[QUOTE=bitches;49548389]wii60 confirmed for continually misinformed victim of scare mongering and "sjw" propaganda[/QUOTE]
Bitches confirmed missing the point.
[QUOTE=Wii60;49548785]
devs sad they [B]had[/B] to take the game down[/QUOTE]
There's that word again.
On the same twitter account they said they took it down because of concerns about privacy.
[QUOTE=J!NX;49535619][t]https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/648894596714336256/kg3I0tGz.png[/t]
Excellent slogan to have really[/QUOTE]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4-ChcL6Pzo[/media]
If she thinks this data mining is bad then
lmao
holy shit
she has no idea how bad it is on less visible applications
I've never seen a thread with this much misinformation, Jesus. Everyone is just guessing and not actually reading anything
[QUOTE=Swilly;49549040]Bitches confirmed missing the point.[/QUOTE]
That the developers took it down voluntarily, that a Congresswoman sending a letter doesn't constitute strongarming, and the people talking about lawsuits and the letter being illegal have zero knowledge of the law?
Mike Shinoda of Linkin Park mourns the loss of Stolen:
[media]http://twitter.com/mikeshinoda/status/688076492882849792[/media]
[QUOTE=Fangz;49551800]Mike Shinoda of Linkin Park mourns the loss of Stolen:
[media]http://twitter.com/mikeshinoda/status/688076492882849792[/media][/QUOTE]
He's got a point, the app tried hard and got so far.
Too bad that, in the end, it doesn't even matter.
I don't really like how this app has to be opted-out of to avoid having your profile used. Even if it's a public profile it's invasive that you could take anyone's twitter profile and trade them for money, although it's not real money it just seems morally wrong. I'm fine with people [U]giving[/U] consent to be traded, but having to first hear about the game, then log your twitter profile into their site (which does make sense but again you don't know if they can use that info in an invasive manner, at least the average joe doesn't) to get your profile removed is dumb. We complain about the same things with stuff like Whitepages or telemarketers having our info publicly available or traded/sold but if it's a game it's somehow okay.
Regardless of this congresswoman's past and present motives I see this app as being an uncomfortable privacy issue. The devs of course did not have to take the app down but I'm glad they did voluntarily and will probably put it back up with an opt-in method.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49547850]She's a congresswoman so she is strong arming.[/QUOTE]
No, she was exercising her freedom of speech. Something I frequently see you defending - as long as it's the "right" speech. You know, speech that you agree with.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;49554070]No, she was exercising her freedom of speech. Something I frequently see you defending - as long as it's the "right" speech. You know, speech that you agree with.[/QUOTE]
So we should respect her free speech of using her influence to silence others freedom of expression?
[QUOTE=mooman1080;49554244]So we should respect her free speech of using her influence to silence others freedom of expression?[/QUOTE]
She didn't use any influence though...she sent a letter explaining her concerns about the game and the developers took the game down. There were no threats of legal action (unless someone is fucking with the letters to remove that, but we'd have found that by now). The only thing of note was she used congressional letterheads. Which she likely will do for any formal letter she sends out. Like [I]anybody[/I] with such a letterhead does.
Her position as a congresswoman means jack shit as she wasn't actually threatening the developers. If you want someone to blame, blame the developers for not "fighting the sjws" or whatever the fuck point you lot are trying to make.
[editline]18th January 2016[/editline]
Like, if my CEO at work (who I've spoken to several times, mostly drunk, cool guy) came down to IT and pointed out "hey you really need to fix that thing a bit, it's not super crucial but I think it's a bit shit", I could totally respond with "okay, taken that into consideration. i'll possibly do something to work on that, but it's not critical so i can't do it now". No follow ups, nothing. As long as you show you've taken somebodies criticism into account and explain why you are/n't acting on it, they usually go away.
Unless they've already threatened you with ~~~censorship~~~.
