• Honytawk@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      11 months ago

      Nobody is preventing them to play their games how they want.

      Nexus just doesn’t want to have those mods on their platform.

      They can just find some other platform to host those mods if they want. Or keep them to themselves.

        • zaphodb2002@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          23
          ·
          11 months ago

          This is a stupid take. You’re tired of the people who own and use a platform controlling that platform to represent their morals? If you want a platform to host bigotry, you should make one. They often do so well. Just because someone has something to stupid say doesn’t mean others have to tolerate it in their home or place of business.

            • Fluke@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              14
              ·
              11 months ago

              Nexusmods are doing what they believe is the right thing to attain the highest profit, it’s no more complex than that.

              The people in charge voted on where the line in the sand should be (to simplify the corporate process somewhat) and homophobia, they decided, should be on the wrong side. They figure that inclusivity, rather than bigotry, is the way to more customers. (I mean, duh.)

              They are entitled to do just that, as the modder is to mod the game how he sees fit.

              It is not bigotry to be intolerant of the intolerant, that pathetic argument has been dead since before you were born.

                • Ender of Games@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  13
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Truth and fairness take a back seat to profits. Got it.

                  I see you are incapable of reading, so I’ll just restate this to make it simple for you:

                  It is not bigotry to be intolerant of the intolerant, that pathetic argument has been dead since before you were born.

              • CancerMancer@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                It’s fascinating watching how quickly my side has forgotten the state and corporate censorship of the 2000s. I don’t enjoy defending rightoids but I remember being on the losing side and I’d rather be principled now than on the backfoot again when the pendulum swings back.

            • SuddenlyBlowGreen@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              12
              ·
              11 months ago

              Major media outlets and companies should not be considered private platforms.

              Really? Now I’m curious, how do you imagine that?

              I assume the company still pays for the platform, hosting, development, etc. Since it’s public, are they now subsidised by taxes?

              Who moderates the platforms then? Are is it all just unmoderated?

              Will companies get compansated for lost revenue?

              I genuinely curious how you imagine this working.

              Anyone can sign up and post while they use their money and influence to decide who gets heard.

              Yeah, because it’s theirs. They own it.

              If I let everyone into my house for a party, doesn’t mean I lose the right to kick people out.

              Sometimes you gotta put up with some ugly if you don’t want people silenced for their perspective. I don’t want an echo chamber.

              I’m okay with an echo chamber if it means I don’t have to put up with CP and jihadi execution footage in my cute cat feed.

              I assume it would be no problem for you.

                • SuddenlyBlowGreen@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  10
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Why should anyone get to own the only effective avenues of communication? Communication is what determines how the world works.

                  Who currently owns the “only effective avenues of communication”?

                  CP is illegal obviously, and jihad doesn’t make sense in the cute cats category the way ‘straight only game mod’ makes sense in the ‘game mod’ category.

                  “Sometimes you gotta put up with some ugly if you don’t want people silenced for their perspective.” Seems there’s a limit to the ugly you’re willing to put up with, and you’re quite willing to silence perspectives yourself.

                  You cleaely still want people to moderate social networks. I assume you’d want these people to outside the company?

                  • VaultBoyNewVegas@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    Hell, we’re on a site where you can literally filter what content you see. No one is so pro communication that they’ll happily chat away to someone that they don’t want to be around.

          • CancerMancer@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Platforms with near-monopoly level control of public discussion should be considered part of the public forum. This weird libertarianism from “lefties” deeply concerns me.

              • CancerMancer@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                Nobody made you open up a social space to the public, and nobody is making you keep it open. Also I want you to explain how you can reconcile being on the left but also supporting corporate rights over those of individual humans?

                • SuddenlyBlowGreen@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  You didn’t answer my question.

                  Who would pay for the platform, and who would moderate it? Or do you just want even more hate speech to spread?

                  • CancerMancer@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    I see, you cannot reconcile being on the left with supporting corporations over people. Not surprised but thank you for confirming.

    • affiliate@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      11 months ago

      i don’t care if someone is racist or homophobic unless it affects me

      this is a libertarian fever dream. the nature of prejudice is that it does affect other people.

    • TopRamenBinLaden@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      You should want to make racists uncomfortable when they do a racism, and bigots uncomfortable when they do a bigotry. It’s part of the hidden contract to living in a nice society. Stand up for others who are affected even if you are not. Shit is not cool, and you should care that your brothers and sisters are being marginalized.