Ubisoft will now report you to police in the UK for so called speech violation

So what I'm hearing is that I will continue as usual and never use in-game chat....cool!

Thanks for the heads up on this, I don't really feel like having my sound bytes taking me on a long trip that starts in a lorry.
 
It all comes down to exactly whom is going to make the choices on what they report or not.

Someone in such a position could very well be the type to simply follow common sense, and report only grave, actual threats to the authorities in such a case, and could very well follow through on the "good intentions" of this policy. If everyone in such a position could remain true to the intent, then it could be a very good thing.

On the other hand, someone in the same position could decide to weaponize it, and use it to further some whackjob agenda, and take what you say way out of context in order to get you in trouble.

For example, if someone using the in-game chat said "Wow, that looks so gay, that I'm going to make sure that I kill you first" referring to someone wearing some stupid outfit in-game during a player versus player combat, any such "moderator" could easily forward the "I'm going to kill you first" to the police, and brazenly claim that someone is about to kill someone else due to his beliefs on LGBT(insert as many letters for the alphabet soup here).

In the end, I simply cannot trust some lowly paid "moderator" in a software company to make such decisions in the right, much like how I don't trust lowly paid social media moderators to enforce policies fairly, and so forth.
 
So just a note for everyone who isn’t reading the article because reading past the headline isn’t “cool” anymore:

Firstly, it sees specialist officers share their knowledge and expertise on harmful online interactions with the 200-strong team working at the centre in Newcastle, who then apply that training to their daily work.
Secondly, an agreement is in place so that in extreme cases, where there is a threat to life or potential serious harm spotted, staff can fast track the information to police.

They will then decide whether or not to act.
Click to expand...

And:

Less than 0.01% of cases that the centre deals with end up requiring police intervention.
That works out as roughly a handful of cases a month. Most of the time, accounts will be temporarily banned or permanently closed if players have breached a code of conduct.
Click to expand...

So no, the cops aren’t showing up to your home because you called someone a poo-poo face while playing an online game, they’re looking for cases where people are being actually threatening which, by the way, is the same thing that happens “IRL”. If you walk around outside screaming at random people that you’re going to kill them, don’t be surprised if a cop shows up, because that isn’t covered by freedom of speech.

In any case, you can avoid any problems by simply not being an asshole to other people while playing an online video game. That really shouldn’t be a big ask.
 
M76 said:
That's just the "if you don't have anything to hide..." argument repackaged.
Click to expand...

Yeah, so before you question my commitment to free speech, my dad’s family was forced to abandon their property and escape Soviet-occupied territory because my grandfather was on the KGB’s hit list. I had commitment to free speech hammered into me from a young age. There are zero rational people on the planet, including the founding fathers of the United States, that would consider uttering threats of murder, rape, or causing bodily harm to fall under “protected free speech”. The article is indicating that this is what they’re targeting per the quotes I referenced. That’s consistent with normal societal law. You don’t get an exemption from that simply because you’re being an idiot while playing a video game online, especially if there is credible reason to believe those threats may be acted on.
 
HockeyJon said:
Yeah, so before you question my commitment to free speech, my dad’s family was forced to abandon their property and escape Soviet-occupied territory because my grandfather was on the KGB’s hit list. I had commitment to free speech hammered into me from a young age. There are zero rational people on the planet, including the founding fathers of the United States, that would consider uttering threats of murder, rape, or causing bodily harm to fall under “protected free speech”. The article is indicating that this is what they’re targeting per the quotes I referenced. That’s consistent with normal societal law.
Click to expand...
Apparently, naivety wasn't hammered out.
 