[QUOTE=mooman1080;49554244]So we should respect her free speech of using her influence to silence others freedom of expression?[/QUOTE]
while i'm sure congress does have plenty of influence, writing a mild letter is not a conscious attempt to exert it nor would that be the most effective way to do so. if she wanted it shut down that badly you would both know about it and not see it anywhere in the news, least of all as a full scan of the letter on her twitter account.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;49554329][B]She didn't use any influence though[/B]...she sent a letter explaining her concerns about the game and the developers took the game down. [/QUOTE]
Do you honestly think that writing out a letter on official government stationary and her position had no influence on their decision at all?
Do you really believe that if a garbageman had written and sent that letter that they would have cared?
[QUOTE=Antdawg;49554512]Good thing members of Congress don't have any government authority at all. It's not 'government stationery', it's a letterhead used by members of Congress. Congress isn't government, separation of powers, distinct legal entities etc, unless every member of Congress became a member of the President's cabinet and no one told me.
What could she possibly threaten the developers with? She's a single member of congress. She's not a cabinet member or the President.[/QUOTE]
Again, do you think they would have cared if it was anyone else, just a garbageman or a teacher?
[QUOTE=Thlis;49554461]Do you honestly think that writing out a letter on official government stationary and her position had no influence on their decision at all?
Do you really believe that if a garbageman had written and sent that letter that they would have cared?[/QUOTE]
Good thing members of Congress don't have any government authority at all. It's not 'government stationery', it's a letterhead used by members of Congress. Congress isn't government, separation of powers, distinct legal entities etc, unless every member of Congress became a member of the President's cabinet and no one told me.
What could she possibly threaten the developers with? She's a single member of congress. She's not a cabinet member or the President.
[QUOTE=Thlis;49554461]Do you honestly think that writing out a letter on official government stationary and her position had no influence on their decision at all?
Do you really believe that if a garbageman had written and sent that letter that they would have cared?[/QUOTE]
Yeah. I can safely say she didn't force them to take it down. If they genuinely thought she would have the capacity to do that, despite not threatening to do that. It's entirely on the developers for not understanding how their government bodies actually work. She can't just call for a ban of that game.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;49554528]Yeah. I can safely say she didn't force them to take it down. If they genuinely thought she would have the capacity to do that, despite not threatening to do that. It's entirely on the developers for not understanding how their government bodies actually work. She can't just call for a ban of that game.[/QUOTE]
She doesn't need to.
McCarthy didn't actually have the power to fucking blacklist and ban people and he still got them fucking blacklisted.
[B]Stop saying only government can fucking censor.[/B]
[QUOTE=Thlis;49554461]Do you honestly think that writing out a letter on official government stationary and her position had no influence on their decision at all?
Do you really believe that if a garbageman had written and sent that letter that they would have cared?
Again, do you think they would have cared if it was anyone else, just a garbageman or a teacher?[/QUOTE]
Why is all this attention being paid to the paper it was written on. She didn't requisition secret Congress paper to make this more official, she wrote a letter using her office stationary.
Are congressmen not allowed to send letters to anyone ever again because it's scary and against free speech?
[editline]18th January 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Swilly;49554659]She doesn't need to.
McCarthy didn't actually have the power to fucking blacklist and ban people and he still got them fucking blacklisted.
[B]Stop saying only government can fucking censor.[/B][/QUOTE]
Are we really comparing this to the Red Scare.
I find it HILARIOUSLY hypocritical that the SAME PEOPLE playing down the fact that she used an official letterhead, meaning she WAS in fact operating in an official manner when she sent the letter, will be the very same people to boycott a company or get bent out of shape based on something it's CEO did in their own private time as a private citizen.
But remember folks, the politics behind what's happening means so much more than anything else.
[QUOTE=plunger435;49554673]
Are we really comparing this to the Red Scare.[/QUOTE]
Are you really going that far? The comparison was toward the fact what McCarthy did was officially done but not sanctioned, [I]at all[/I], just like using her official power, seal and header, sent this letter out.
