Increased Harassment towards members of Dev Team
https://twitter.com/Battlefield/status/1657017752811450372
Forum Discussion
@AngrySquid270 I had no clue about most of that. The doxing stuff should be dealt with and directed towards those that did it.
Just like anything, address the problem head on. A blanket statement doesn't solve anything, and at the end of the day, normally empowers knuckleheads to double down on stupid activity.
All the things you listed should have been addressed swiftly and directly.
Just like anything, address the problem head on. A blanket statement doesn't solve anything, and at the end of the day, normally empowers knuckleheads to double down on stupid activity.
All the things you listed should have been addressed swiftly and directly.
While some of those restrictions are valid, some are not and what some would agree to violate our constitutional rights of freedom of speech by restricting us from fully express our opinions on open public platforms..
@fragnstein wrote:While some of those restrictions are valid, some are not and what some would agree to violate our constitutional rights of freedom of speech by restricting us from fully express our opinions on open public platforms..
Freedom of speech is a freedom from government retaliation to speech and even that freedom only extends up to the point of causing harm. Private companies like EA are free to censor/punish speech as they please within their power.
As a business I expect that EA has the right to refuse service (assuming they aren't basing the refusal on one of the protected classes).
But then none of us are legal experts. We can only speculate at the legal risks here. However as a company of 10k+ people I'd imagine EA has a more than a few legal experts - specifically legal experts in the field of video games - that would have been available to weigh in on this. Most large corporations are hyper sensitive legal risks. If there's even a whiff of legal risk then you need to run it by the legal department. No idea if that happened in this case, but my guess is that they did and it got a green light.
I definitely find the actual harassment of any people for their affiliation with DICE/EA to be objectionable and I am sure there are even actual laws against these things.
There is a lot of room to be critical about the state of the game, without going personal against individuals. Especially when the ones who cause most problems are usually not even inside the dev teams but are managing the devs and their budget.
But at the same time I find that taking ingame action against customers because of things they said in unaffiliated platforms to be a rather objectionable and Orwellian thing in itself.
It can damage the trust between customer and retailer.
The one other thing that I always find even worse is how all these private companies do not have to provide the receipts about exactly why they did something on someone's account (not just linking some vague rules, but to show exactly what was said and why it was wrong). I wish there were transparency laws about this.
@AngrySquid270 wrote:
@fragnstein wrote:While some of those restrictions are valid, some are not and what some would agree to violate our constitutional rights of freedom of speech by restricting us from fully express our opinions on open public platforms..
Freedom of speech is a freedom from government retaliation to speech and even that freedom only extends up to the point of causing harm. Private companies like EA are free to censor/punish speech as they please within their power.
As a business I expect that EA has the right to refuse service (assuming they aren't basing the refusal on one of the protected classes).
But then none of us are legal experts. We can only speculate at the legal risks here. However as a company of 10k+ people I'd imagine EA has a more than a few legal experts - specifically legal experts in the field of video games - that would have been available to weigh in on this. Most large corporations are hyper sensitive legal risks. If there's even a whiff of legal risk then you need to run it by the legal department. No idea if that happened in this case, but my guess is that they did and it got a green light.
It amazes me how many people don't have a basic understanding of the 1st amendment. Thanks for the post, I was about to post the same.