HockeyJon said:
Yeah, so before you question my commitment to free speech, my dad’s family was forced to abandon their property and escape Soviet-occupied territory because my grandfather was on the KGB’s hit list. I had commitment to free speech hammered into me from a young age. There are zero rational people on the planet, including the founding fathers of the United States, that would consider uttering threats of murder, rape, or causing bodily harm to fall under “protected free speech”. The article is indicating that this is what they’re targeting per the quotes I referenced. That’s consistent with normal societal law. You don’t get an exemption from that simply because you’re being an idiot while playing a video game online, especially if there is credible reason to believe those threats may be acted on.
Click to expand...
Kids have been sore losers threatening to harm each other since the dawn of time. It was the same in my time. But none of those threats were credible, nobody wanted to actually have intercourse with the other kids mother or actually murder them over a game. The only difference is that we did it playing in the garden with no big brother to see. Now they do it online where it is easy to install surveillance and reporting tools.

This is an utter waste of police resources and could only serve to harass people. Who decides that which online smacktalk is a legitimate threat and which isn't? The only one who should be allowed to report a threat is the person receiving it. I mean for crying out loud most videogames are about killing the other players. So when someone says "I'll kill you", it literally only means in the context of the game.

The people who cane up with this should be sent to psych eval.
 
t1337duder said:
Are you admitting that you haven't noticed the pattern of which precedence is constantly being moved?

Maybe you're too young to remember, but even in America words that were common-place and not considered too offensive are now banned and you could have your career permanently damaged if you're caught using them.

It's not like the most powerful groups out there aren't proudly calling this "progress". Every element of the culture war is out in the open.

For every person claiming that things aren't radically changing in Western society, there is also someone who not only acknowledges the changes but are proud of it.
Click to expand...
That's because life constantly moves. Back "in-the-day," there was no internet. Anyone who actively targets and threatens someone while playing a game online should absolutely have a chat with enforcement. And, that's what, from the article, is what I'm reading. It's got to be credible, extreme, and possibly could be carried out. Bunch of sky is falling around here.
 
I guess it comes to what is the value or cost of crime prevention? There really is no way to prevent a crime without taking something away. Which crimes should or shouldnt be prevented? a six year old shot a teacher so at what age do we consider a viable age for credible threat? Is there an upper limit? Shotgun duct-taped to a walker walking up on noobmaster69's house? I do feel like there is no easy answer for this kinda stuff.

probably just have ai analyze the messages and dispatch police as needed! /s

That said i do remember playing rainbow six vegas and having some 9 year old scream at me that he was going screw my mom someplace uncomfortable, he used smaller words of course haha. But yea not a credible threat, at least i hope not.

If my kids said that and i didnt catch them i would hope they would just get kicked from the game for some time or whatever.
 
Last edited:
Darunion said:
I guess it comes to what is the value or cost of crime prevention? There really is no way to prevent a crime without taking something away. Which crimes should or shouldnt be prevented? a six year old shot a teacher so at what age do we consider a viable age for credible threat? Is there an upper limit? Shotgun duct-taped to a walker walking up on noobmaster69's house? I do feel like there is no easy answer for this kinda stuff.
Click to expand...
Do you honestly think that you can prevent that by sending the yard to people's homes based videogame chatlogs? If we were prosecuted for everything that we said about our teachers behind their backs I'd probably be spending a life sentence in prison.
 
M76 said:
Do you honestly think that you can prevent that by sending the yard to people's homes based videogame chatlogs? If we were prosecuted for everything that we said about our teachers behind their backs I'd probably be spending a life sentence in prison.
Click to expand...
Honestly, i think the fear of it has a stronger force than the action of it. Like any laws, it helps hold people that teeter on the edge on one side, the determined wont be stopped of course and likely wouldnt even verbally threated first anyways. This might even just be more of a PR game they are playing to bring some level however small of awareness.

I would be curious of this in a year or two to see data about it, not like we will see unaltered data, but it would be interesting to see.

And for sure i agree with ya on the things we said. Hell when i was in highschool in the 90s a buddy and myself made our school into a duke nukem level, shit like that is expulsion and police involvement nowadays.
 
M76 said:
Kids have been sore losers threatening to harm each other since the dawn of time. It was the same in my time. But none of those threats were credible, nobody wanted to actually have intercourse with the other kids mother or actually murder them over a game. The only difference is that we did it playing in the garden with no big brother to see. Now they do it online where it is easy to install surveillance and reporting tools.

