Are we talking Switch original releases only or including ports? Breath of the Wild, Mario Odyssey, and Splatoon 2/3 look excellent, and Okami HD is a great port/remaster that arguably looks better than the original. I haven't bought Monster Hunter Rise yet but it looked stunning in the demo. And of course there's beautiful 2D games like Dead Cells, Hollow Knight, etc. I've found that a lot of Switch games look really good, even launch games from 5 years ago, with really the only flaw in most games being a lot of aliasing.
I think with Minecraft it's closer to the difference between a Chuck E Cheese and a barcade. Both are arcades, but one is specifically for kids and families while the other is an explicitly adult space.
Except the child audience didn't appear until 5 years into minecraft's life, so it'd be like your local barcade deciding they're pivoting to targeting kids now so please get out
From what Microsoft's said, it's less about profanity and more about taking down things like serious threats, doxxing/stalking, etc. I have no issue with moderating that, and I'm glad it's (at least in theory) not being used as a filter to keep everything that happens in Minecraft G-rated since a lot of more mature people play it. I think implementing a game-wide ban on a community that's spread across thousands of individual servers has the potential to cause so much harm if someone makes a mistake or there's a glitch, not to mention trolls gaming the system to get people they don't like banned. Content moderation at scale is impossible, and considering Minecraft's still one of the biggest games in the world, mistakes will be made.
As an aside, have you looked into putting a whitelist on your server? It could provide a lot of peace of mind, especially when you're trying to keep it to just your kids and friends.
I see, I imagine the server you put on is by default public and joinable by anyone. This kind of stuff typically has some form of whitelisting or password protection to keep the server semi-private.
I do support more moderation and controls over chat, because god knows when I played Minecraft as a kid I saw so many conversations that weren't exactly appropriate. Kids on servers that aren't specifically kid-friendly worry me a lot, knowing how my friends and I banter and shit-talk. This is super heavy-handed and centralized moderation though, the consequences for mistakes or errors are huge. As far as I know, getting banned also prevents you from even playing singleplayer on Xbox and there's no appeal process. I understand and support the new chat blocking settings, and maybe even something like an official ban list that applies to Realms and servers that decide to use it, but being able to permanently ban someone from an entire game is too much power.
I also have the same question. In my limited experience as the father of an eleven year old, it has continued to be much more productive to redirect profane or vulgar expressions of frustration away from people and towards problems ("Swear at problems, not people.") than to bubble-wrap their vocabulary.
Very genuinely, if your 11 years old need to redirect swearing to things and is unable to cut it in social situations, then he needs quite a lot of help with impulse control.
Because most of them, overwhelming majority actually, are easily able to not swear. They do swear when among peers only, but cutting it off when needed is really not an issue for them.
Everyone's different and harm/severity here is gonna be a wide range, but there's a lot of stuff I saw online as a kid that, as an adult, I really wish I hadn't.
That's the problem though. Legal gears move slowly, and you know that Kiwifarms would've kept destroying people's lives and driving people to suicide until they got shut down. I would've preferred actual legal action rather than companies dropping KF because they're bad for business, but the end goal of getting them shut down is the same.
Who's lives and what deaths? Most of the (3) people claimed to have died, didn't claim anything of the sort. (in fact the one that activists like to bring up most, who is actually dead, literally blamed the mental health system and being made homeless the day before) The one person who did blame them seems to have died without leaving any proof for official records of both the Japanese or American governments. Just the word of a friend and a former (as in even before death) employer.
What legal actions could anybody went after? They don't allow illegal activities and don't even allow interaction from the site. Even talking about it is banned. Why do you think so many attempts to take them down have failed. They follow the law and openly work with it if something illegal does happen... Including the FBI.
My feelings are irrelevant to my arguing. No, or at least not unless there was a good reason... More importantly, doxxing isn't illegal and is done by major media and orgs. Not to mention it seems like ~95% of what is being called doxxing here is posting publicly available (usually posted the the person themselves) info.
And in the context of KF, harassment and even interacting is against the rules. Attempting to do anything illegal, making threats or swatting etc are literal instant bans with your info being handed over to law on request.
>No, or at least not unless there was a good reason...
There was a follow-up: Why? KiwiFarms clearly allows this doxxing to occur on a daily basis, and I know that you know this. While it's not illegal, if you don't feel that doxxing is generally OK, why do you feel that it's OK for KF users to continue to go to the extent that they do?
