- 777
- Canada
Calling people soft while complaining about a spam message
Instead the problem I see is with how these systems already work and then them being applied to an even wider area:There's a mute button on all games for a reason. The chats also dont accept curse words. Its fine how it is
Imagine signing up and agreeing to a Terms of Service on some sort of application, and then not following the rules you agreed to and get in trouble.
View attachment 1106911
Don't do something stupid and you wont have to worry about repercussions of stupid actions.
I mean, you say that. And if we're talking about, say, Twitter eventually telling people making effigies for Jan 6 insurrectionists that they can piss off to Parlor then sure, I can see the argument.
As far as I know GTP handles all enforcement of the ToS on a case by case basis through human decision making. That's not what Microsoft (or any of these companies) use (nor could they with the volume of users being handled); and that seems like quite a material difference right there.It's really weird that you'd think one of those things is okay and the other isn't. They're either both okay (and they are) or not.
So you're saying a group of people found something offensive, so Twitter had to evaluate the situation and determine if it is or isn't against their ToS and act accordingly? Sounds about normal, especially for something that is evolving like ToS sometimes do. As for the other companies deciding what to do with the services they offer people, sure that is an iffy road, but I'm still 100% for the camp of "don't do something stupid and you won't have to worry about repercussions."I mean, you say that. And if we're talking about, say, Twitter eventually telling people making effigies for Jan 6 insurrectionists that they can piss off to Parlor then sure, I can see the argument.
But then you have people who say something that breaks Twitter's terms of service because they said something that a group of people got super tilted about and they band together to get them banned from the site; except now they are also banned from YouTube and Facebook and etc.
The rules as they are now are vague and unevenly applied, but they only apply to a single platform at a time. What is proposed is that the same rules would be applied to all platforms, and in order to get agreement between the platforms then the rules would presumably have to be pretty clear and uniformly applied.I mean, you say that. And if we're talking about, say, Twitter eventually telling people making effigies for Jan 6 insurrectionists that they can piss off to Parlor then sure, I can see the argument.
But then you have people who say something that breaks Twitter's terms of service because they said something that a group of people got super tilted about and they band together to get them banned from the site; except now they are also banned from YouTube and Facebook and etc.
No. I deliberately said "super tilted" instead of "found something offensive", and "breaks Twitter's terms of service" was being stated sarcastically.So you're saying a group of people found something offensive, so Twitter had to evaluate the situation and determine if it is or isn't against their ToS and act accordingly
What are you getting at here though? I’m gonna have a conversation about cats one day and someone will get me banned for it?Twitter has methods that people can exploit to get people banned just like YouTube does.