MSNBC harassment online games report

[Abricot-grizzly-hills]

I don’t get what MSNBC has to do with this.

Also, asking young people if they felt able to “fully express themselves” in online games is a bit misleading, since my personal experience with young people in online games tells me that they should absolutely not be able to fully express themselves in online games. And don’t get me start on the adults.

If people behaved in person the way they do in video games, we’d be living in a Mad Max movie.

[Lazurogg-wyrmrest-accord]

In no world is wow higher on the list than gta v. they will hack the entire server just because someone stole their car.

[Primalmatter-stormrage (Primalmatter)]

Because I don’t want people that easily mislead and trolled to have any kind of power social or otherwise.

[Myzrym-area-52]

This is flagged?

Like I’ve said before. People hate it when you hold up a mirror for them.

[Aerra-stormscale]

One person’s harassment is another’s mild disagreement.

[Tiresias-moon-guard (Tiresias)]

@Mortnoctis-lightninghoof

Wow isn’t toxic compared to 19 years ago and we just had thicker skin.

It is not about having a thicker skin but just having less tolerance for letting things slide. I know my tolerance is not as high as it used to be so while I am still not upset or offended by things, I will more readily address them.

[Mythosaur-frostwolf]

are these the same 10-17 kids saying the hard n word? in cod.

[Mythosaur-frostwolf]

thats why i play in an invite only server

[Clougus-moon-guard]

@Soulebreaker-hyjal

It’s hard to imagine that many 10-16 year olds even play this game.

I’ve been playing since I was 8 years old when Cata was retail, and I was 16 at the very, very start of Shadowlands.
: p

[Tiffany-ravencrest]

@Aerogaxd-stormrage

that same question goes right back to you, why do you care if somebody uses a hand gesture to say okay?

I don’t, but then I don’t make the rules. I just play the game.

Remember, WoW is the private property of Activision Blizzard.
We are here at their invitation and we follow their rules.

@Primalmatter-stormrage

Because I don’t want people that easily mislead and trolled to have any kind of power social or otherwise.

We live in a democracy. We all have the same power. Unless we are on someone’s private property as we are here.

[Torvald-area-52]

@Orelias-moon-guard

For Children, the values measured were as follows (Age breakdowns were between ages 10-17, with 10-12 tested in its own group):

Any harrassment
Disrupted play (such as trolling or griefing)
called offensive names
Say negatives based on avatars skin, username, or in-game poessessions
Annoyed or bullied over multiple sessions
Personally embarrased by another player
Excluded from joining a game or chat because of identity

Adults had expanded topics for them:
Harassed at all
Called offensive names
Severely harassed
Targeted by trolling/griefing
Discriminated against
Personally embarrassed
Sustained harassment
Physically threatened
Stalked
Sexually Harassed
Doxed
Swatted

So they basically made the definition of “harassment” so broad that it’s pointless. This equates to “I had a negative experience once with another player.” Someone linked a DPS chart and I was on the bottom, embarrassing me? Qualifies based on this criteria. I kept dying in a raid and got removed from the group because I didn’t know the fight? Very embarrassing. Qualifies on this list.

I mean, “annoyed or bullied over multiple sessions” was a criteria. Why is being “annoyed” allowed on the list? What an insanely broad term. Friend that kind of sucks at the game keeps asking you for carries? How annoying. Boom, qualifies on this list.

In fact, this list honestly makes WoW’s statistic look good.

If 64% have had one of these experiences, that means 36% have never had a negative experience with another player.

I mean, that’s kind of impressive. That’s a higher ratio of never having had a negative experience at all in dealing with other people than we probably get in real life.

[Soulebreaker-hyjal]

But enough for it to reach over 60% is the questionable part. I’m sure there are kids here and there but they are saying that over 60% are bullied in this game.

[Gráinne-stormrage]

@Abricot-grizzly-hills

I don’t get what MSNBC has to do with this.

A great muchness of the modern news cycle consists of:

1. An organizational source (choose from “charity”, “government”, “scientific”, “educational”, “human rights”, “political”, “public information”, “other NGO”)
2. whose continued success (choose from “donations”, “votes”, “membership”, “following”)
3. is based on creating a fear of (choose from “Bad Things That Happen”, “Bad Things That Mght Happen”)
4. writing or commissioning a (choose from “study”,“peer-reviewed paper”, “press release”, “report”, “statement”)
5. which is picked up by (choose from “journalists”, “churnalists”) who, in the age of the Internet, have no limits on how many dubious and unresearched stories they can post.

The more content MSNBC, or any other news source puts out, the more clicks they get. Each click brings them some cents, or fraction of a cent.

Writing up a story from a report that you don’t investigate takes very little time. ChatGPT can do it now. It’s quick and cheap in times when real journalists are too expensive and being laid off. (See also “Churnalism”.)

And we, the reading public, never push back[*] on any of it - but we still do the clicks.

So, the answer is: Ker-ching.

 

[*] True story: a pretty respected news site published a clear falsehood, and had a report option, so I reported it. This wasn’t a case of political bias, or possible factual errror. The story I reported linked to another story on the same site, claiming that that second story established X. Now, the proposition X was clearly untrue or at the very least vastly exaggerated, which is what caught my eye. But that second story did not assert X at all, and in fact contradicted it.

That is:

• Story 1 asserted that Story 2 established X
• Story 2 asserted not-X

I reported Story 1, explaining the contradiction.

What happened? Nothing. No change, no update.

I suppose I could rant on Twitter about it, if I wanted to subject myself to that. But nothing about it is important enough to bother. And so it goes.

Ker-ching,

[Orelias-moon-guard]

@Torvald-area-52

If 64% have had one of these experiences, that means 36% have never had a negative experience with another player.

I mean, that’s kind of impressive. That’s a higher ratio of never having had a negative experience at all in dealing with other people than we probably get in real life.

Funny enough, I dug a bit deeper when looking into this. This same group published an article in 2021 over a similar topic, but when you get to the sections where they talk about positive interactions, weeeeeeeeeeell… Take a look yourself.

adl org/resources/report/hate-no-game-harassment-and-positive-social-experiences-online-games-2021

“How frequently did you have a positive experience with WoW?”

100%.

Really? You played WoW in 2021, a pretty hellish year all around, in SHADOWLANDS, and your social experience for all of your sample pool was 100% positive?

[Padgarre-lightbringer (Padgarre)]

Sounds about right, and LoL is prob right up there next to DOTA 2

You develop a thicker skin playing these social online games. Eventually though you might get tired of it and just stop playing as much due to how obnoxious people can be.