This is an utter waste of police resources and could only serve to harass people. Who decides that which online smacktalk is a legitimate threat and which isn't? The only one who should be allowed to report a threat is the person receiving it. I mean for crying out loud most videogames are about killing the other players. So when someone says "I'll kill you", it literally only means in the context of the game.

The people who cane up with this should be sent to psych eval.
Click to expand...

I remember a time when I didn't bother reading past the headline and then asked a bunch of questions that were already answered in the posted article...
 
Shotglass01 said:
That's because life constantly moves. Back "in-the-day," there was no internet. Anyone who actively targets and threatens someone while playing a game online should absolutely have a chat with enforcement. And, that's what, from the article, is what I'm reading. It's got to be credible, extreme, and possibly could be carried out. Bunch of sky is falling around here.
Click to expand...

Excuse me sir, but reading past the headline is not allowed. I'm trying to rage over here!
 
HockeyJon said:
Fortunately for you, tin foil remains fashionable.
Click to expand...
1676044662761584.jpg
 
Meeho said:
View attachment 547980
Click to expand...

One more time, from the posted article:

an agreement is in place so that in extreme cases, where there is a threat to life or potential serious harm spotted, staff can fast track the information to police.
Click to expand...

And:

Less than 0.01% of cases that the centre deals with end up requiring police intervention.
Click to expand...

This is targeting cases where they have judged there is a genuine risk of harm, no different than would happen if someone were to do this on the street. Being on the internet doesn’t give you immunity from the law. You can debate the extent of this, but you’re creating scenarios that they haven’t explicitly said will be a target of police enforcement, and based on this, have suggested the opposite.
 
Shotglass01 said:
That's because life constantly moves. Back "in-the-day," there was no internet. Anyone who actively targets and threatens someone while playing a game online should absolutely have a chat with enforcement. And, that's what, from the article, is what I'm reading. It's got to be credible, extreme, and possibly could be carried out. Bunch of sky is falling around here.
Click to expand...
Exactly there was no internet, the threats well still there. Were you never a kid, or were you home schooled with no friends? I don't understand how can anyone think that this is a new thing since online gaming started. Involving the police is preposterous.

HockeyJon said:
I remember a time when I didn't bother reading past the headline and then asked a bunch of questions that were already answered in the posted article...
Click to expand...
Be specific, grandstanding doesn't do you any good. I didn't read anything in the article that would change my view on this practice. It worries me, that social justice types with literally zero parenting or criminal psychology skills get to decide at ubisoft who gets reported to the police.

The whole idea seems to be to prevent kids from being kids, similar to the war on "toxic masculinity". You can not change human nature, and trying will only cause unforeseen consequences. It is entirely possible that preventing kifs from raging online can lead to them actually going over to the other kid's house and doing something worse, or simply swatting them.
 
M76 said:
Be specific, grandstanding doesn't do you any good.
Click to expand...

I was specific a few posts above where I highlighted two sections from the article detailing what they’re trying to do. Note they weren’t going after someone who says they’re going to bang your mom. They were pretty clear on that. From what I’m reading, they have a team of moderators evaluating chat logs looking for signs of potentially dangerous abuse. That then gets sent to police if they flag something that looks like it might lead to actual harm. Then the cops take a look to see if it looks like someone might actually be in physical danger. Again, one more time from the article:

an agreement is in place so that in extreme cases, where there is a threat to life or potential serious harm spotted, staff can fast track the information to police.
Click to expand...

That does not sound unreasonable to me at all, nor does it sound like it’s going to result in mass arrests of innocent “kids being kids” who totally weren’t going to actually bang your mom, while the government uses this as a precursor to turning the United Kingdom into a totalitarian regime under the iron fist of monarch Charles III.
 
