Petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/internet-bill-rights-2

petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/internet-bill-rights-2

Hey Sup Forums, if you've ever been banned from a video game for talking shit, you might be in luck.

Remember back when online gaming was about sitting down, chilling out and letting off some steam with off the rails banter? Well, with an Internet Bill of Rights, corporations that provide internet communications services, such as video game companies, may be liable to penalties for censoring the speech of their users.

Additionally, I was shocked to find out that gamers have actually had their products they bought with their money entirely rescinded due to some heated but legal speech over the internet- how can such a thing transpire without being a massive breach of consumer rights?

An Internet Bill of Rights may see wronged gamers receive some form of compensation for wrongful censorship and a breach of sales contract, or even psychosocial damage as a result of losing contact with friends without recourse on a banned account after legal speech had taken place in a heated competitive match.

Check out this petition and let's #BringBackBantz.

Other urls found in this thread:

inquisitr.com/opinion/4307907/supreme-court-makes-social-media-is-a-constitutional-right-new-twitter-and-facebook-precedent/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

they're a private company they can do whatever you want you communist

gamer entitlement, ugh

It's surprising how many people believe this.

You don't have an argument, sweetie. Now buy more lootboxes.

Don't you have to agree to a ToS to play most online games, that say they reserve the right to ban your ass?

I don't give a shit that companies ban whatever users they want. I want matchmaking to fuck off and die. It started this whole mess to begin with.

>ToS means I can censor you and steal your money

imagine being this much of a corporate bootlicker

Yes, but if this bill of rights thing works, that ToS would likely become nullified

Fuck you I dont want to be bullied in videogames

learn to bully the bullies or just mute them you snowflake

>censor
Go to McDonald's and shout nigger at everyone and see if you don't get kicked out

Nah its better to see them get banned

online gaming is just like real life my fellow kids

lmao

Imagine being so fragile and limp wristed that you can't mute someone you don't want to listen to

On the one hand, if I join a tennis club and one day I barge onto the court, frothing at the mouth and screaming " NIIIIIGGERS" at the top of my lungs, it is reasonable for the tennis club to eject me from the club. However, in such a circumstance I would no longer pay the membership fee and, if the fee was monthly and this happened in the first half of the month, I would expect a refund of my last fee. The same would apply here, where they are within their rights to restrict me from using their service provided they refund me the price I paid for it. However, games are unique in that typically you pay an upfront fee to use the service in perpetuity. As such, you could use the service for free simply by deliberately getting banned when you were finished. So, I think the reasonable solution is for games to come with an estimated operational lifespan, the period of time that the company assumes the game will run, and for your refund to be proportional to the percentage of that lifespan remaining when you are banned. Misuse of this is already precluded by the fact that if a game is advertised with a dishonestly short lifespan it will suppress sales, so it isn't worth it for companies to bother doing that.

>it don't count cause internets lol

>video games aren't real life
>but the bill of rights should apply to me in video games
make up your mind

>hey that guy is saying words we dont like in real life and inflaming other customers
>better kick him out and give his money back in case of property damage after a fight
>hey that guy is saying words we dont like online
>no property damage can occur but we'll steal their money anyway with no recourse

muh tos

If I go to Disneyworld and whip my wiener out, I don't expect my entrance fee back when they throw me out.

They can as long as it is within the law
Sorry that you got banned for spamming “nigger” user

saying swears online is the same as public obscenity amirite?

hello?

If you cant play videogames without being mean to other people then you are the one who has a problem.

it doesnt help your case when you try to compare online games to a tennis court.

there is a mute button in online games.

>and give his money back
yea let me know when you get your admission money back for screaming nigger at kids in disneyworld

>dont be mean i have a right to not be offended

ive noticed it's only fat ugly middle aged women that say braindead shit like this

Owners have the right to enforce rules on their property

Why does Sup Forums get so angry at the fact that you have to act like a rational, well behaved human being while using a service online or you might risk being punished?

I just don’t get this.

