banned from RMN because they went too far. Do you have a problem with that too? Because it's the same thing.
You need to think about what you're saying.
"Going too far" is completely different from being a nutcase with political opinions. Going too far would be like bullying or trolling people on here. There are, so far as I know, no existing laws protecting anyone's right to be a troll.
On the other hand, saying that private companies have the right to censor opinions purely on account of being political means they in effect transcend the laws of the countries they are a part of. That's right, you're saying Facebook, Youtube, Instagram, and even little old Rpgmaker.net are politically more powerful with regard to legal rights than an entire country. And not just one country, but every country able to draft such freedoms gets ignored because iTunes claims it has the right to circumvent written laws. Is that a reasonable assumption?
Do private companies have to obey copyright laws? Do they have to obey international laws like, say laws against theft, terrorism, or fraud? If Rpgmaker.net started doing sketchy things would it be reasonable to assume the FBI, Interpol, or whoever is local to them would start grabbing the admins? If you answered no to all of these pretty sure you're wrong there, buddy. Okay, maybe free speech censorship isn't part of international law. But if the company is operating within jurisdiction of the US, and if said company suppresses free speech for reasons other than poor conduct, I think the US government should have something to say.
Apple - Cupertino, CA
Facebook - also CA
Youtube - also Cali
All of these countries are in US jurisdiction. Seems to me, if our government was so inclined, their stupid online use rules could get trumped (or Trumped, as the case may be).
Btw, InfoWars just got attacked on their own website (as in temporary down). Even assuming private companies do have rights over and above public government, last I checked this news site probably has the right to not get hit by hacking. If you think not, then by the same reasoning, someone could knock down a Jehovah's Witnesses website because it offends Jews or Muslims or Hindus. Censorship is censorship. You don't get an auto-pass because of pathetic private bylaws.
But at this point, all of us should seriously be thinking about the larger implications of this. That none of you are makes me wonder what is wrong with our education system, since this is painfully obvious to me that if something can hurt one group of people (say, "neo-conservative racists"), it can potentially hurt anyone. This is basic logic, not rocket surgery.
It's weird, nobody's been told to leave the chat or shut up forever due to their political views.
This place must operate on different rules than the RMN discord/
This place must operate on different rules than the RMN discord/
Dyhalto
7536
author=bulmabriefs144
"Going too far" is completely different from being a nutcase with political opinions.
Except that he was banned because he went too far, not because he's a nutcase. What is it that you don't understand?
Spotify's statement is that he "expressly and principally promotes, advocates, or incites hatred or violence against a group or individual based on characteristics." A month or so ago, Jones addressed Robert Mueller on his show, imitated firing a gun with his hand, and said "You're going to get it, or I'm going to die trying."
I'd say that corroborates Spotify's statement.
author=Roden
It's weird, nobody's been told to leave the chat or shut up forever due to their political views.
This place must operate on different rules than the RMN discord
I'm not saying it does. To my knowledge RMN is pretty chill. I'm saying even private companies online should be subject to the laws of their host country.
As I said earlier, I'm behind Tor or some sort of VPN. Suppose I were to fulfill the cliche that anyone who needs security must be up to no good and do some sorta evil. You know, mwahahaha cackling-style evil. As a private citizen, if I do the crime, I should by all means do the time.
Would be right to expect the same thing of Baker's Used Books (private company, that I just made up, but coincidentally there is a Baker's Books) as I fully expect of myself? If there is justice, the answer is yes.
Censorship is against our first (and sixth) amendment. So yeah, pretty darned serious. Ought be a law, or something.
author=Dyhaltoauthor=bulmabriefs144Except that he was banned because he went too far, not because he's a nutcase. What is it that you don't understand?
"Going too far" is completely different from being a nutcase with political opinions.
What is it you don't understand? This is a coordinated ban. One site has the right to ban anyone. If I or you started getting banned from four different sites, kinda raised eyebrow time.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FingerGun
If that were all it took to be "hateful" a ton of people in Hollywood (and even anime) would get the axe.
Sometimes all it takes to get attacked is to be more popular than your competition.
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/08/07/infowars-app-overtakes-cnn-on-charts-cnn-lobbies-apple-to-censor/
Also, you still haven't remarked on how hacking someone's net is appropriate response to "hate speech". Not banning on Facebook, hacking InfoWars. It is now difficult to watch from their home site. That's cyberterrorism.
Shinan
4314
author=bulmabriefs144Actually private companies do follow different laws than government. Now I don't know law and I have barely read laws but I know that there are lists and lists of what private companies can and cannot do. And those lists are different than those of what the government can and cannot do. It varies from country to country of course. But for example private companies can deny service based on certain things that government cannot. (and government can, for example declare war and invade another country but private companies cannot. Not yet anyway :D)
On the other hand, saying that private companies have the right to censor opinions purely on account of being political means they in effect transcend the laws of the countries they are a part of. That's right, you're saying Facebook, Youtube, Instagram, and even little old Rpgmaker.net are politically more powerful with regard to legal rights than an entire country. And not just one country, but every country able to draft such freedoms gets ignored because iTunes claims it has the right to circumvent written laws. Is that a reasonable assumption?
Do private companies have to obey copyright laws? Do they have to obey international laws like, say laws against theft, terrorism, or fraud? If Rpgmaker.net started doing sketchy things would it be reasonable to assume the FBI, Interpol, or whoever is local to them would start grabbing the admins? If you answered no to all of these pretty sure you're wrong there, buddy. Okay, maybe free speech censorship isn't part of international law. But if the company is operating within jurisdiction of the US, and if said company suppresses free speech for reasons other than poor conduct, I think the US government should have something to say.