>More importantly, doxxing isn't illegal and is done by major media and orgs
Two wrongs do not make a right.
>Not to mention it seems like ~95% of what is being called doxxing here is posting publicly available (usually posted the the person themselves) info.
There is a significant difference there. A lot of the information that is publicly available is information that has to be compiled. Someone has to go to the effort to look through all of the nooks and crannies to obtain what they want. KiwiFarms saves time and compiles general publicly available data that might be "difficult" to obtain to some degree, often times alongside otherwise private photos and information that individuals might not want widely disseminated, even if they did share it. This compiled data can make it easier and more likely for bad actors to do harm than if they had to go to greater lengths to obtain that info.
The fact that massive, multi-page forums threads can exist with tons of users providing all of this data and talking about these people is enough to cause mental damage to the targets of these threads. Actions need not be direct nor illegal to be harmful, and you know just as well as I do that there have been plenty of examples of people claiming harm from the existence of such threads.
Even if the behavior is not allowed and banned, the environment is still rife to encourage it. The further you allow people to go, legal or not, the more comfortable they're going to get with the boundaries that they push. This is evidenced by the historical instances of swatting and direct harassment that have stemmed from KF despite it's own rules against it, even apparently as recently as a few weeks ago.
>My feelings are irrelevant to my arguing.
That might be the case, but arguing in support of KF here is essentially arguing in support of what I just described above.
Yes, yes it was. Kiwifarms users harassed, stalked, and doxxed 3 people (at least) into suicide and ruined many people's lives. How many people has an average site like Hacker News bullied into suicide?
How many has Facebook? Twitter? Back when I was in high school (graduated 2014), three students within my district committed suicide from cyber bullying conducted through these platforms, there wasn't even any bans!
Kiwi-farms seems fairly mundane based on everything I've read about it so far (not that I can even look at the site for myself now). Why is there a double standard here? How the hell did these random twitter users manage to gain the power to pick and choose who gets to be on the internet now?
> How the hell did these random twitter users manage to gain the power to pick and choose who gets to be on the internet now?
This is the part that really worries me. Random Twitter users trying to dictate what _I_ am allowed to read. And Cloudflare and the Internet Archive bends to their will! Highly embarrassing, these people should be taken at anything but face value.
Cloudflare folding is nothing new, but I really expected better of the Internet Archive.
Openly, to any outrage-politicking militant Twitter deathsquad member: you will never stop me from reading what I want to read. I wasn't aware of Kiwi Farms before your ridiculous antics but now you can bank on me reading EVERYTHING I can possibly get my hands on.
PayPal doesn't care. A lot of artists use it for commissions, since it's really the easiest way to send money from person to person, and I've heard so many horror stories of artists getting their accounts locked for no apparent reason. Some of em get their accounts back after making a big enough fuss on Twitter, but most don't.
I think I know what site this person is talking about, and I can say that the legal system is typically out of reach for a lot of people creating the art that's stolen. It takes a lot of money to bring a lawsuit against someone, and it might not even go anywhere.
Harassment isn't something that Just Happens and it's not something that's impossible to stop or prevent. If a group of people is shooting others, would you only teach people what to do if they've been shot or would you find and take action against the people shooting others?
Great analogy, too bad it's hyperbolic and doesn't actually say anything about the situations it's supposed to help us think about.
People need to get it through their head that speech is not violence, words are not weapons. Your Exquisite Analogy about how speech laws should Akshually reflect gun laws or martial laws doesn't work, never worked, and never will.
Every single argument against free speech is a general argument against living in any kind of large networked society. Your problem is not the tools the harrasser uses, your problem is the harrasser themself, the tools they use is the same tools used by dissidents and freedom fighters to "harrass" the oppressive governments they are rebelling against.
We went through this entire tiresome arguments before with the debates around cryptography and anonymity, people just keep Missing The Point. Yes, building backdoors into encryption standards and harvesting data without users' permission will allow you to catch The Big Bad Pedos, but it will also allow Putin and Ibn Salman unprecedented power to catch their own type of enemies. "Oh, we just want to do bad things to the bad guys only" no, you can't, believe me, you can't and you won't, every single thing you advocate for can and will be used against you.
