Apparently New Zealand is governed by morons

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07/01/nz_swings_banhammer_at_trolls/

While this is kind of funny when thinking about the forum drama we had around here for the past couple of months, I still can't believe how fucking stupid these politicians have to be to pass such a bill.

TL;DR: If you hurt someones fee fees on Facebook, Twitter, Reddit or General Discussion, that someone can demand from the site owner to delete your post or else he can sue. Since no site will be bothered to thoroughly investigate if a post truly causes "serious emotional distress", it will of course delete everything that has been reported without thinking about it.

This shit will backfire so hard, I'm mad but I'll lean back and eat my popcorn.

"

Dan_GGG wrote:

Considering the magnitude of some of the harassment I've seen (i.e. anything to do with Gamergate) this has the potential to be really good if used responsibly. We can certainly wait and see how it works in practice, but I think it's massively understating the issue of online harassment to refer to it as just hurting people's feelings.

Ultimately I don't think anything of value is lost if you're not allowed to try and drive people online to suicide anymore.

Besides, all the stuff they list in that article is already against our forum guidelines. You're already not allowed to be antagonize people in GD, so that kind of thing is already being deleted.

While I agree that serious bullying should be prevented and punished by law, I really do have a problem with how that bill is worded. If you spend an hour on Twitter or Tumblr you will see how many causes of PTSD (they call it triggers after all) some people believe to be suffering from. Like if you mention how you ran 5 miles today, someone will call you an ableist because you can run and he can't. Or if you say that you like rap music and you're a white boy you are 'appropriating' black culture. I'm not pulling this out of my ass, some people are crazy like that. And my concern is that especially bigger sites like Facebook and Twitter won't commit ressources to actually check if whatever has been reported is "emotionally distressing" and will just outright delete everything. This means if those crazy people want to they can easily censor people by inventing reasons for why they are offended by some post. And there are plenty of those people as we've seen from Gamergate and antiGamergate shenanigans.

P.S.: I'm suicidal so you mentioning suicide without a trigger warning is causing me serious emotional distress please delete your post or I will sue :^)

"

Dan_GGG wrote:

Considering the magnitude of some of the harassment I've seen (i.e. anything to do with Gamergate) this has the potential to be really good if used responsibly. We can certainly wait and see how it works in practice, but I think it's massively understating the issue of online harassment to refer to it as just hurting people's feelings.

Ultimately I don't think anything of value is lost if you're not allowed to try and drive people online to suicide anymore.

Besides, all the stuff they list in that article is already against our forum guidelines. You're already not allowed to do that kind of thing in GD, so it's already being deleted.

Im curious to this. What do you mean anything to do with gamergate.

There's so many falsehoods in the narrative of the corrupted games media. Even recently the WAM unveiled how much of a sham the twitter block was as it blocked around 10,000 accounts, with only 65 of those flagged for harassment. this could easily be another tool of censorship.
Gamergate movement was always about ethics no matter how much some of the critized sites dared claim with no proof to back it up. Anita Sarkeesian has been proven to be a professional victim, same for Zoe Quinn, especially Zoe Quinn, considering how she was actually a wolf in a sheeps clothing, to blame for manipulation, harassment, doxing, and trying to take down a charity for women.

For that matter, here's a link with actual proof of the many of the problems and true reality behind the whole gamergate deal, feel free to compare it to the articles (which are actually for the most in this list.)


Not sure all links are up, since a lot where hunted, Zoe Quinn filled a gag order against her old boyfriend, which makes it so he can no longer disclose the proof of her true manipulative ways (though If you fail to find a link, ask me and I MIGHT get you one if I can find)

https://gitgud.io/gamergate/gamergateop/tree/master/Current-Happenings

Scroll down the line to see old happenings and realize how everything started.


For reference on the WAM report with link to the result study:



and do note #Gamergate is a public hashtag that anyone could use, that includes trolls and false-flaggers.

"

Xavderion wrote:

P.S.: I'm suicidal so you mentioning suicide without a trigger warning is causing me serious emotional distress please delete your post or I will sue :^)

Cringe worthy! Well played.

Peace,

-Boem-

"

Dan_GGG wrote:

Let's not discuss Gamergate. It wasn't central to my point and this thread is about the article in the OP.

but should one really propagate falsehood?

has this not been the best example of the possibility of abuse lately? Hell, just the Women Action Media study should quite sum it up. (but if you care to check everything and the proof provided you'll see how again and again GG was nothing but a scapegoat to corrupt journalists whose ethics were target of critique)

Now with GG part aside;

I dont mean to sound offensive, so I hope you dont take this that way, but I think you are quite naive

"

Dan_GGG wrote:

if used responsibly

I commend your pure thoughts and I only wish that I could be that positive about it.
Hell, I hope Im wrong, I hope only good comes of it... but I very much doubt it.

NZ Politicians are not noted for their tech savvy.

Also see their previous attempts to ban the use and proliferation of the dangerous chemical compound, Di-hydrogen Monoxide.

I agree with the sentiment and spirit behind the law, but the law itself is pathetically written, and is unenforceable in its current state.

If I worried about all the less than intelligent or wise politicians in the world, I'd be pretty miserable.

If defamation and harrassment are already illegal, then this law clearly wasn't designed to be used "responsibly" because under responsible implementation, anything relevant is already illegal anyway.....