Something that hasn’t been discussed re game development as an on line service.

Replies Disabled
0 favourites
From the Asset Store
The Art of Game Development: A Guide for Beginners
$19.99 USD
You can become a REAL game developer. Learn the basics and get resources that will let you get profits from your game!
Next_Level_Gaming's avatar
Next_Level_Gaming

    Unless you have been living off the grid, it should have become clear to you that many tech, media and games companies are becoming, or are being forced to become, highly politicized, generally taking quite hard left stances which in turn influences company direction, selection bias, the development of restrictive terms and conditions and policy. The result is usually restriction or suspension of services for anyone who has even mildly differing views, or preferences, or who use said services to promote ideas that differ from those of the service platform owners. To add to this, as governments have, and continue to introduce laws restricting freedom of speech and expression, and are starting to police these laws online, and forcing service providers to police, and introduce policy, regarding content hosted on or created using, their services, (even extending simply to the views held by people using their services) , I can only see the issue becoming even more problematic in the future.

    Construct, as an online service, whether we like it or not, is now part of this Orwellian dystopia. The Construct team have the power to ban me from logging in to use the service for whatever reason. Maybe I posted something online on some dark part of the internet that Scirra didn’t like, maybe I made a game criticising some social, political or religious movement “made with construct 3” that caused someone to be offended or was promoting ideas that Scirra don’t subscribe to. And what if the police asked Scirra Construct to turn over all data on me and ordered them to ban me from using the service?

    I’m not interested in starting any political debates here, nor am I asking for any public statement from Scirra / Construct team.

    It is just a personal plea from me that Scirra never get wrapped up in all this social political bull***t and always remain apolitical and unbiased in terms of who is allowed to use the Construct game dev service, no matter who they are, no matter what they have said or done, and no matter what content they use Construct to produce.

    Just don't create spamming gambling porn bots with the software and you are all fine.

    A very good example sir, eg, if article 13 which just got voted through EU parliament, gets implemented into law, which its looking like it will. then what you have just done, posting a meme containing copyrighted content, will become illegal. Both you , for posting, and Scirra, for hosting, become responsible for the illegal content and Scirra may be forced to take some sort of action against you to ensure the continuation of their service.

    Also if I personally found that meme offensive in any way then the (UK) 2003 communications act, which is increasingly being enforced on line, means that my, and the judge's, interpretation of what you meant by posting that meme, rather than your actual intent, is what is considered when deciding if you have committed that offence which can carry a custodial sentence.

    Just don't create spamming gambling porn bots with the software and you are all fine.

    ...... spamming gambling porn bots....

    hmmm what a fantastic idea.... why didnt I think of that.....

    I think for the most part companies should stay away from politics as much as possible. Considering what is happening with linux currently... lulz.com/linux-devs-threaten-killswitch-coc-controversy-1252

    If you're worried about spying or abuse of power, then consider that Construct 2, as a Win32 app, has full access to your file system and full capabilities to execute any code or other programs on your system. This is true of pretty much any Win32 app and is basically a hangover of Windows having historically had a far too relaxed security design, which is now difficult to change for compatibility reasons. Web apps on the other hand are strictly sandboxed in a browser with very few capabilities to mess with your system, and browsers can provide strong privacy controls (such as private browsing or installing extensions that block trackers), even further reducing the amount of information the page can access.

    So I think you've got it backwards: by moving to a web app, we've removed many significant powers that the app didn't really need, thereby eliminating a lot of the scope for misuse. Of course we would never attempt any misuse of anyone's devices; it would probably be easy to get found out and the news would probably ruin the business, so it'd be a monumentally stupid thing to do. Still, if you are concerned about security and privacy, web apps are far more secure and private than native apps.

    Hi Ashley

    thanks for your response, What I’m asking has nothing much to do with Privacy. It is the concern that, if, in the future, Scirra become overtly socially politically active as a company, taking a particular, say hard left stance (as is the current trend with tech companies), then, if my (even non game dev related) activities or creations are found to be in conflict with that of Scirra, you have the absolute discretion to ban me from your service, for any reason you deem appropriate, without any recourse for me ever. The big tech and game companies are actively and overtly doing this now and many smaller companies have been following suit.

    It was just a wish that Scirra never bring social politics into the realm of Construct Game development and never try to start policing who can and cant use their service on this basis.

    Asking Scirra, or any company, to be complicit and ultimately beholden to the actions of their userbase is insane - of course they have the right to deny you access to their services and platforms (be it Construct, their development server, community or website) if they fundamentally disagree with your actions.

    Scirra has more than proven themselves as a company that both values and respects user agency and freedom of speech (look at how many threads exist freely discussing competing game engines)- however they shouldn't be expected to completely give up their own agency to do so.

    They've remained entirely apolitical, but I don't think any reasonable person would be upset if it transpired ISIS had been using Construct to develop promotional material and Scirra had subsequently banned their license due to ideological differences; which is what the conclusion of your post seems to be against.

    For the most part, we're here to make game development software, not to wade in to politics. We might write blogs on topics that we think are important, but I don't see this ever affecting service. We do already turn away some customers, but only on the basis of fraud, or in extreme cases, persistent and appalling abuse towards staff. I think it's important that we have the right to do that in those cases. Other than that, if we turn down a legitimate paying customer, they'll probably end up buying a competitor's software, and we'd rather have them buy ours!

  • Try Construct 3

    Develop games in your browser. Powerful, performant & highly capable.

