I think I'd have a problem with it if bad internet super sleuths came up with some nonsense reasons to try to destroy my reputation.
Alimentar@lemm.ee 3 months ago
Who actually cares? A niche group of people want to curate their games based on a personal preference. Nobody has the moral authority to tell them what they should or shouldn’t spend their money on.
ampersandrew@kbin.social 3 months ago
Eyck_of_denesle@lemmy.zip 3 months ago
You might want to read up on some of their tweets. Reputation is earned not given. SomeOrdinaryGamer made a good video highlighting stupidity from both sides.
Dremor@lemmy.world 3 months ago
In an ideal world, yes.
But unfortunately these days people prefer to follow blindly their bias and people validating said bias instead of investing the time required to investigate by their own mean, with least biased sources.
I’d blame social medias that make everything quasi instantaneous, but it is just a component of a whole, not the only cause.ampersandrew@kbin.social 3 months ago
That’s no excuse to try to get a user’s account banned.
I'd say it is. They highlight the part of Steam's rules against harassment, and while that's always subject to interpretation, they feel that this counts, and I'm inclined to agree.
The steam group had like 1000 people now it has almost 200,000 after the whole debacle.
Before this group blew up, YouTube channels with hundreds of thousands of subscribers were already making their bullshit conspiracy theories. People try to paint this as Streisand, but that's ridiculous. The Streisand effect is trying to hide something, which you still seem convinced they're trying to do despite highlighting their clients on their web page and getting listings in the credits of the games they work on. What it looks like to me instead is that:
- sensationalist YouTubers paint this company as the devil
- this curator is made in response
- it gets a natural, human reaction from the people targeted by this group
- the YouTubers from step 1 use that reaction to mean whatever they want it to mean
In no way did I foresee a way that this group didn't continue on the same trajectory with or without Sweet Baby responding to its existence.
SomeOrdinaryGamer made a good video highlighting stupidity from both sides.
I've seen one video from SomeOrdinaryGamers, and it was too many, but he's cited in this article as perpetuating the bullshit conspiracy theories, so I'm good.
brsrklf@jlai.lu 3 months ago
Except they’re not just saying “we don’t like this” and moving away. They’re using dogwhistles (“woke” is only the first one) and 4-chan level type of slurs in their cries of conspiracy. It’s a thinly disguised hate club, games are only an excuse.
They tried to progressively hide it from their group’s front page, editing its language several times, but it was still there in the discussions in and around the group.
beaxingu@kbin.run 3 months ago
why are you just totally ignoring how this whole thing started in the first place with a sweet baby employ trying to take the group down and the account of the creator. yes editing it for people exactly like you that cant handle words on the internet and that needs to call everything hate so that you can get your way but that's not going to work anymore now like how it always should have been you are just very very funny.
Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Oh, bless your heart.
thesilverpig@lemmy.world 3 months ago
I don’t really know much about the sweat baby controversy, but whenever I see “bless your heart” it just comes of as weak tea as it avoids engaging with premises or arguments and condescends and I think it generally loses the argument from a third party perspective. At least I’ve never read it and thought, wow they really got them.
It might be trite but I always preferred agree to disagree as a disengage tactic. That’s just my two cents on internet discourse though.
beaxingu@kbin.run 3 months ago
bless you in the year of our lord 2024