I'm not saying that banning people for saying things online is a good thing to do, but it is within the rights of a company to decide who can and cannot use their services, provided that you are refunded your money when you are banned.

Because Sup Forums is bunch of children

>Why does Sup Forums get so angry at the fact that you have to act like a rational, well behaved human being
That's the problem

why do you think you can censor people when they're communicating with each other in a public setting? and even steal their money?

if people were refunded, do you think they'd still ban for speech?

>bill is created
>developers respond by removing all chat functions from games
You faggots sure are stupid. I'm generally against banning people for banter, but the kind you idiots engaged in and experienced 10+ years ago is nothing like some the shit being spewn today.

First, you paid for the service without anyone forcing you to do so.
Second, because it’s not a public setting, therefore the owner and provider gets to decide what goes and doesn’t go.
Third, if you can’t communicate without getting banned it means you’re acting like a dick, which bothers the other players.

You're not being censored when you get banned for being a faggot. Games aren't a public setting, they're owned by private companies who make you sign a contract, that you never fucking read, to use their service. Talk shit, get hit.

>if people were refunded, do you think they'd still ban for speech?
of course they would are you retarded? do you honestly think the only reason people get banned from online services is because the company gets to keep their money?

Seeing a sperg cry on forums about being banned is funnier than listening to some sperg being an annoying ass. No support from me.

Ive never been banned in a videogame, maybe because I dont act like a complete faggot

I think many of them probably would, yes, though they'd be more conservative about it. The man who screams racial slurs into an open mic constantly would probably still be banned. The man who types "gg ez, stay salty", probably not.

Should also add, instead of focusing on this hilariously retarded idea, why not take a more proactive approach and demand that all multiplayer games be supplied with tools for dedicated private servers. This way you can retreat to your hugboxes and preserve your "freedom" as well as protecting the legacy of the game by ensuring it doesn't disappear when the developer/publisher decides to pull the switch on servers.

they'd probably just expand muting functionality for snowflake players to auto block any negative sentiment

like they should have done all along

I paid to own the video game, fuck your "lol it's a service you don't own anything" retardation. The judges will rule against this and in favor of digital ownership laws.

It is a public setting if you join a public matchmaking queue and enter public game chat with other members of the public. It's like joining a public facebook group for the duration of a game.

>ur acting like a dick :(
grow the fuck up faggot

see above, grow a spine retard

yes, i'm pretty sure they make a good sum of cash from players rebuying games and skins. this is a sick practice.

neither have I. I strongly object to the practice out of principle though, especially seeing all the censorship bullshit that;s going on atm. I'd rather have kids screaming nigger than dead silence and rotted, sterile communities.

You paid to own the singleplayer videogame.
Multiplayer isn’t a product, it’s a service and like all services the provider moderates the users to watch for people that disrupts other users’ enjoyment.

>I paid to own the video game
Yes, the game, not the multiplayer server you entered, which is either owned by the company that made the game or the individual/group that runs the server.
>It is a public setting
No it isn't, if it isn't owned/administered by the government (the public) it isn't a public setting.

>Additionally, I was shocked to find out that gamers have actually had their products they bought with their money entirely rescinded due to some heated but legal speech over the internet- how can such a thing transpire without being a massive breach of consumer rights?

You some sort of idiot? People have been bitching about corporations being about recind products on digial platforms since day one of the concept's inception.

You paid for all the servers that you got banned from?

This is what happens when you hire women mostly for community manager roles. Safe space cunts that want everyone to get along and make everything stale.
And whats your idea of a good time probably some fag shit

>I don't know what 'public' means

you sure own those servers you're playing on moron

It's not a public setting. You must pay for entry. Thus, it is a private club which you pay to join, which grants you the privilege of speaking in that channel and playing that game. If you break the rules of the club, you can be removed from it, but in such a case it would be expected that your fees would be refunded and the club rules would be codified, exact, and communicated to you clearly and upfront. The issue is that in games, you do not receive a refund and the rules are often deliberately obfuscated.

