Poll of the Day > Is censorship of offensive speech on gamefaqs "morally" sound?

(+) Yeah! (+)

nt

Considering that it's biased in favour of SJWs, no.
---

I have no problem with offensive speech being censored on a privately run website.

If you don't like it, there are many other forums out there that you can go to instead.
---

To force an experienced barista to make a known bad brew is a disservice to all

That is what I always say.

darkknight109 posted...

I have no problem with offensive speech being censored on a privately run website.

If you don't like it, there are many other forums out there that you can go to instead.

---

darkknight109 posted...

If you don't like it, there are many other forums out there that you can go to instead.

https://www.reddit.com/r/gamefaqs/
---

Yes.

Don't be an asshole.

It's a private website.
You have no rights here.

Far-Queue posted...

darkknight109 posted...

I have no problem with offensive speech being censored on a privately run website.

If you don't like it, there are many other forums out there that you can go to instead.

---

Veedrock- posted...

darkknight109 posted...

If you don't like it, there are many other forums out there that you can go to instead.

https://www.reddit.com/r/gamefaqs/

I love how the stickied thread there is basically "You're not on GameFAQs, but don't be an asshole here either."

Guess Reddit censors things too, eh?
---

Censorship is inherently morally wrong, but it's also irrelevant. GameFAQs doesn't intend to be your saint, GameFAQs has higher priorities than letting people talk shit all day.
---

You know, I find it very strange how much of a hard-on the internet generation has for so-called "censorship", when most of what is being complained about isn't in any way comparable to actual censorship.

Let's be clear: "censorship" is supposed to mean the active suppression of facts and/or dissent, usually undertaken to solidify the grasp on power held by some party or autocrat. Censorship frequently involves not just the stifling of discourse and the editing or silencing of troublesome voices, but also violence, intimidation, and sometimes downright murder. It is an action undertaken by totalitarian regimes, it causes hardship, and it impedes progress.

Having a post moderated on GameFAQs isn't censorship - that's just called a ToS violation. It means you broke the rules you agreed to follow when you signed up for this 100% completely free-to-use site. In the same way that if you shouted "piss cock balls fuck" in the middle of a fancy restaurant you would be asked to leave, you are not being censored so much as you are being taken to task for being an asshole and violating the rules of decent human conduct.

Equating internet moderations to censorship is a bit like calling someone who isn't a vegetarian a mass murderer - you're ridiculously blowing the former out of proportion and dis-empowering the label that's supposed to be used for the latter.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Equating internet moderations to censorship is a bit like calling someone who isn't a vegetarian a mass murderer

Saying censorship is beating people in to submission if not murdering is like saying assault is only when you're put in intensive care.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

darkknight109 posted...

Equating internet moderations to censorship is a bit like calling someone who isn't a vegetarian a mass murderer

Saying censorship is beating people in to submission if not murdering is like saying assault is only when you're put in intensive care.

If you want to talk about censorship as some great evil, though, you need to use the term only when it is actually being used for evil. Crying about how the nasty admins won't let you post a racist meme just devalues the whole phrase and makes actually damaging forms of censorship sound like more whining instead of something to actually be alarmed about.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

darkknight109 posted...

Equating internet moderations to censorship is a bit like calling someone who isn't a vegetarian a mass murderer

Saying censorship is beating people in to submission if not murdering is like saying assault is only when you're put in intensive care.

If you want to talk about censorship as some great evil, though, you need to use the term only when it is actually being used for evil. Crying about how the nasty admins won't let you post a racist meme just devalues the whole phrase and makes actually damaging forms of censorship sound like more whining instead of something to actually be alarmed about.

How about being suspended for 2 weeks for saying gender dysphoria is a mental illness? You know, like how it's classified?

The mods censor dissenting opinions so there is reason to see it as immoral.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

How about being suspended for 2 weeks for saying gender dysphoria is a mental illness? You know, like how it's classified?

Breaking the rules, fair, next.

Again, you're not being materially harmed by that action - it just means if you want to voice that opinion, you have to do it somewhere else.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

The mods censor dissenting opinions so there is reason to see it as immoral.

It would be just as immoral if you got thrown out of a theatre for shouting "I hate black people!" at the top of your lungs - which is to say, not immoral at all.
---

Well, it's moral for business owners to run their businesses as they see fit provided that they're complying with zoning, environmental laws, etc.

darkknight109 posted...

You know, I find it very strange how much of a hard-on the internet generation has for so-called "censorship", when most of what is being complained about isn't in any way comparable to actual censorship.

Let's be clear: "censorship" is supposed to mean the active suppression of facts and/or dissent, usually undertaken to solidify the grasp on power held by some party or autocrat. Censorship frequently involves not just the stifling of discourse and the editing or silencing of troublesome voices, but also violence, intimidation, and sometimes downright murder. It is an action undertaken by totalitarian regimes, it causes hardship, and it impedes progress.