I bet you my entire life savings that if the developers, or Appstore had not complied, there wouldn't been a media shit storm because the media loves blowing this up [B]and[/B] shes a fucking congresswoman.
Freespeech is free speech, she has every right to criticize something, but when you send an official letter, to fucking congress, as a congresswoman, they have to read it out loud.
She abused her power. End of.
[QUOTE=Swilly;49554894]Are you really going that far? The comparison was toward the fact what McCarthy did was officially done but not sanctioned, [I]at all[/I], just like using her official power, seal and header, sent this letter out.
I bet you my entire life savings that if the developers, or Appstore had not complied, there wouldn't been a media shit storm because the media loves blowing this up [B]and[/B] shes a fucking congresswoman.
Freespeech is free speech, she has every right to criticize something, but when you send an official letter, to fucking congress, as a congresswoman, they have to read it out loud.
She abused her power. End of.[/QUOTE]
What power did she abuse? She's a member of congress, not a member of government. She has no power. The most power people like her have is participating in House committees and voting on bills.
[QUOTE=Solo Wing;49546626]I'm just sick of puritans whining and screaming trying to change or "tone down" works that are not their own.
The cherry on top being that they do this from a country that's big on freedom of expression.
I find it fucked up that we can murder "people" literally in the millions in these games and nobody bats an eye. Oh wait, there's a dick? And a woman is showing skin? STOP IT! SHUT EVERYTHING DOWN!
The mentality is fucking retarded.[/QUOTE]
The fun part about freedom of speech is that those very same puritans you hate so much, have the same right to criticize, to use political influence and garner support as you or those devs.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;49554926]What power did she abuse? She's a member of congress, not a member of government. She has no power. The most power people like her have is participating in House committees and voting on bills.[/QUOTE]
Ok hold up, she is a member of congress. Which makes her a member of the Legislative Branch of the US Government.
[url]https://www.usa.gov/branches-of-government[/url]
I seriously don't understand why you are trying to argue that she is not a member of government. That makes absolutely no sense.
[QUOTE=mooman1080;49554244]So we should respect her free speech of using her influence to silence others freedom of expression?[/QUOTE]
Look, she almost certainly had some influence on the decision to shut down the game, but by no fucking means did she singlehandedly shut down the game. The devs did it themselves. They had all right to take the congresswoman's letter and shove it in the bin not shutting down the game, but they didn't. This isn't government censorship, this is self-censorship that has been influenced by one individual in a government.
[editline]18th January 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;49554848]I find it HILARIOUSLY hypocritical that the SAME PEOPLE playing down the fact that she used an official letterhead, meaning she WAS in fact operating in an official manner when she sent the letter, will be the very same people to boycott a company or get bent out of shape based on something it's CEO did in their own private time as a private citizen.
But remember folks, the politics behind what's happening means so much more than anything else.[/QUOTE]
You do realize this is literally what congressmen and women do outside of voting in congress right? Congressmen get very little actual power, their power comes from a majority of them voting together, so they exert what very fucking little influence they have to try to get what their constituents want such as writing letters. Now whether or not this is actually what this congresswoman constituents want is a whole different question, but I think it's safe to assume so since it seems like this woman was elected on a platform of such actions.
And seriously, I doubt anyone here who is against the idiotic suggestion that this is government censorship would actually bitching if some CEO sent in a letter to the guys asking the same thing and the devs shut the game down. If the CEO actually used his own power such as his company or his wealth to shut the game down, yeah I'd be pretty fucking pissed, but that's not what happened here at all.
But whatever, it's so much easier to make your opponents look silly by using a ridiculous hyperbole that is nowhere even close to reality.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;49554926]What power did she abuse? She's a member of congress, not a member of government. She has no power. The most power people like her have is participating in House committees and voting on bills.[/QUOTE]
The president is not the only government member.
[QUOTE=Hinterlight;49555692]Ok hold up, she is a member of congress. Which makes her a member of the Legislative Branch of the US Government.
