Or just oligarch or power addict. In the eyes of most people, wealth is about luxury, material goods and fancy toys. Of course that’s part of it, but at a certain point, wealth is no longer about luxury and toys, it’s about power and having control over resources everyone else depends on.

Again, my point isn’t that poor people are happy or happier than the wealthy. My point is that our system doesn’t even beneft those who are (supposed to be) in charge. They think it does, but it’s more like an addiction that controls and destroys them.

Nah, there is definitely a truth to this. I grew up in a working class family who moved into a wealthier region at some point and I would never trade places with people who grew up wealthy. Pretty much all wealthy people are constantly unhappy, are obsessed with control to the point where they alienate their families, they are constantly scared of losing their control, status and wealth, constantly paranoid towards everything and everyone and often engage in self-destructive behaviour.

Of course, not having enough money sucks, it generates stress and restricts autonomy. But a similar thing happens at a certain level of wealth.

they only moved back because refunds started happening,

Kind of, but refunds only started happening because steam allowed it. And steam only allowed it because there was enough of a shitstom.

Negative reviews by themselves don’t do much, you are right about that, but they do kinda show a community’s mood (especially to other gamers in the community).

they had made their money already

Helldivers is a game that has a lot more monetizing potential than just the initial sales.

If all people would immediately reward them with a positive review after backpedaling, then their learned lesson would be “just try it out, worst case we can backpedal”. By leaving up a negative review, they might realize that they should not even try it if they want to keep the goodwill.

They are always going to have this mindset, companies will never “learn it”, they will always try to push anti-consumer bullshit onto consumers if they think it benefits them and if they think they can get away with it.

They don’t care about goodwill, they care about numbers. It’s a business.

I will leave my negative review standing, although I also have other points of criticism.

And that’s perfectly fine, people can leave whatever review they want to leave. But I think for the people who specifically changed their review or left a negative review specifically to protest this specific issue, it makes sense that they change it back to an actual review of the game to signal that their actions have an impact.

It’s not about trust, of course they don’t deserve trust. It’s about showing them that players have influence when it comes to their bottom line and that they can’t just get away with anything they want to do without it hurting their main objective.

In other words, be nice to the community and they are going to be nice to you. Be shitty to the community and they are going to be so shitty towards you that it hurts your profits. That’s the only motivation that makes them go back on something that they want to do.

If they think that people are going to behave negatively towards them and review bomb their games regardless of how they act, they will just keep acting however they want.

I think it shows that people yearn for power and control over others just look at all the karens, the reddit mods (you know which kind), the trolls, supporters of certain parties and so on.

I think that’s way too generalized. “The internet” paints a very distorted picture picture. First, the absolut vast majority of people online are lurkers, so you don’t see what they think or do at all. “Nuanced takes” barely exist because people just blast whatever is on their mind right now into the void that is then interpreted by millions of differently biased people.

The mods, trolls, etc. are the fringe of the fringe, often the types of people who have no real life, who cannot really fit into society and who have to find other ways to get attention/validation.

Mods aren’t some kind of villanous power hungry monsters, they are socially untalented nerds who want to do something that feels important, but who often feel unthanked, underappreciated and feel as if everything they do is wrong no matter what they do and who have to deal with the worst of the worst on the internet constantly. And then they are expected to have a discussion about every second decision they make because somebody feels that their comment was not interpreted the way it was intended and cries censurship if the discussion is blocked.

Given that it is somehow expected that moderation often happens without compensation (even though it is essential to a community), I’m suprised it even works as well as it does. If people in general were as powerhungry as you seem to make it out to be, people would kill for the chance to become a mod. In reality, the absolute vast majority of people doesn’t even think about it, which means the job is left those who probably having human interactions in the first place.

I guess they imagine that extremist regimes will provide them with that power

Most don’t think too much about that stuff (or anything really) in the first place. Many “right wingers” aren’t like the disturbed “true believers” you see at rallys or stuff like that, for many it’s just the community aspect they crave and the rest is no mostly larping.

Temporararily is the keywprd here…

It’s similar to commercials and ads. Everyone thinks they are not affected by such things, but pretty much everyone is affected by them on a subconscious level. Why would companies such as coca cola spend millions of dollars on advertisements? After all, virtually everyone already knows what coca cola is.

Shock sites always had trouble with the law, which is why most of them have shut down by now and most social media sites remove it. Watching/consuming it is one thing, publicly and openly sharing/promoting it without effectively restricting access to minors will always bring legal issues and legal attacks… And even when the legal charges are fought successfully, it’s still a major pain in the ass most people don’t want to deal with… And then you also have to find ISP’s and hosters who are willing to host this kind of material.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotten.com#Legal_disputes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bestgore.com#Corruption_of_morals_charge

https://www.dw.com/de/gewaltvideos-im-netz-was-strafrechtlich-erlaubt-ist/a-49871305

https://www.skppsc.ch/de/gewaltvideos-und-illegale-pornografie-auf-smartphones/

That’s why you get a big warning message informing you that DM’s are not encrypted and thus not secure.

But I’d think recovering nazis are frequently “people who say some anti-semitic stuff sometimes.”

Sure, or racist stuff. But antisemitism, racism and sexism are unfortunately not just limited to nazis, there are plenty of other people who say anti semitic, racist, homophobic and sexist stuff.

And I don’t like it when people call all racists nazis because in my view, a Nazi is a specific and extreme version of racist. And of course all forms of racism are bad, but some are way way worse than others.

Why?

Individuals or small teams running instances which don’t take money don’t need to comply to GDPR.

Are you sure about that? So if I hosted a website that shows your name and address, you could do nothing to make me take it down because I’m not an organisation or company?

Well that depends on the comment, doesn’t it? As far as I understand it, if I posted personal information about you, such as your name, home address, etc, in a comment, you could demand from the admin to remove that comment as it would contain personal information you don’t want in the open.

You have to keep in mind, this is about protecting people’s health and lives.

And just to be clear, Nazis aren’t people who say some anti-semitic stuff sometimes. Nazis hurt and kill people. If an organisation manages to help a neo-nazi leave their gang, but that person still holds some anti-semitic views, that’s still a win and anyone who disagrees has some weird priorities in my view…

Would it be better if that person completely dropped those views? Of course, but I prefer a rambling racist 100 times to a neo-nazi throwing molotovs into a refugee home or attacking people in general.

And let’s say I wanted to use it, I’m going to install this and instruct my kids how to use crackpipe?

I mean I get your point, but if you instruct your kids how to use a tool for managing pirated games, they are probably going to see a lot harsher stuff than the word “crack pipe”…

What “third party”? There is only one party that decides how their server is run and moderated and that’s the server owner… If you want to see Nazi content, you can go visit the Nazi server, nobody is stopping you from doing that except maybe your government… Nobody should be forced to host Nazi content on their servers against their will…

So go make that choice and host your own instance… What gives you the right to choose how to run an instance you don’t own? I could understand if you have no other choice, but you do have the choice. The code is available for free…

What exactly is the reason? That Nazis are not allowed? You seriously think not allowing Nazis on the platform will kill it?

Spreading Nazi propaganda is illegal in some countries… The amount of moderation necessary would be unsustainable. And Nazis tend to propagate violence anyway, which is illegal in most places.

And why is it so important to allow Nazis to “share their views” on your platform anyway? What possible benefit could this bring to a platform?