HockeyJon said:
One more time, from the posted article:



And:



This is targeting cases where they have judged there is a genuine risk of harm, no different than would happen if someone were to do this on the street. Being on the internet doesn’t give you immunity from the law. You can debate the extent of this, but you’re creating scenarios that they haven’t explicitly said will be a target of police enforcement, and based on this, have suggested the opposite.
Click to expand...
My issue is not what they're doing now.

My issue is that, if successful, they will expand the scope. This is merely a test to see if this program is viable. If it gets massive pushback, it dies. If it does not, it expands. This is how the world of authority works. I have no problems with rules as long as those rules are fair and apply to all... but as we all know, that is very rarely the case, and I can see major abuses arising from this program that may potentially lead to the incarceration of innocent people.

My prediction: This program will die in a fiery multi-million dollar (pound) lawsuit over wrongful arrest/incarceration. Watch.
 
Last edited:
madpistol said:
My issue is not what they're doing now.

My issue is that, if successful, they will expand the scope. This is merely a test to see if this program is viable. If it gets massive pushback, it dies. If it does not, it expands. This is how the world of authority works. I have no problems with rules as long as those rules are fair and apply to all... but as we all know, that is very rarely the case, and I can see major abuses arising from this program that may potentially lead to the incarceration of innocent people.
Click to expand...

I think that's a reasonable stance to take, and I agree that these are always open to abuse and share that concern, but the answer to that would be better checks and balances and safeguards. You could make the same case for a lot of other laws, but that doesn't mean the basic concept doesn't have any merit, nor does it mean we shouldn't attempt to address something that's become a problem with real world consequences. I think a lot of people here are engaging in hyperbole by suggesting that people are going to be thrown in jail for saying they're going to bang your mom.
 
HockeyJon said:
I think a lot of people here are engaging in hyperbole by suggesting that people are going to be thrown in jail for saying they're going to bang your mom.
Click to expand...
no ones said that. its the "hate" speech part that will get people locked up and its been proven.
 
HockeyJon said:
Ok, well, should we simply not enforce laws in general to protect from the prospect of abuse by those in power, or establish better checks and balances while putting in reasonable legislation to protect the public from potentially being assaulted by someone?
Click to expand...
Pardon me while I set fire to your strawman.

Laws shouldn't be written so vaguely so that they can be stretched to cover whatever a prosecutor wants.
 
pendragon1 said:
its the "hate" speech part that will get people locked up and its been proven.
Click to expand...
Hate speech is free speech, in places that actually have free speech. Also, because I know what someone's gonna say, this post is not an endorsement of hate speech.
 
1_rick said:
Hate speech is free speech, in places that actually have free speech. Also, because I know what someone's gonna say, this post is not an endorsement of hate speech.
Click to expand...
the only place that has it is the USA and theyre losing it.
 
HockeyJon said:
Yeah, so before you question my commitment to free speech, my dad’s family was forced to abandon their property and escape Soviet-occupied territory because my grandfather was on the KGB’s hit list. I had commitment to free speech hammered into me from a young age. There are zero rational people on the planet, including the founding fathers of the United States, that would consider uttering threats of murder, rape, or causing bodily harm to fall under “protected free speech”. The article is indicating that this is what they’re targeting per the quotes I referenced. That’s consistent with normal societal law. You don’t get an exemption from that simply because you’re being an idiot while playing a video game online, especially if there is credible reason to believe those threats may be acted on.
Click to expand...

It depends how credible it is. Saying it over video game chat is really not credible. Chances of it being acted on are slim to zero.
 
M76 said:
Exactly there was no internet, the threats well still there. Were you never a kid, or were you home schooled with no friends? I don't understand how can anyone think that this is a new thing since online gaming started. Involving the police is preposterous.
Click to expand...

The context doesn't matter. Anyone screaming, with death threats, outside of my house will also have a chat with enforcement. They had chats with enforcement at my school as well if it got too extreme. That hasn't changed. This isn't hate speech, it's threat speech.

Also, news flash, it's not just for kids. Adults do this too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top