> That is a tradeoff I can live with.
That is the attitude that has led to erosion of rights, that unfortunately, I'm force to live with.
That is the attitude that has led to erosion of rights, that unfortunately, I'm force to live with.
I don't see how anyone other than Blizzard has any right to free speech on their privately owned gaming platform.
Even if Blizzard has created a new medium of expression in Starcraft II maps, why should they should be compelled to enable the distribution of any map they don't like?
I understand that people may not like Blizzard's decision to moderate their platform, but it's a big stretch to say that they are trampling on our right to free speech. Is a newspaper trampling on your right to free speech by choosing which editorials to print?
It's the opposite actually. A few days ago you had no means to make Starcraft 2 maps of any description. Now you can, so long as you don't make an ass of yourself.
How is that not a good thing?
Besides, how hard would it be to implement a reputation system instead of censorship? Bonus: they wouldn't have to pay the censors.
Impossible. They host the content, they're responsible for it, they're required to uphold the age rating the game is given.
"Online-enabled games carry the notice "Online Interactions Not Rated by the ESRB." This notice warns those who intend to play the game online about possible exposure to chat (text, audio, video) or other types of user-generated content (e.g., maps, skins) that have not been considered in the ESRB rating assignment."
has any game "lost" its rating, or had it modified, or whatever, because of user generated content?