I share a finding from behavioral science which shows women in the sciences prefer power to minimize harm over freedom to find truth, and the women on these boards report it and get it removed, thus proving the point. Lmao.
This is why these forums will never succeed. SC2 social media policies are part of the reason it failed. The HR karen attitude of policing thought is inherently anti masculine because men seek freedom of expression while the karens seek consensus and safety from harm. You see this with the current political issues with young men skewing towards republicanism and libertarianism in the united states and women skewing towards socialism. It is the most important social trend of the modern day.
Any website that excludes half the population from participating will fail. Itâs obvious why thatâs the case. A business canât say no to half its customers. Any website that allows HR karens to moderate it will automatically exclude the men from the website. Itâs garden variety misandry.
They need to make the reports public information so that a person has to publicly endorse their own reporting of a post. That would be a good way to cut down on report abuse. Additionally, if a person reports a post that fails to be removed 3 times, they are instead censured for abuse of the reporting system. Furthermore, the threshold for removing posts needs to be double or tripled before moderator action occurs. Nothing short of this is going to make Blizzardâs social media mainstream again because it will always allow the moderation system to be abused to harass other users.
I would also point out this is a silly strategy to employ when the FCC is looking into political bias of platforms. Just saying. If you cater the content, and itâs pretty clear the content is being catered, that makes Blizzard a publisher which probably isnât something they want to have happen because it drastically changes the risk profile.
This website is unironically one of the reasons Iâve been cheering on SC2âs failure and mocking the balance counsel. When SC2 was kicked out of IEM I celebrated because you just canât run a marketing campaign in this fashion and expect it to succeed. Itâs obvious why SC2 is failing. SC2 is pulling a mini âConcordâ.
This is also a good example of how impractical libertarianism is. Libertarians donât use hard negotiating tactics because they believe in the live and let live principle. Against an opponent who does use hard negotiation tactics, the libertarian is heavily disadvantaged. Canada is realizing this as they deal with Trump in the trade war, but itâs also the reason why libertarians on the internet are so heavily discriminated against. I basically never report any posts no matter how offensive meanwhile they report every post I make. The use of hard negotiation tactics would mean I need to start using the same strategy they are using, but it frankly isnât worth my time because this place isnât that important. If the karens want to turn this place into their safe space, itâs their loss and most of all itâs blizzardâs loss because the karens will continue to harm the brand of SC2. I lose nothing here. These people just donât realize that.
The mere existence of my posts on the internet is enough to make these people have an aneurysm because I live rent free in the brains, but how do they consider a removal of a post to be a victory? I hope they realize I post all this to reddit and to a substack and other sites with over 100k followers in total. Itâs like, sweety, you accomplished nothing except proving the study correct. You think you are powerful enough to stop the march of science in uncovering the truth? There are youtube videos with millions of views covering these social studies. Do you think my post actually maters in the grand scheme of things? Itâs so laughable. Itâs pure unadulterated pettiness.
Before I get deleted from my digital existence Iâd like to take this opportunity to say despite their cultural/societal trends that our friend Adventurer pointed out, I love women!
I prefer women as friends over men. They are generally more pleasant and deeper conversationalists. They smell good. They are (usually) sweet. Hopefully can cook. I like making them happy.
Please consider this information prior to my execution⌠AHEM ⌠I mean tribunal.
In real life, discussing behavioral science with actual women, they say things like âOh my gosh, thatâs, like, exactly how I think. Science is amazing, isnât it! How do you think they figured all that outâ. On the internet, they have a melt down that science even exists and outright ban it.
This is a religious purity process because they enforce the rules arbitrarily and capriciously but in accordance with their own personal preferences.
In another thread, they have left up a chain of comments that are just outright sexual harassment. In yet another thread, they have left up comments from a dude theorizing ways to hack the arcade. In yet another thread, they left up a coordinated bullying campaign targeted from multiple users onto a single user. But, rest at ease citizen, your local moderator DID take down a post about behavioral science! Oohhh scary word! âScienceâ! Canât have that around these parts!
They donât define what an âinappropriateâ comment is and it clearly isnât enforced with any consistent definition, but they do hold the threat of using it to ban you like an axe over you neck. Youâre supposed to mind-read and magically know what âinappropriateâ means even though they refuse to provide a definition.