Is this how it should be? You clearly think not. And it's true, I also think that stricter regulations on corporations would probably be a good thing. But that's just not how it is right now.
Btw, InfoWars just got attacked on their own website (as in temporary down). Even assuming private companies do have rights over and above public government, last I checked this news site probably has the right to not get hit by hacking. If you think not, then by the same reasoning, someone could knock down a Jehovah's Witnesses website because it offends Jews or Muslims or Hindus. Censorship is censorship. You don't get an auto-pass because of pathetic private bylaws.Well you know, RMN has also been attacked a couple of times (and gone temporarily down). Some botnet somewhere DDOSing a site is not a legal thing to do. And yeah RMN has a right not to be attacked. But occasionally some script kiddie will do it anyway.
author=RodenI assume it has to do with the fact that it's contained in a topic easily avoided and not shoved in uninterested people's faces all over #general.
It's weird, nobody's been told to leave the chat or shut up forever due to their political views.
This place must operate on different rules than the RMN discord/
Though I guess that's what this topic is sort of about :). The right for people to shove their opinions in the faces of people who don't care to listen to them at the moment versus the right of people to not have opinions shoved into their face at the moment.
author=Shinan
Actually private companies do follow different laws than government. Now I don't know law and I have barely read laws but I know that there are lists and lists of what private companies can and cannot do. And those lists are different than those of what the government can and cannot do. It varies from country to country of course. But for example private companies can deny service based on certain things that government cannot. (and government can, for example declare war and invade another country but private companies cannot. Not yet anyway :D)
Is this how it should be? You clearly think not. And it's true, I also think that stricter regulations on corporations would probably be a good thing. But that's just not how it is right now.
Well you know, RMN has also been attacked a couple of times (and gone temporarily down). Some botnet somewhere DDOSing a site is not a legal thing to do. And yeah RMN has a right not to be attacked. But occasionally some script kiddie will do it anyway.author=Roden
It's weird, nobody's been told to leave the chat or shut up forever due to their political views.
This place must operate on different rules than the RMN discord/
I assume it has to do with the fact that it's contained in a topic easily avoided and not shoved in uninterested people's faces all over #general. Though I guess that's what this topic is sort of about :). The right for people to shove their opinions in the faces of people who don't care to listen to them at the moment versus the right of people to not have opinions shoved into their face at the moment.
One of the better comments. Paragraphs in reverse order.
Yes, that was my point. Whether having the right to not hear free speech is more important than having it. Since there IS an Ignore button on most forums, you know my answer. Just Ignore people you don't wanna hear. Don't have to block them from other people who do. That's basically why I'm not pro-censorship. When it seems obvious that if I don't like something I can just not see it, it's like people being all jeally for someone else getting more news exposure or more ppl talking to them.
Yeah, I think I remember some of those. Hacking sucks almost as bad as censorship. I learned to use the computer to fix stuff, I feel like that's some kinda distortion of a tech skill.
Yeah, I know they sometimes do. I just can see like Google deciding to pogrom all Jews and getting away with it. Or Hotmail bombing hospitals. That would definitely not be cool. Honestly, if corporations want to be seen as people (they keep lobbying for that) they ought to treated like them. That means subject to, you know, actual laws.
Oh, btw, slash still hasn't denied it, so it's now a thing that he/she eats baby kittens. ^_^;
Blind
2262
..Wow.
I couldn't bring myself to read through all of this without cringing, but all I can say, Bulma, is that I think your perspective on this all is very sad, deeply confused, and quite worrisome. It's also reflective of the larger anti-intellectual trends in our society. In effect, propaganda has been placed on all fours with verifiable, fact-based journalism.
Infowars and Breitbart now occupy the same place in public discourse as the New York Times or other institutions.
I think this one remark is pretty revealing:
No one credible would deny that all journalism is (inevitably) biased to some extent. But I think you're intentionally overlooking the many orders of magnitude that separate legitimate historians and journalists from "fake news" or the various modern forms of misinformation. It's attitudes like yours that have ushered-in the epidemic of social-media propaganda campaigns, among other things.
But yeah, I think your "nothing is factual!!!" assertion (to straw-man it a bit) is a pretty sophomoric and nihilistic approach to how we interact with the world.
I couldn't bring myself to read through all of this without cringing, but all I can say, Bulma, is that I think your perspective on this all is very sad, deeply confused, and quite worrisome. It's also reflective of the larger anti-intellectual trends in our society. In effect, propaganda has been placed on all fours with verifiable, fact-based journalism.
Infowars and Breitbart now occupy the same place in public discourse as the New York Times or other institutions.
I think this one remark is pretty revealing:
author=Bulma
There is no such thing as real news. Not Infowars, not CNN, not WSJ, not that history book, not nothing. Historiography is the study of how history is written. We studied two perspectives of the same event.
No one credible would deny that all journalism is (inevitably) biased to some extent. But I think you're intentionally overlooking the many orders of magnitude that separate legitimate historians and journalists from "fake news" or the various modern forms of misinformation. It's attitudes like yours that have ushered-in the epidemic of social-media propaganda campaigns, among other things.
But yeah, I think your "nothing is factual!!!" assertion (to straw-man it a bit) is a pretty sophomoric and nihilistic approach to how we interact with the world.
