Yeah, I think people who say that don't realize a few key things.
First, they don't understand the 'poverty tax' - how not having money for things like a security deposit, reliable transportation, or bulk buying actually costs you more in the long run.
And second, they don't see how thin the margin for error is for most middle-class families. One medical bill or job loss is all it takes to fall behind.
That's so true about the video player and upload limits, it's no doubt a huge plus for creators like you? And I totally get what you mean about the more welcoming vibe here; it's one of the best things about this space.
Just a friendly heads-up as you're getting settled: while it's generally much kinder, Lemmy has its share of 'interesting' characters here too (a wonderful mix of great people and a few bad apples). But the ability to curate your own experience is much stronger here!
I'm already having a good experience with Lemmy. A couple of features that would make it perfect for me are better discovery tools for communities and the ability to merge feeds from similar ones.
And I have to say, searching for anything (whether here or on Reddit) always feels like a bit of a challenge. A more robust search feature would be amazing! But overall, I'm really enjoying the vibe here.
Lol, nice backpedal and reframe. You now claim you "do not condone the behaviour" yet your entire engagement here has been a masterclass in minimizing it and attacking those who object. Let's review your position:
You insisted the spam was "not a targeted hate, it’s a provocation by inappropriate behaviour," deliberately downplaying the use of a racial slur as mere "inappropriate behaviour."
You repeatedly framed the solution as a burden on users, stating that "everybody has the block button, given that everybody presses it, the person spreading “hatespeech” would be simply ignored." You blamed those driven out for their "inability to use the software."
You dismissed the damage as a "dramatization," and labeled concern as "alarmist," arguing that speaking up only makes the problem worse.
This isn't a neutral stance. This is a textbook defense of a toxic status quo. You have consistently argued that the community should absorb the harm of racist harassment rather than expect the platform to implement a simple basic filter.
You are correct about one thing: my post was not for Steam representatives. It was to call out a failing of a platform I use and to see if others users here shared this concern. The fact that you have dedicated so much energy to attacking my method rather than the problem itself is, as I said, a clear choice of principles. I stand by mine.
As I've previously said: I don’t debate the merits of racism with its apologists. Have exactly the kind of day/life you deserve.
I always turn mine off, the Deck has terrible battery life in sleep mode. My partner usually keeps theirs in sleep-mode and they often need to charge their Deck when turning it back on.
Your argument has reached its logical conclusion: blaming everyone but the racist spammer and the platform that enables them.
This is no longer a debate about features, it's a choice of principles. You are advocating for a system where hundreds of users perform the labor of blocking each racist, where targets of harassment are blamed for being targeted, and where the platform bears no responsibility for its own spaces. Brilliant.
I engage on this topic with you in good faith, but your position has made it clear you are not just ignorant on the issue - you are actively defending a racist spammer over the implementation of basic filters against hate speech and racism.
I don't debate the merits of racism with its apologists. We're done.
This line of reasoning consistently defends the offender by blaming the users for expecting a baseline of civility.
The choice isn't between a 'lawless wasteland' and 'aggressive real-time moderation. It's about whether an official platform should have basic, automated filters against the most blatant hate speech - the same way most games filter the worst slurs from usernames or in-game chat.
Arguing that it's 'unsustainable' to stop racial slurs from flooding an official group chat is just arguing for the right to be a bigot without consequence. What I was 'expecting' is for Valve to implement the bare minimum of community management on their own official platforms. The fact that this is seen as an unreasonable ask is the entire problem.
I'm right there with you. To be honest, I'm still figuring out Lemmy myself; like how it's different from Mastodon and why content sometimes crosses over. It seems straightforward to a lot of people, but it's a learning curve for me lol.
You're confusing a personal tool with a community solution. My 'block' button doesn't stop the public chat from being filled with racial slurs. The 'bigger deal' you mention is the hundreds of users who have already left, that's the measurable consequence of treating this as a 'provocation' instead of a violation of basic community standards.
I've heard your uninformed opinion and I am choosing to disregard it.
You've perfectly described the mechanism, but drawn the wrong conclusion. The power isn't 'given' by individuals being sensitive; it's inherited from the word's historical use as a tool of oppression and violence. That weight is a social fact, not a personal choice.
To use an analogy: a gun is a real weapon because it causes physical harm. A slur is a social weapon because it invokes that history to cause psychological and social harm. The harm is no less real to its targets.
Your argument ultimately suggests that the targets of historical violence should also bear the burden of dismantling the tools used against them, while the rest of us do nothing. I fundamentally disagree with that premise. We have reached an impasse, and I see no value communicating / explaining this premise to you any further.
It's genuinely disappointing to see how many responses suggest the solution to targeted harassment is for the targets to simply leave or block the user, as if that fixes anything.
To those suggesting we just 'block' or 'ignore' racial spam: you're asking us to accept a degraded community as the new normal. The problem isn't our sensitivity; it's the refusal to uphold a basic standard of decency. Vindicating the attacker by shifting the burden to everyone else is not a solution.
So instead of basic moderation, filters and decency hundreds of users should abandon the official group chats so ignorant racists can have a slur-fest?
That confuses silence for consent. The users still there aren't necessarily endorsing the policy; many are likely just tolerating it. Meanwhile, the hundreds who have already left are the proof that it's driving users away.
Arguing that the targets of harassment should be the ones to leave, rather than expecting the platform to curb the harassment, is a profound failure of community principle. I see absolutely no value in continuing this discussion with you.
Yeah, I think people who say that don't realize a few key things.
First, they don't understand the 'poverty tax' - how not having money for things like a security deposit, reliable transportation, or bulk buying actually costs you more in the long run.
And second, they don't see how thin the margin for error is for most middle-class families. One medical bill or job loss is all it takes to fall behind.