I'm always amused by your attempts to redefine a word or term to insist that something doesn't meet the criteria. Meanwhile, in reality, the kind of censorship most people are familiar with are the politeness-based kind (restrictions on language, nudity, etc) or pertaining to some social issue.

As for "impeding progress," I'm just going to laugh. Whenever you see something you dislike, you claim that it's against progress. In reality, many of the hard-left groups throughout history -- the so-called progressives in many cases -- have been *very* big on censorship. There's nothing inherent in censorship that makes it for or against progress and, in fact, restricting opinions you dislike would be a very useful tool in trying to change a society (which is why groups like the communists -- Soviets, CCP, etc -- used it so heavily). In fact, the social justice crowd causes frequently use forms of censorship -- whether it's petitioning business owners to restrict speech or threatening retaliation against people talking in public -- to push for "progress" (well, they're progressing well to a totalitarian state anyway)
---

I am a supporter of "Hate speech is free speech". If someone is being a nuisance you are free to ignore them.
You are actually free to continuously tell them to get the fuck out until they do so.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Breaking the rules, fair, next.

There's no rule that says you have to believe transgender people are the gender their dong is not representative of.

darkknight109 posted...

It would be just as immoral if you got thrown out of a theatre for shouting "I hate black people!" at the top of your lungs - which is to say, not immoral at all.

Firstly, you'd get thrown out for shouting anything for being disruptive. Secondly, a more accurate example would be whispering to your friend "Black people have ancestors in Africa." and being thrown out for disagreeing with their opinion that black people are actually aliens from the planet zarg.
---

No.
Ignore function is invent for a reason.
---

darkknight109 posted...

You know, I find it very strange how much of a hard-on the internet generation has for so-called "censorship", when most of what is being complained about isn't in any way comparable to actual censorship.

Let's be clear: "censorship" is supposed to mean the active suppression of facts and/or dissent, usually undertaken to solidify the grasp on power held by some party or autocrat. Censorship frequently involves not just the stifling of discourse and the editing or silencing of troublesome voices, but also violence, intimidation, and sometimes downright murder. It is an action undertaken by totalitarian regimes, it causes hardship, and it impedes progress.

Having a post moderated on GameFAQs isn't censorship - that's just called a ToS violation. It means you broke the rules you agreed to follow when you signed up for this 100% completely free-to-use site. In the same way that if you shouted "piss cock balls fuck" in the middle of a fancy restaurant you would be asked to leave, you are not being censored so much as you are being taken to task for being an asshole and violating the rules of decent human conduct.

Equating internet moderations to censorship is a bit like calling someone who isn't a vegetarian a mass murderer - you're ridiculously blowing the former out of proportion and dis-empowering the label that's supposed to be used for the latter.

Hear, hear!
---

Zeus posted...

As for "impeding progress," I'm just going to laugh. Whenever you see something you dislike, you claim that it's against progress

Perhaps you're right and censorship could be used to favour progress. We could use it, for instance, to squelch the anti-science crowd like climate change deniers, anti-vaxxers, and the like, and in doing so promote progress. Thing is, it's almost never used in that way - when true censorship is used by a regime, it's almost always with the goal in mind of inhibiting progress because a knowledgeable populace is one that's going to start demanding more rights and representation before too long, which is the death knell for any autocracy.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

There's no rule that says you have to believe transgender people are the gender their dong is not representative of.

You're right, there isn't. Fortunately, you weren't modded for what you believe; you were modded for what you said, and there's definitely a rule against saying that sort of stuff. In fact, it happens to be Rule #1.

https://www.gamefaqs.com/features/board_etiquette

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Firstly, you'd get thrown out for shouting anything for being disruptive.

Quite true, but that still just goes to my point: you're not allowed to say anything you want, any time, anywhere. There are some establishments that will kick your ass straight out the door if you say something they don't like.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Secondly, a more accurate example would be whispering to your friend "Black people have ancestors in Africa." and being thrown out for disagreeing with their opinion that black people are actually aliens from the planet zarg.

And they would be 100% within their rights to do so.
---

darkknight109 posted...

You know, I find it very strange how much of a hard-on the internet generation has for so-called "censorship", when most of what is being complained about isn't in any way comparable to actual censorship.

Let's be clear: "censorship" is supposed to mean the active suppression of facts and/or dissent, usually undertaken to solidify the grasp on power held by some party or autocrat. Censorship frequently involves not just the stifling of discourse and the editing or silencing of troublesome voices, but also violence, intimidation, and sometimes downright murder. It is an action undertaken by totalitarian regimes, it causes hardship, and it impedes progress.