[url]https://www.usa.gov/branches-of-government[/url]
I seriously don't understand why you are trying to argue that she is not a member of government. That makes absolutely no sense.[/QUOTE]
Fine, semantics. Yes, she's a member of the legislative branch. But she's not a member of the executive branch, which means that she has no power in this case. Literally the most she can do is vote on bills in congress and participate in House committees. Senators have more powers, such as confirming appointments of cabinet members and justices. But #1 she's not a Senator and #2 Senators have no authority in cases like this either.
[editline]18th January 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Gray Altoid;49556005]The president is not the only government member.[/QUOTE]
Yea obviously. But the only people who would have reasonable authority in cases like this are the President, their cabinet, and the Supreme Court maybe (if the former two step over their bounds).
[editline]18th January 2016[/editline]
Why the fuck are people here seriously pretending that a member of Congress' House is this government authoritarian wielding massive powers? It is boggling my mind. She didn't even coerce the developers of this thing to take it down, she literally just wrote a letter of concern. Facepunch trying to create controversy from nothing, yet again. Strangely this always seems to happen when it's a woman involved in the controversy.
Why are you misinterpreting "A government official has more social clout" as "THE GUBBERMINT IS ORDERING MY GAMES AWAY"
"Strangely this always seems to happen when it's a woman involved in the controversy." Yeah okay
[QUOTE=Gray Altoid;49556054]Why are you misinterpreting "A government official has more social clout" as "THE GUBBERMINT IS ORDERING MY GAMES AWAY"[/QUOTE]
Ah yes I'm petrified of someone holding the title of Member from the 5th District of Massachusetts. Someone with less clout than a YouTube LPer.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;49554926]She's a member of congress, not a member of government.[/QUOTE]
The US Government is made up of three branches. The Executive branch is made up of the President and his cabinet among others. The Judicial branch is made up of the Supreme Court and the Federal Judicial Center, including the judges within. The Legislative branch is made up of the House of Representatives and the Senate - This is known as Congress.
(so yeah shes a governemnt official you are actually factually and demonstrably incorrect. guess Malcolm Turnbull isnt a member of government, just the prime minister. that makes just as much fucking sense as what you said.)
[editline]18th January 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Antdawg;49556066]Ah yes I'm petrified of someone holding the title of Member from the 5th District of Massachusetts. Someone with less clout than a YouTube LPer.[/QUOTE]
you heard it here first congressmen & women hold no power
all that nonsense about obama not being able to pass shit that was just made up conspiracy bullshit the people who voted against him actually hold no power
[editline]18th January 2016[/editline]
not here to say that what she did was wrong; she did absolutely nothing wrong, it was completely voluntary, its a total nonissue and no rights were violated
but holy shit you know absolutely nothing about american government
like i dont know shit about your government but im not gonna make up unsubstantiated bullshit for no reason
[QUOTE=Antdawg;49556066]Ah yes I'm petrified of someone holding the title of Member from the 5th District of Massachusetts. Someone with less clout than a YouTube LPer.[/QUOTE]
I'm not saying they were forced, coerced, threatened, or anything other than convinced with rational arguments. What I am saying is that maybe, just [I]maybe[/I], the fact that she is a person working in the government and has over 7000 followers and is verified on Twitter may have gotten her foot in the door, so to speak.
Or, in other words:
[QUOTE=Thlis;49554461]Do you honestly think that writing out a letter on official government stationary and her position had no influence on their decision at all?
Do you really believe that if a garbageman had written and sent that letter that they would have cared?
Again, do you think they would have cared if it was anyone else, just a garbageman or a teacher?[/QUOTE]
You seem really hung up on the argument that people are saying she forced them in some manner, which not everyone is saying (including the quoted post, which you continued to misrepresent as "threaten"), and that is clearly not the case.
[editline]18th January 2016[/editline]
And I'm still baffled by that really cool "Strangely this always seems to happen when it's a woman involved in the controversy." Yeah, fuck that bitch, get her back in the kitchen.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