    Try Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads

    WackyToaster Wow very interesting, thanks for the link, that is exactly the sort of thing that I am talking about. Sounds like the very fabric of the internet could be at risk there……!

    Elliott Yes of course Scirra have the right to deny / remove access to their platforms but this is a huge power that was never present with standalone apps. As a company grows to have enough influence this sort of power can be used to subvert, silence, and control the user base if Scirra so desire or if gov so desire of Scirra. ISIS is an extreme case and an easy target but if you are true advocate of free speech then there can be no compromise. Scirra must not be banning on the basis of ideological differences no matter how despicable those opposing ideals are. Isis must have as much right to spout their ideology as I must have to criticise it. This is what free speech is about. You can start with banning Isis but where does it end and how to you police it.

    Ashley think I had little too much coffee today morning have been running aorund all day like 1000mph at work but also has made me a bit para' thus the post, thanks for your response, that is reassuring. Im still grinding my teeth.... man I need to quit coffee......

    Scirra must not be banning on the basis of ideological differences no matter how despicable those opposing ideals are. Isis must have as much right to spout their ideology as I must have to criticise it. This is what free speech is about.

    This is a common misunderstanding: free speech does not mean "you must allow people to say whatever they want". There are clear limitations on free speech. The laws vary around the world, but, for example, extreme cases like directly inciting violence are usually still banned in countries that allow free speech. So there is a clear distinction between something like someone saying they don't like a product vs. a terrorist group inciting violence - free speech still does not allow the latter. So free speech isn't an unlimited pass to do whatever you want. The UK (where Scirra is based) also has strong laws against defamation, while generally being considered a country with freedom of speech (although the balance between the two isn't always perfect).

    Additionally, in the grand scheme of things we are just one small website in one corner of the Internet, and banning someone here does not take away their free speech: they can still go wherever they like elsewhere on the web or offline and continue to say whatever they like (providing it does not break the law, such as by inciting violence). I emphasise this because the "free speech means you must let me say anything I want" argument is sometimes used by people who want to be allowed to be abusive. Such people are toxic to any community and they must be removed to avoid dragging everyone down in to a swamp. I have to point this out since we've had trouble with it in the past - however out of thousands of customers, I can count on one hand the number of times we've ever even considered removing people on that basis.

    In short "free speech allows terrorists to say what they want too" is actually false, and is also the kind of argument that trolls use to attempt to justify appalling behavior. Don't fall in to that trap! My main concern though is just to keep the community a friendly and welcoming place, and other than that, like I say, we're here to make games and that's what we should focus on. Our website isn't the place to come to talk about politics - we don't need those debates distracting from our actual goal of developing software - but other than that, within the bounds of the law, I don't see any reason for it to be relevant.

    NetOneYou'Re just basically saying that you just want to do whatever you want and hurt others without any consequences.

    To be honest if there was more moderation and people would think before they speak everyone would be better off

    The blog that was linked is blatant hate speech, the user that posted it trying to legitimize it is obviously political and is saying "stay away from politics" is evident hypocrisy.

    I'd love to see either more moderation, this forum is open to children and construct 3 is a teaching tool, or allowing users to block the worst offenders, not allowing them to reply to our threads, and allowing us to delete posts from our threads and block them from further posting on any other treads we may have made.

    Maybe create a system where users such as him need to have their post approved by moderators ?

    Man I shouldn't have started this should I.

    OK my last non game related post ever on this forum.

    Maybe I am not being clear. Im not talking about the forum. That is a small thing as you say. And Im not debating free speech. Interpretation of incitement to violence is itself debatable but yea sure things like death threats or violence threats sure ban all that. Ive been trying to avoid examples and choosing my words carefully so as to not turn this political totally defeating the point of the original post. But I specifically said say banning on on the basis of "ideological differences" or "socio-political" differences is wrong, ANd this is what large tech has been doing recently. and again , IM not talking about banning from the forum. Im talking about banning from the Construct platform.

    You may not see it like this but you, Ashley, Scirra, are now the private owners of an online public content creation platform. Just like YouTube in a round about way. You may not host all the products created but you have complete control on who can and cannot access the platform used to create those products. And if you ever do get political as a company, (as for example google has), then there is nothing stopping you banning access to the tool or restricting services available, for those that dont align with your political views (as for example google is doing)

    and even if you dont get political,,,, when, in a few years, Construct is the number 1 go to platform for the creation of interactive 2d content on the web used by hundreds of thousands of people around the world, and then governments start to see this and they will come knocking and say, hey Ashley we need you to ban access to the Construct tool for all these people because we dont like their political / social / religious views and if you dont then we are going to have to ask you to start policing all the content created using your tools and if you dont do that well then Im afraid you will have to close the Construct website.

    I just see these very alarming things happening in tech, media and games companies recently, especially regarding online. In the last year my own company has started bombarding employees with a very hard left social political agenda, that as far as I can see can only be a directive from government, to the point where it has become uncomfortable and people are literally afraid to talk publicly about it for fear of losing their jobs.

    anyway I know you guys are lovely and Ill shut up now.

    not allowing them to reply to our threads

    What if that person had a response to your question or statement they should be allowed to respond.for the person that created that post to silence others when their trying to state or respond to such a post

    Maybe create a system where users such as him need to have their post approved by moderators ?

    I completely disagree with this statement, reason being if they continue to post something not appropriate then they should receive a ban for x amount of time. If it doesn't break any rules then it should be allowed, as so of people's opinion's about that post or answer to it.

Replies Disabled
Return to board index
Jump to:
Active Users
There are 1 visitors browsing this topic (0 users and 1 guests)