this post was submitted on 05 Dec 2023
395 points (91.1% liked)
Games
16689 readers
513 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Nobody is preventing them to play their games how they want.
Nexus just doesn't want to have those mods on their platform.
They can just find some other platform to host those mods if they want. Or keep them to themselves.
My point isn't about them. My point is about you and media companies deciding who gets a platform and then acting like the people you silence are the ones oppressing and censoring. I'm not a Republican. I'm gay AF. I simply loathe double standards and hate seeing Facebook decide who gets heard.
This is a stupid take. You're tired of the people who own and use a platform controlling that platform to represent their morals? If you want a platform to host bigotry, you should make one. They often do so well. Just because someone has something to stupid say doesn't mean others have to tolerate it in their home or place of business.
Nexus mods is doing the bigotry through their removal here. Look in the mirror. Companies are not people.
Have fun with the political landscape being controlled by billionaires. If it's ok for us, it's ok for them. Nobody is gonna stop them with hypocrisy and less money.
Nexusmods are doing what they believe is the right thing to attain the highest profit, it's no more complex than that.
The people in charge voted on where the line in the sand should be (to simplify the corporate process somewhat) and homophobia, they decided, should be on the wrong side. They figure that inclusivity, rather than bigotry, is the way to more customers. (I mean, duh.)
They are entitled to do just that, as the modder is to mod the game how he sees fit.
It is not bigotry to be intolerant of the intolerant, that pathetic argument has been dead since before you were born.
It's fascinating watching how quickly my side has forgotten the state and corporate censorship of the 2000s. I don't enjoy defending rightoids but I remember being on the losing side and I'd rather be principled now than on the backfoot again when the pendulum swings back.
Truth and fairness take a back seat to profits. Got it.
It's not intolerant to offer an alternative game experience for those who might choose it. You're so lost in the juice that you're ok with doing things the wrong way so long as it supports your side.
My problem here is that the same mechanism that entities Nexus mods to do this is the one that lets Facebook give Trump a win. You're all blind to that though because you think this random guy is hurting gays or whatever with a game option that's not imposed on anyone.
You can't see the forest for the trees.
I see you are incapable of reading, so I'll just restate this to make it simple for you:
Modding a game to suit what you wanna play isn't intolerant. Making your way the only option is. Making it only be their way seems to be what Nexus mods is doing.
There's nothing stopping the modder hosting it somewhere that is tolerant or even supportive of their ignorant beliefs.
No-one is making any way be the only option.
Nexusmods isn't the only place it could be, just to state that again, in simple enough terms it might make a dent.
Once more, just to be sure; Nexusmods has no control over other file hosting services, ergo they cannot "make it their way". They can only choose what to have on their own site, nowhere else.
Did that penetrate your tin foil hat?
Also:
It is when it's stated aim is to erase the existence of a specific subset of individuals based on a protected characteristic.
It is, in fact, almost the very fucking definition of intolerance.
You're either completely ignorant and arguing for the sake of it, or you support, and are arguing for, sowing more of this kind of pointless culture wars shite.
(Which was created by the rich, solely to distract us all from the long overdue class war. Kill the fucking rich, not the other poor bastards in the same boat as you. 👍)
So private platform and private parties shouldn't have the right to moderate and regulate their own spaces?
Platforms with near-monopoly level control of public discussion should be considered part of the public forum. This weird libertarianism from "lefties" deeply concerns me.
A public forum, I assume paid for and maintained by the taxes of the public?
Nobody made you open up a social space to the public, and nobody is making you keep it open. Also I want you to explain how you can reconcile being on the left but also supporting corporate rights over those of individual humans?
You didn't answer my question.
Who would pay for the platform, and who would moderate it? Or do you just want even more hate speech to spread?
I see, you cannot reconcile being on the left with supporting corporations over people. Not surprised but thank you for confirming.
Sorry, life got in the way. I'm not surprised you're not familiar with such matters.
I am surprised how much you support spreading hate speech by removing the ability of moderation.
Major media outlets and companies should not be considered private platforms. Anyone can sign up and post while they use their money and influence to decide who gets heard. This is a problem, and I'm pretty ticked off about how people don't seem to mind when it's in their favor. Double standards are bad, no matter which side.
Do you think Facebook should get to control which posts rise up and which fall with their analytics around election time? Me neither. Sometimes you gotta put up with some ugly if you don't want people silenced for their perspective. I don't want an echo chamber.
Really? Now I'm curious, how do you imagine that?
I assume the company still pays for the platform, hosting, development, etc. Since it's public, are they now subsidised by taxes?
Who moderates the platforms then? Are is it all just unmoderated?
Will companies get compansated for lost revenue?
I genuinely curious how you imagine this working.
Yeah, because it's theirs. They own it.
If I let everyone into my house for a party, doesn't mean I lose the right to kick people out.
I'm okay with an echo chamber if it means I don't have to put up with CP and jihadi execution footage in my cute cat feed.
I assume it would be no problem for you.
I'm only coming from the standpoint of how dangerous it is for a mass media outlet to control who has a voice. I don't know how we can articulate this fairly and would like help for that, but I'm not gonna find help in a sea of people who just wanna take sides and ignore the means.
Why should anyone get to own the only effective avenues of communication? Communication is what determines how the world works.
CP is illegal obviously, and jihad doesn't make sense in the cute cats category the way 'straight only game mod' makes sense in the 'game mod' category.
Who currently owns the "only effective avenues of communication"?
"Sometimes you gotta put up with some ugly if you don't want people silenced for their perspective." Seems there's a limit to the ugly you're willing to put up with, and you're quite willing to silence perspectives yourself.
You cleaely still want people to moderate social networks. I assume you'd want these people to outside the company?
Hell, we're on a site where you can literally filter what content you see. No one is so pro communication that they'll happily chat away to someone that they don't want to be around.
The line should be drawn at actual harm of course. That can also be indirect.
Ah, so you're pro moderation when you personally find the contect to be even indirectly harmful.
"Double standards are bad, no matter which side."