Clearly the only consistent definition of âinappropriateâ is âhappens to be seen and not liked by the moderator.â
With no clear definition for âinappropriateâ, the only thing you can do is take the ridiculously polar opposite stance to make sure you donât make the priest mad. This turns social interactions into these competitions to be the most pure, and that drives society mad with increasingly extreme rhetoric. This happened during the dark ages when priests had the power to burn witches alive. Well itâs the same fundamental mechanism. We are no different than our ancestors 1,000 years ago. Not one bit. The average human being is exactly the same and encountering the same problems.
We are apes in a new technological jungle trying to dodge the wrath of religious nuts who themselves canât even define what it is they want from you. The only thing the inquisitor knows is that (s)heâs angry, and that someone is to blame, so it might as well be you. You stood out amongst the crowd. Itâs all your fault. Congrats. Welcome to internet society where rules exist to justify the bizarre psychological needs of the elite and for no other purpose.
So itâs being reported that USAID paid a firm to sit on the internet and report any right wing content (âring wingâ being defined as âanything right of stalinâ). Itâs obvious the platform model doesnât work as intended because itâs too easy to weaponize the moderation system to cater content. Thereâs nothing to stop the platform itself from catering content through the moderation system. This in essence allows the platform to be run as a publisher without the legal liability of being a publisher, and while having unpaid employees generating the content. It could in theory also allow the propagation of illegal content because the employees of a company could anonymously post and promote illegal content while turning the knobs and dials behind the scenes to make sure they remain anonymous. The platform has immunity to liability to that content while simultaneously, in theory, providing a form of protection to the users generating the illegal content. An example of this might be how people are promoting the burning of teslas through social media. If it turns out that itâs employees of the social media sites promoting the anti tesla rhetoric, it would prove this theory true.
Now whether or not abuse of moderation was happening on these forums, through the means of USAID or otherwise, remains to be seen but Iâd argue thereâs a strong case that it mightâve happened. 4 years ago I was constantly harassed 24/7 for being a public DRUMPF supporter. Most people simply donât care about politics enough to bother harassing you over your political beliefs. It seemed like a concerted and coordinated effort. We also know that they obsess over video game culture and this is due to how video game culture is powerful in shaping culture more broadly. Specifically, the left wing spectrum has troubles enticing young men, and young men are playing video games, so they see video games and video game forums as a tool for reaching young men and promoting certain agendas that normally these men would not be exposed to. This backfired spectacularly with recent left wing biased games going bust.
Under this theory, there is a pretty robust explanation as to why the trolling on these forums was so absolute horrendous in years past, and also why the moderation was so horrendously biased. There were government propagandists going around the internet, to the major social media sites, and reporting anything right of stalin. If you showed a center-right opinion, they probably added you to a list and reported your content on sight. The algorithms are finely tuned to sell ads, so on ad-based systems the popularity of these ideas & the figures who promote them won-out over the moderation abuse. But, on systems that have no such algorithms, such as a video game forum, the moderation abuse would be a much more powerful strategy. I think they systematically reported everyone until there was nobody left to post on websites like this. They then lost interest because it was no longer influential enough to matter.
They lost the battle over youtube, twitter, and spotify and thatâs all that really mattered because all the video game culture moved to these platforms which were then right wing dominated. Now, 25% of young men aged 20 identify as liberal. Thatâs an absolute catastrophe if you support green energy, environmental care, healthcare, etc, because it means the modern democratic party is toast. A modern democrat with a modern democratic opinion will have a very hard time winning any election at the federal level.
This is a subset of a broader range of issues, including the invention of âthe pillâ which skewed future generations towards right wing beliefs since left wingers just werenât having kids. Itâs also a product of systematic discrimination against young men in the corporate and university arenas which heavily biased them against left principles. Why would you support an ideology that teaches you you are a terrible person just because youâre male. This was obviously a recipe for failure, and itâs an absolute catastrophe if you believe in science, vaccines, taking care of the environment, because the left wing nuts have done lasting and perhaps permanent damage to these causes through their bias against young men.
Itâs very interesting to have been in the middle of this cultural revolution because it played out inside video games and video game forums and video game blogs.
