I was looking forward to some conversation regarding this subject in the comments, instead all we’ve got is people talking about text vs video, and drawing any attention away from actually discussing the video.
I think it’s interesting that people have to attach their names and prove they’re real to sign this, but serious complaints can be filed anonymously. I’m not European, so does this mean anyone random can file complaints? Or it’s done somehow officially, just shows up anonymously?
I’m asking to understand how this works because this could not be the industry entirely.
tl;dr: it’s far from perfect, but it is a decent compromise.
what you’re talking about are government applications, which can take many different forms.
some can be filled out anonymously (often things like complaints, sometimes even lawsuits, etc.), and some need to have a verifiable identity attached (for example petitions, like SKG).
the reason the latter needs proof of identity is to prevent spam and unlawful influence campaign: if there was no verification, how could you know that it is actually citizens filing these requests, and not bad and/or foreign actors?
what if you had a European Citizens Initiative called “let’s join the russian federation” that got to 50 Million signatures overnight?
obviously seems fishy…so how would you verify wether it was actually supported by your own citizens?
this is why you need verification: it’s simply not an option to have this sort of thing filed anonymously.
there are some ideas on how to do this digitally, mostly focused on pseudonymization, which would be mostly great, but the current system is pretty decent.
there’s a tradeoff happening, and it’s one that has to be extremely carefully considered:
on the one hand, you’d want citizens to be free to support whatever campaigns they want without fear of repercussions, social or otherwise.
on the other hand, it’s also a good thing when people can’t hide behind anonymity when voicing their support. with the recent rise of nazis, that’s certainly a prudent state of affairs.
both ways of doing things have advantages and disadvantages.
the current system of public support tends to favor quite conservative (as in traditionalistic and broadly accepted socially, not as in the “conservative politics”) initiatives over more reformative ones, but it also suppresses utterly unhinged Initiatives of the right wing factions.
as much as i understand that many groups would prefer a more anonymous approach, i honestly think the current approach, under the current state of affairs, offers much needed protection against nazi influence campaigns.
i think people underestimate how much more comfortable nazis get, when they can hide behind anonymity.
they are cowards be default, and anonymity helps them find a whole lot more acceptance than having their names out in the open…
as for why complaints can be filed anonymously… probably the same reasoning, but in reverse:
protecting people from repercussions is more important when it is about reporting current misgivings, than it is when petitioning for change.
think whistleblowers: they NEED anonymity.
without anonymity, a lot remains unreported, because many people tend to shoot the messenger first, ask questions later or never…so protections are required, mostly in form of anonymity, otherwise no one ever finds out about things going wrong…
The anonymous complaint system aids whistleblowers.
But it also means that the complaints can come from less than reputable sources.
The upshot of this is that the complaint doesn’t get as much traction and is vetted more closely.
This complaint amounts to the condiment on a nothingburger.
Trying to stop the petition based on a technicality that someone is working too hard seems a bit unhinged. Anyone that stands to be hurt enough by the movement would have had lawyers on retainer to handle things like this.
It’s also possible that someone supporting the movement used it as a false flag to get more attention, but there’s 1.4+ million eyes on it. I don’t see that being an advantageous path either.
Either way, the complaint is bunk and will end up being ignored with a moment’s scrutiny.
He is not. But he is a regular, who posts hight quality content most of the time, and is well known for that.
So which side would we chose? A random guy trying to gatekeep for some personal reason a valid content, or someone who consistently post high quality content, participate in the community while, with some exception, consistently respecting the rules?
Such a difficult question…
I realized I probably badly explained my point here. I will not act differently for someone well known in the community or someone new. The rules are the rules.
The unwelcome behaviour here is the gatekeeping. Videos are welcome, as are links to article or plain text posts.
This mod comment is in contrast to your previous mod comment, where you were publicly weighing the commentors status in the community to gauge whether to take fair action.
While I agree with OP, I'm glad to see "if yoire a dick, you get treated equally" win out.
Agreed. The media is the message. I watched most of the video and it was fascinating in a way an article would not be, largely because the video isn't just a description of a piece of art, but rather a piece of art on its own.
An article could still be interesting and maybe excellent, but it's an oddly entitled thing to demand that someone offering you art go find a different type of art you like better.
Crosscode was a RIDICULOUSLY good game. It genuinely captured the feeling of playing an MMO for the first time and making new friends while having VERY dot hack vibes as you learn more about the world as a whole.
Combat was… fine. When it worked, it worked. When it didn’t, you lowered the difficulty.
Then you get to the dungeons. Which… honestly, I just did not have the patience for puzzles that spanned two or three rooms that I worked on over the course of five overall puzzles and had to have pinpoint accuracy to launch an orb six screens away. I love a good puzzle game (Talos Principle is love. Talos Principle is life) but far too many of these were just more frustrating than fun.
Which is a shame. Because most people nope the fuck out after the second or third dungeon… and that is basically right before the story goes completely off the rails in all the best ways. Shit went REAL hard in ways it had no business even trying but pulled off perfectly.
And… the engine was a technical marvel even if it was also a huge mistake.
So yeah. VERY VERY excited about Alabaster Dawn. And here is hoping Radical Fish didn’t write it in html5 this time.
I don’t know enough about the underlying code (I am the guy who still makes jokes about how html is super easy before remembering that it has been 30 years since I made websites with frames…) but yeah. HTLM5+Javascript with a heavy reliance on Impact support libraries.
The end result is that it is a god damned shitshow to get running on modern platforms and controller support is an even bigger mess. Like, I STILL don’t entirely understand how it manages to detect the difference between an xinput device and a device Steam is binding to xinput… on Linux via Proton. And it tends to break for anything but a proper microsoft made xinput device…
Nice. The first time I ever played CrossCode, I was shocked at how much it felt like a Nintendo DS game. The sprites, UI, and music are so representative of the DS era. Plus, playing the game with Mouse & Keyboard controls is so reminiscent of using the stylus for games it’s ridiculous.
It looks like they’re doing the same thing with this, except it looks like a 3DS game. I’m in.
Incredible game. Highly recommend to everyone. It’s another of those games where every piece of brilliance gets destroyed of I spoil them for you in a review
Thank you! I’ve yet to sign up for mastodon (pretty new to Lemmy, too), but feel free to share it there yourself if you can think of any nerds who might appreciate it!
youtube.com
Aktywne