The pinnacle of brainlettery right here holy shit

anything can disrupt a snowflake's enjoyment

inquisitr.com/opinion/4307907/supreme-court-makes-social-media-is-a-constitutional-right-new-twitter-and-facebook-precedent/

>While previously it would seem that Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, Instagram, and Snap Chat were the private property of their owners, now they have been declared “the modern public square” by the Supreme Court. A public square is by nature not private property. Thus, legally speaking, perhaps neither Facebook nor Twitter has the right to ban Americans from their services, though that may be up for the courts to decide as this new body of law is interpreted.

Zuckerburg has admitted that dictating how people communicate interact online makes them more like a government than a tech company. The same goes for games companies- they should be held by 1st amendment standards.

>I own le servers I own ur speech
it's not going to fly

Great thread OP holy shit

>All these people ITT don’t understand what a mute/blacklist/ignore button is and instead need to sap resources from game devs to stop people from saying bad things about them

You are the cancer killing video games

Screaming “NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER” isn’t free speech you retard.
I’d call you a brainlet but you don’t seem to have a fucking brain.

it's just 2 or 3 leftypol shills. they samefag a lot.

It is free speech you fucking nigger

You are FREE to ignore it just like I’m FREE to speak it.

Okay, then, I'm going to come to your house and call you a faggot, and you aren't allowed to ask me to leave because
>i own le house i own le speech

>Screaming “NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER” isn’t free speech

yes it is you filthy soy nigger

>trying to ignore SCOTUS ruling
enjoy my buckshot in your face comrade

No, it’s not. It’s acting like a little child.

DELETE THIS

>if i dont like it's not free speech
>ugh just GROW UP

>american law = internet law

Yes it is, nigger. Quit being such a piece of dildo sludge and accept that people can and will trash talk without consequence.

>Remember back when online gaming was about sitting down, chilling out and letting off some steam with off the rails banter?

I remember ban happy server admins, stop acting like Xbox live was the norm you fucking underage faggot. This is what you get for matching matchmaking the norm, it was inevitably going to be sanitized.

We wouldnt have this thread if that was true

Fuck off commie. Don't like it make a better game. I don't like this either but I also don't like lootboxes. If a company does something I don't like I boycott it. I don't call for daddy gubbament to regulate it like a libtard. Don't like lootboxes just don't buy them.

>if i like it it’s free speech
>ugh just GROW A SPINE
haha gotem

>accept that people can and will trash talk without consequence
Go try that on any multiplayer game

oh wow you're going to suppress my free speech by preventing me from screaming "UR A FAGET" in your front yard all day? What a fucking special snowflake, it's just words, who cares if it's your private property and you don't want me to do that there? It's free speech and if I want to say something I can say it wherever I want, including in your bathroom while you try to take a shit. This is the actual effect of your own argument. Why is your house that you own different from my club that I own? You want to say that you can't be removed from someone else's private property for what you say, so why can you remove me from yours? It's private fucking property. If I own it I get to decide what people can and can't say or do on it, and if you disagree then you're the one who's the fucking communist, you hypocrite.

you were probably playing shit games if you had banhappy admins

>"Don't like lootboxes just don't buy them."
>being this much of a brainlet

do they even teach civics in urban high schools any more

probably not

We’re having this thread because a bunch of thin skinned faggots can’t handle being called names

I have, and still do. Gonna do something about it?

What's to stop me from hosting my servers in other countries so I can ban any faggot I want?

>#BringBackBantz.
>Implying calling someone a nigger and a faggot is bantz
Kill yourselves teenage consolekiddies

No, thankfully I have never played a game with you. Someone will eventually

haha yeah it's so comparable my front yard to one of millions of servers owned by some megacorporation

the disruption aspect is totally the same lol 100%

so mad you cant argue. poor brainlet.

This, there is a big difference between bantz and being rude.

I only talk shit at people that deserve it so I’m sure we’ve crossed paths

>thin skinned faggots
Nobody who plays a decent amount of online games actually gets sad because you called them names. They just get annoyed and think you're a huge faggot, which you are

both are free speech and no corporation should be able to steal your money when you engage in what you consider to be either bantz or rude behavior over an online game

Did any of these petitions actually achieve anything ever? I feel like they're just a cheap tool so people think they have a voice when they actually don't.