Having a post moderated on GameFAQs isn't censorship - that's just called a ToS violation. It means you broke the rules you agreed to follow when you signed up for this 100% completely free-to-use site. In the same way that if you shouted "piss cock balls fuck" in the middle of a fancy restaurant you would be asked to leave, you are not being censored so much as you are being taken to task for being an asshole and violating the rules of decent human conduct.

Equating internet moderations to censorship is a bit like calling someone who isn't a vegetarian a mass murderer - you're ridiculously blowing the former out of proportion and dis-empowering the label that's supposed to be used for the latter.

I agree with literally every word you just said. However, the issue here is what everyone is already thinking. Gamefaqs moderators DO have a tendency to moderate and delete posts of forum users that do NOT break the ToS. They do this to attempt to censor people they do not agree with in order to prevent others from hearing an objective opinion. These moderators are in a position of power and they DO use it to censor people unjustly. I myself have had about four moderations overturned when I requested a different mod read a case. I know I'm not the only one. It's true that probably the vast majority of moderations on GameFAQs violate the TOS. That doesn't mean that the moderators using their power to censor people they don't agree with doesn't happen and they arent abusing their power.
---

darkknight109 posted...

You're right, there isn't. Fortunately, you weren't modded for what you believe; you were modded for what you said, and there's definitely a rule against saying that sort of stuff. In fact, it happens to be Rule #1.

Calling everything you disagree with offensive is pretty immoral, after all by that logic you would be modded for arguing with me.

darkknight109 posted...

And they would be 100% within their rights to do so.

Being allowed to do something doesn't make it moral.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Calling everything you disagree with offensive is pretty immoral, after all by that logic you would be modded for arguing with me.

It has nothing to do with whether I agree with it or not, nor did I call it offensive. I just said you broke the rules. Which you did*.

*Source: you got modded and suspended for two weeks.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Being allowed to do something doesn't make it moral.

No, but the whole premise of your comparison was kind of ridiculous to begin with, so that's about all the energy I felt like putting into a response.

UraRenge2005 posted...

Gamefaqs moderators DO have a tendency to moderate and delete posts of forum users that do NOT break the ToS. They do this to attempt to censor people they do not agree with in order to prevent others from hearing an objective opinion. These moderators are in a position of power and they DO use it to censor people unjustly. I myself have had about four moderations overturned when I requested a different mod read a case. I know I'm not the only one.

In my experience, mods trying to mod people simply because they disagree with them are rare (though certainly far from unheard of - had it happen to me a few years back). And, as you've pointed out, there is a dispute system whose entire purpose is to counteract that.

I find most of the time moderations get overturned, it's less likely that the original mod was being a dictatorial tyrant trying to stifle dissent and more likely that it was a borderline case and/or the original mod didn't read the entire thread and see the context of the post and a subsequent mod disagreed that an offence took place at all.

Regardless, I'd argue that what your referencing isn't really what the OP is asking about. The question isn't about mods modding unjustly, it's asking whether banning offensive speech (i.e. something you can be modded for by a mod who is 100% following the rules) is moral.
---

Who gets to decide what is or isn't offensive?

morals aren't defined by open debate (because really, no one really listens to what others think and you won't change their minds easily). instead, morals are defined by authoritarians. if they say you did something wrong, there's no point in complaining, because you don't have the power to overthrow the unilateral decision.

that's why appealing to mods is a red herring. it's a conflict of interests. the mods work for the site, so of course their morals will always override the posters. so what's the point of appealing, when the chances of overturning is close to nil?
---

darkknight109 posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

The mods censor dissenting opinions so there is reason to see it as immoral.

It would be just as immoral if you got thrown out of a theatre for shouting "I hate black people!" at the top of your lungs - which is to say, not immoral at all.

Because you're disrupting the movie, not because you're offensive. Because you're censoring something else by drowning it out with your own voice, like Trigglypuff ironically screeching about her freedom of speech over other people who are trying to have an actual conversation.

The only way to drown out or directly disrupt someone else's speech on these boards is to mark their posts. If you mark posts, you are the guy making disruptive noises in the theater who is justifiably removed.

omnichaos posted...

Who gets to decide what is or isn't offensive?

Here? SBAllen does, as judged and enforced by the mods (and by him specifically if you appeal the moderation far enough). At any other business? The business owners.

In public spaces that aren't owned by anyone? Depends on where you live, but generally there is either no standard for offensiveness (meaning it's up to each individual to define what is or is not offensive and how they will react to any offensive conduct they encounter there) or the government will define what crosses the line between free expression and unacceptable speech.

Amuseum posted...

morals aren't defined by open debate

Morals aren't really defined period. They're entirely subjective.

Ethics are morals that actually have some definition to them and are generally legally enforceable.

omnichaos posted...

