Newspapers print more than just names and sometimes they are justified in doing so.The main problem with the articles is they're full of rubbish creating outrage for their own benefit at the expense of ours.

That and violating the journalistic code of ethics. Journalists are supposedly committed to minimizing harm and releasing any personal information like they just did on top of tying it into so-called "alt-right" rhetoric is tantamount to inciting more harassment. That article is practically begging it's readers to harass him more. This is what's wrong with a lot of "gaming journalism" (frankly a lot of main-stream journalism as well lately).

The journalistic mission is to inform the public in a responsible manner. You can't tell me that article was responsible reporting.

I assure you there's no relation. ;)

THANK YOU.... Wait.. wut?

I don't know if you were serious with your post, but such a system wouldn't work, for any number of reasons, and would only annoy legitimate users.

Somehow i missed this when responding.

You're absolutely right, most aren't equipped to properly handle that. That's kind of the big point, too, especially of one of the threads that got locked: these people went after gog (and it seemingly appears a gog employee personally, at home, and his family) over something that he said. It's untenable to moderate, 'cause the border betwixed what is and is not OK is constantly shifting. The boundries that everyone sets, they constantly move. You aren't even equipped to handle the moving boundries of what people find acceptable of your twitter. And, ultimately, the argument from my side of the identity politics game says "yo, not only can you not predict what is and isn't offensive from one moment to the next, there's nothing you can even do to please these people so that they leave you alone." You're damned if you do, or damned if you don't.

Ultimately, you have to choose whether or not you are on the free speech side (platform, as anything that is not total free speech is legally not considered a platform) or you are not (publisher, which facebook and twitter are ultimaately dealing with an upcoming battle over this, as it ultimately defines liability for things posted). This is one of those things that companies get themselves into when they make forums: they actually could end up being held liable for what users post if they make moderations that don't strictly adhere to laws. It's just one of things that has never really been enforced, but has been law in many (if not most) countries for a good long time now. Ultimately, what companies aren't equipped for is having forums while claiming to have control over them, while pretending to support free speech. The idea of having forums at all, really, is untenable in an age where we seem to continue to believe that moderation actually controls conversation: if you allow for free speech, you get blasted by the media, but if you shut it down, you get blasted by your customer base (and potentially legally by the same media that blasts you for allowing free speech).

I think the whole point is to make it untenable to have discussion places on the internet, forcing centralization where certain entities can then control things. Take some time outside of work to look at what people (who are directly discussing the free speehc issue) are saying on both sides, as it's to the point that we're ultimately in agreement that free speech inevitably means hurt feelings as the price for holding truth to power: everyone's just arguing whether or not it's better to hold truth to power or if hurting feelings is another form of power that presents a tangible form of oppression. It's a power game, and most places with forums, frankly, are too busy focusing on their thing to see the big picture and their ultimate part in it. And, with all things political, these companies are being drug into this battle, especially if they don't want any part in it, 'cause the nature of politics is that it comes for you whether you like it or not. You can't hide from it, you can't protect yourself from it, it will always find a way to pry into your life. The more you try to run from it, the more of an angle you give one side or another to manipulate you into what they want.


EDIT: To clarify, one side of this debate wants to propose laws that play with what you are held responsible for as a "platform," while the other side wants you to be held responsible for even playing the games of the first side.

I was only half-serious. It would work, as any other automation works in this day and age, but of course it wouldn't be perfect. But then again is the current way of handling things perfect? Would you considering it a working system based on the info included in this thread? Does the current system not annoy people?

I would not take this topic too far, but something of a curse-word quota per user banning mechanism would not be that horrible perhaps. At least it could make things more interesting since everyone who wants to step beyond the line would have to come up with euphemisms.

Again, don't take me too serious, it's just a thought - after all I'm only a semi-delusional engineer. I see a problem and immediately think of coming up with something that would fix it, or at least try not to end up making it worse.

Probably a better summary than what i wrote, and a lot less disorganized. Right now, the knife is at GOG's throat, kinda. It's only going to get bettter from here.

Thanks for the heads up. It's good to know that the doxing mob is now ultimately going to be coming after GOG employees, and probably gog users as well who don't tow a certain political line.

:D

Not you. I was more thinking of the stereotypical D&D paladin, many of whom seem to have the proverbial stick in the proverbial uncomfortable place.

" full of rubbish creating outrage for their own benefit at the expense of ours."

Of course if he didn't put his information up there it wouldn't have been as easy to get.

I'm referring to the world at large, because dialog is the only way to solve the problems that are destroying our societies. But most of us are so wrapped up in our day to day affairs and our pet issues that we don't really care about the big picture, and so it goes. : (

+++

Right, but it no less applies to GOG. GOG is basically "normies," and as typical normies it applies.

Good to know where you stand. Mind being a little more open for the normies? Do you think it's OK to open someone and their family up to physical attacks for their political opinion?

I think you are reading Spectre wrong, he seems to generally agree if I'm reading him correctly.

Did I say that?

WTF is a "normie"? :P