>I get annoyed by words over the internet
youre admitting youre a thin-skinned snowflake

What a homo, don’t like it then ignore it.

Should companies not be allowed to ban you for cheating because they would be stealing from you? Both that and not talking like a cunt are outlined in the agreements you agree to when you join an online game

cheating is actually actively disrupting the player experience

>Thinking petitions ever actually do anything.

Fucking hilarious.

>don’t like it then ignore it.
>For online games that might focus on team communication to do well
Nah, kick the fagets out

defeatist shills

we're all getting sleepy, let's go to sleep and forget about corporations stealing money from gamers... zzz

>I never played anything other than console games

lmao underages are hilarious.

>WOOOW WHAT DO YOU MEAN I HAVE TO ACT LIKE A CIVILIZED HUMAN??? I NEVER KNEW THIS I DEMAND ALL MY MONEY BACK SCREAMING NIGGER SPIC FAG CHIMK SHOULD BE TOTALLY ALLOWED BECAUSE MUH RIGHTS TO FREE SPEECH AS AN AMERICAN OH SAY CAN YOU SEE *gets shot*

Kind of embarrassing tbqh

>Underage faggots and toxic players get banned
>I should be mad about this
Why?

>While previously it would seem that Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, Instagram, and Snap Chat were the private property of their owners, now they have been declared “the modern public square” by the Supreme Court. A public square is by nature not private property. Thus, legally speaking, perhaps neither Facebook nor Twitter has the right to ban Americans from their services, though that may be up for the courts to decide as this new body of law is interpreted.
And yet they still are banning people. Maybe if you read the details of the ruling instead of some dumbass journalists interpretations, you'd know that that case was only dealing with the fact that the government was the one preventing access, not the company. You can't be barred from entry for any reason, but once you're in, you still have to play by the rules.

>While the court’s decision may set certain parameters for governments looking to restrict people’s online access, it has no bearing on what companies like Facebook and Twitter can do. As private companies, they are already free to ban anyone who violates their terms of service, whether by posting sexually explicit content or engaging in terrorist activity.

The principle is exactly the same. You own something. Do you decide who uses it, or does the government? If the government does, in what way do you actually own it? You want to be able to decide who uses what you own, but you want the government to decide who uses what other people own. You think this not because of any logical or moral argument but because you don't want people to be able to stop you from shitting up their things and being a cunt on their property, but you still want to be able to stop them from fucking up your stuff. You're a manchild(or possibly just a child), selfish, and a hypocrite, not to mention stupid enough to call someone a communist for saying "you control your own property".

>Ignore button exists for a reason
>Nah lets just ruin the other guy’s fun even if he’s helping us
You’re a special kind of entitled

With literally any online game you agreed to not be an asshole. Agreeing to that made them legally able to ban you from their privately owned servers.

In otherwords get rekt faggot

>Sup Forums
>Having to act like a rational human being

You do get it. You just said why.
It's Sup Forums. 98% of these autistic faggots have no real interaction with people outside this site, so once they're online, they think ti's hilarious to spout the latest meme.

>his fun is insulting people
I’m all in for ruining his fun.
Getting people banned is my fun. Stop ruining my fun.

You ruin other peoples fun, so its fair.

You should be mad because the emotionally unstable teenagers with zero creativity in their bantz still think calling someone a nigger isn't played out as fuck

>even if he’s helping us
>The person yelling and calling people niggerfaggots
Yeah sure

>have a party and invite my friends over
>user gets drunk and starts calling people niggers
>kick him out
>stands in my lawn crying about free speech

The ruling is not the focus of that post. It's the judge's comments that will be useful in future cases.

you're gonna be mad when this bill passes and you have to listen to white men telling you to man up when you cry after they call you a faggot

>get banned from hogwarts RP servers for mic spam
>get compensated for it
Sounds good to me.