Because you're disrupting the movie, not because you're offensive

Put it this way - if you went up to one of the staff at the concession stand and, without disrupting anything, called them a racial slur, you would be similarly tossed out.

omnichaos posted...

If you mark posts, you are the guy making disruptive noises in the theater who is justifiably removed.

Except you're not removed for marking someone else's post; they are, if the posts are actually in violation of the rules.
---

It's their house, so yes.
---

The only way we can come to conclusions to what sane morality is is through open discussion and exchange of information. It's either that or violence. I choose discussion.

omnichaos posted...

The only way we can come to conclusions to what sane morality is is through open discussion and exchange of information. It's either that or violence. I choose discussion.

Maybe so, but to be perfectly frank no one on GameFAQs staff cares what your views are on morality. They have their own views and have asked you to follow them while you are here; if you do not, you will be suspended or banned from using their service.

It's really not that complex. You have the right to your own opinion and morals, but GameFAQs is not obligated to provide you with a platform to air those opinions - if they think you are out of line with the regulations they set forth, or acting in a way that disrupts their business by driving away users and/or advertisers, they are free to air their own opinions on morals by barring you from using their service.
---

Ostensibly GameFAQs is a site for kids/youths about videogames. There's absolutely no benefit for them to host anything controversial and take a big stance to defend it.

I like how the rules are set up, prevents some stupid trolling and most forums that don't prevent flaming usually has every argument leading with the person calling the other poster a moron or something stupid. Just keeps the board a bit more civil and requires you to be less crude if you want to hurl insults at other posters.
---

For certain social media and other similar services (i.e. Facebook, Twitter, Twitch, YouTube, etc,) given the huge presence they have I do wonder if censorship from them can be really be detrimental to allowing someone to express him/herself.

Of course said person can use other services but when these companies dominate the social media field to the point that other services have a mere fraction of users, that person's voice will not be heard nearly as much as on other services.

I have heard complaints about how liberal Facebook is and whatnot and retorts includes telling said complainers to make their own conservative version of Facebook. If we're being honest with ourselves, it is unlikely another version of Facebook will pop up anytime soon.
---

InfestedAdam posted...

I have heard complaints about how liberal Facebook is and whatnot and retorts includes telling said complainers to make their own conservative version of Facebook.

While I don't think a private company should be forced to allow everything that isn't strictly illegal, it is somewhat telling that people consider it an intelligent retort to say," Go make a version that's biased for you! Scrub."
---

omnichaos posted...

Is censorship of offensive speech on gamefaqs "morally" sound?

"Of course it is, moron; now shut up."

I'm sure you all would agree that a reply like that would deserve to be censored. As such, we can conclude that offensive speech is morally censored.
---

No I would not. The ignore function is there if you feel that you need to censor someone for yourself. You should not get to decide that they deserve to be censored for everyone else.

I don't like censorship at all and being offended is subjective so I voted no.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Calling everything you disagree with offensive is pretty immoral

Nobody's calling everything they disagree with offensive. You will never be modded for saying you like or dislike pineapple on a pizza, despite how divisive that issue is and the fact that there are mods that will disagree with you on the matter. You've mixed up the order of causality there: It's that things people find offensive will be things they disagree with. In your insistence on stating opinions that are widely considered offensive here, you've developed a persecution complex and are blowing things out of proportion, but really, that problem you're seeing doesn't exist. Get over yourself.
---

So what did you get modded for recently, TC?
---

omnichaos posted...

You should not get to decide that they deserve to be censored for everyone else.

The mods decide; we don't.
---

There is deep irony in using uncensored speech in arguing (poorly, because there really is no good argument, including keeping ad revenue and authoritarianism) in favor of censoring offensive speech.

omnichaos posted...

there really is no good argument,

Sure there is. GameFAQs' audience comes here to enjoy a certain environment of discussion. Moderating message board content helps to preserve that environment. If you go beyond the pretty clear boundaries the ToU set, you get modded for being a detriment to the intended environment. Creating a specific conversational environment certainly isn't immoral, why should the necessary steps involved in that be?

In no way is GameFAQs intended to be free speech. When you create an account, you agree to a suite of limitations on what sort of discussions you can have. If you want to have discussions that go beyond those limitations, you're free to find a different forum.
---

There are very many good arguments against the formation of echo chambers.

omnichaos posted...

There are very many good arguments against the formation of echo chambers.

Not when you're talking about video games.
---

We have a politics board and religion board, and many non-topical boards. All of them are subject to censorship of offensive speech.

I just wish I was able to insult people the way I wanted to without getting warned. I think I get more bitter every day.

TheCyborgNinja posted...

Considering that it's biased in favour of SJWs, no.

I also think we should design our entire system around an extreme political minority. KBE might gain too much power, see?