[aka1234]

> "That's an argument for banning swastikas, not banning anyone who displays a swastika."

If you don't ban the person displaying the swastika, how can you possibly enforce banning swastikas? There must be a consequence for displaying the offending symbol, otherwise the rule is toothless.

You remove the swastika, and the person just replaces it. What then? Just keep removing it and hoping the Nazi/edgelord/'troll' will get tired of replacing the swastika? Trying to win a battle of attrition with a bad-faith actor is not an effective way to enforce rules.

> "remember the moral panic we just went through when 4chan trolls convinced people that the OK hand sign was a "one-sided version ofna White Power" sign and got people fired from their jobs for making the sign."

"Remember when 4chan 'trolls' said the OK hand sign was a white power sign and then white supremacists started using the OK hand sign as a white power sign?" --- There, I fixed it for you.

[toast0]

Ban the car --- either don't let them use it online, or don't show it to others.

If an account gets a threshold number of cars banned, don't let them use customized cars online.

If they're spouting hate on chat, ban them from chat too.

[baddox]

That's just a more detailed explanation of the process of banning someone for using swastikas in a game.

[Dylan16807]

What?

"Don't let them use customized cars" is extremely different from "ban them".

[baddox]

The comment provided a list removing more and more capabilities from the game. That's exactly what a gradual process of banning someone would be. Sure, you can give them time to correct their behavior, but eventually you might have to ban them.

[Dylan16807]

The other capabilities would only be removed if they broke other rules. That's not a gradual process toward banning. That's a completely unrelated disciplinary measure.

[freehunter]

So basically, if someone murders another person we should ban them from murdering people but not put them in jail. They should only go to jail if they commit multiple unrelated crimes.

[aka1234]

That seems like a lot of effort to address the symptoms, not the disease. The root issue is the user. Get rid of the user and you don't have to worry about all these half-measures.

[_y5hn]

What was the problem needing solving?

[asdfasgasdgasdg]

Depends who you ask. Some might say toxic expressions. Others might say people who declaim toxic expressions. Clearly MS has the latter goal in mind.

I can imagine a very reasonable argument for this. Someone who puts a Confederate flag on their car seems highly likely to engage in other toxic behaviors. Just like someone who calls someone a nigger once is likely to do it again. So we use the behaviors as a signal of underlying tendency. We don't want people who have this tendency on the platform because they will tend to make life worse for other users, and the loss of their business hurts us less than we gain from other people feeling more comfortable. Therefore we ban them.

[_y5hn]

This explanation really creeps me out, if major corps can just do about anything, based on any arbitrary rule ie. RND() or even own biases and legal discrimination.

On the other hand, too many on gaming platforms are engaging in clearly racist behaviour, ie. choosing offensive nicks, spamming chat, and need correction.

[asdfasgasdgasdg]

I'm sorry it creeps you out, but as a general rule company managers are free to do what they please with their company, as long as it is not illegal. Banning racists isn't illegal so ...

[prepend]

Some may say it’s not a significant problem and it’s cheaper for MS to make a PR statement about doing something than spending effort in moderation software changes.

[asdfasgasdgasdg]

> Some may say it’s not a significant problem

But not the people who have the authority to make the call, plainly.