Like I was saying earlier with the study about how most women at a university level are more concerned with reducing harm than finding truth, this concerns me because it is going to cause a growing bias against academia and against science and against the literature in a similar fashion to how video game culture became biased against left wing beliefs since they were anti-male. Men value freedom to express themselves and donât want a nanny wagging her finger in your face because you did something she interprets as âwrongâ. So as the universities have an increasing emphasis on reducing harm, it will cause these conservative young men to distrust universities and science even more. It will follow the same path as video games culture did, and shape the world in a similar way to how video game culture affected the 2024 presidential election. This means a regression of science, and a plunge back into a âdark agesâ of sorts. All because of an anti male bias on the left side of the political spectrum. Catastrophe is not strong enough of a word to describe just how badly theyâve bungled this. The abuse of internet moderation to strong arm young men into adopting far left beliefs has done tremendous damage to the cultural, scientific, and political goals of the left.
MRNA vaccines have the potential to cure cancer and maybe even death itself. But is it practical to think this is going to happen with the growing bias against science and against vaccine-related science in particular. In the future, itâs a very real possibility that they just outlaw MRNA technology. I would consider it unlikely, but considering cultural and political trends Iâd say it has a 10 or 20% chance of happening. It depends on exactly how the data comes in. If there is a significant difference in outcomes between people who refused the covid vaccine and those who didnât, and if the difference disfavors the vaccine with more negative outcomes for those who took it, then we might end up in a world where superstitious ring wing men, who are 20 years old now but 40 years old then, vote for candidates who then ban MRNA tech.
You can think of cultural and political trends like how the meta evolves in SC2. It follows a Lotka-Volterra process. If you have two species competing for the same space, like wolves and rabbits, the two tend to oscillate. As rabbits reproduce, which you can think of inside SC2 as people copying good macro builds, there is more food available for the wolves which you can think of as good cheese builds. As the food supply increases, the population of wolves (cheesers) increases. The rabbits (macro builds) go down in number until the wolves (cheesers) start to starve. This process is cyclic. Thatâs the same fundamental process. Power favored men for a long time. Cultural (feminism) and scientific (the pill) revolutions changed that balance of power. It swung far left. The far left did lasting harm to young men, who swung far right. Now how long the culture stays far right is hard to say. The internet might make the period of oscillations much longer in duration because the internet content will last for a long time and well beyond the life spans of the people who make that content. You can think of the modern day youtube content as a new form of a bible. Itâs a bible that will bias humanityâs direction for the next several millennia. We can figure this all out because we understand the relationship between macro builds and cheese builds inside of Starcraft 2.
I guess that makes Asmongold a Moses of sorts, lmao.
TLDR
Internet moderation abuse proves asmongold is moses and DRUMPF is a deity.
It wouldnât be hard for a programmer to write a script that crawls the internet and flags any comments with particular keywords. For example, a guy harassing me once told me to commit seppuku. I responded with a joke, âWouldnât that be cultural appropriation?â. The comment on cultural appropriation was removed and I was given a 3 month ban. Meanwhile, the comment about seppuku was left up. That behavior seems a lot like a bot programmed to flag keywords. The software used by these forums is common on the internet, much like phpbb, and so crawling it and flagging comments would be an afternoon project for a software engineer working for USAID (or, frankly, anyone with a bone to pick, for that matter). Regardless, the moderation system is obviously a huge security oversight that is baked into the platform model and require to be there by law. The laws need to be reworked or any rando who writes a script can flag every discourse comment with any keyword he dislikes across the whole internet. Imagine having a nanny monitor everything you say with every person you speak to, and flagging it for moderator review if you mention certain keywords. This would obviously be a 1st amendment violation if done directly by USAID, but if money is given to a firm who then does it is that still a 1st amendment violation. Well the current legal theory is that the standard needs to be reworked so that if the government takes any action which can be interpreted to threaten or coerce or bribe a private entity into violating first amendment rights then the government is guilty of violating first amendment rights. That means a government employee couldnât so much as call a firm and even talk about the possibility of using a bot to flag comments because that could be reasonably interpreted as coercion to limit free speech. Now whether or not they try to push this new standard remains to be seen, but itâs crystal clear that the platform model has severe flaws that need to be fixed.
There are youtube videos with millions of views covering these social studies. Do you think my post actually maters in the grand scheme of things? Itâs so laughable. Itâs pure unadulterated pettiness.
United Arab Am I Rites?