Comment on Collective Shout Purge Sees Horror Games In Crosshairs
Ulrich@feddit.org 5 days agoI’ve never seen any argument from them that this is the reasoning.
What argument have your from them that is their reasoning?
Comment on Collective Shout Purge Sees Horror Games In Crosshairs
Ulrich@feddit.org 5 days agoI’ve never seen any argument from them that this is the reasoning.
What argument have your from them that is their reasoning?
Cethin@lemmy.zip 5 days ago
We don’t know their reasoning. However, we do know their requirement, which is not “no illegal content.” It’s “no content involving rape or incest” or something like that. They have also stated publicly they do not want to be involved in regulating legal content, but, again, that isn’t what they required. If they only cared about illegal content then that’s what their requirement would say, but it isn’t.
Ulrich@feddit.org 5 days ago
Okay so none then.
Cethin@lemmy.zip 5 days ago
And also none from the person above, but the logic doesn’t check out. Using basic inference, we know it isn’t about legal content. That already wasn’t allowed, so no changes needed to be made. There must be another reason. What is it? I don’t know. I’m not making a claim to knowledge of what it is. I’m only proving that it isn’t what the other person claimed. Burden of proof is on the person making a claim, not the one disputing it.
Ulrich@feddit.org 4 days ago
The point is “I haven’t heard them say this” is not a legitimate argument, because you haven’t heard them say anything about anything, because they haven’t said anything, and speculation is all we have.