Bluesky Post (this was also posted on twitter)

I was hoping to find a statement from the aggressor, but it seems to be too early.

  • chillinit@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    18
    ·
    18 days ago

    Valve doesn’t want to moderate their forums, it was bound to happen.

    Of course! Big government needs to save us from our 1st amendment rights. Thanks so much. I don’t think I’d have figured it out without your help.

      • SupraMario@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        18 days ago

        The 1st is there so the government doesn’t step in and create laws prohibiting speech. It’s there to stop the gov from stifling free speech. It’s not there to give you a location to use free speech.

      • sus@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        17 days ago

        if it’s the government that is doing the censoring, against the will of both the users and the private company, how does it not apply here then?

        • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          17 days ago

          Where’s that censorship? Show me, please!

          “You’ll be under more scrutiny”

          Ok, perfect, in the end they can’t actually do shit but reprimand then because it’s a private platform. Hell, have they censored Twitter or 4chan? Nope.

          • sus@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            17 days ago

            There is an implicit threat of government censorship there, even if it is ultimately toothless. And since valve is clearly not the one interested in increasing moderation, your point about the 1st amendment “not applying to private forums” is irrelevant

      • chillinit@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        17 days ago

        Seems to me it’s quite public because anyone can access their space by simply creating a free account. You’ve seemingly equated the letter of the law to the spirit.

        edit: What the above poster isn’t legally understanding is quasi-public spaces. Ethically, they’re simply failing entirely.

        • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          18 days ago

          That’s not the definition of the word public in this context. The sidewalk is public space, a shopping mall is private space, one is managed by the State, the other by a private corporation. Go and do Nazi salutes in a shopping mall and sue them when security throws you out and you’ll understand the difference.

          • chillinit@lemmynsfw.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            18 days ago

            That’s not the definition of the word public in this context.

            There you go again with the letter over the spirit. You’d have us replace judges with computers.

            and do Nazi salutes in a shopping mall and sue them when security throws you out and you’ll understand the difference.

            They mall doesn’t have to tresspass a person that’s doing Nazi salutes. If you’d the faintest concept of the ideology of justice as implemented in the US you’d understand the difference.

            • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              18 days ago

              I’m explaining how the first amendment works to you, that’s all. Freedom of speech doesn’t apply in spaces owned by private corporations, they can limit your speech in any way shape or form they want as long as you’re on their turf.

              • chillinit@lemmynsfw.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                18 days ago

                You keep explaining the letter of the law, poorly, to someone that understands both the law and justice system much better than yourself.

                • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  18 days ago

                  Don’t think you do buddy! Do you think you can sue a shop owner if they throw you out because you’re saying things they don’t like?

                  If you know so much about the first amendment and it doesn’t apply to Internet forums and platforms, how come you’re not rich from suing Twitter or something?

                  • chillinit@lemmynsfw.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    4
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    17 days ago

                    All strawman.

                    The shopping mall is not legally obligated to eject the Nazi.

                    But, you think government should force action upon the private entity because the majority disagrees with Nazis.

                    That’s exactly the opposite of why the 1st Amendment exists. Everyone else learned this when they studied why someone can burn the flag or why the ACLU supports Satanists.

                    I’ve no want for your nonsense. And, you do a disservice to others by repeating it. Go learn about quasi public spaces.