In the aftermath of a tragic shooting in Buffalo, New York, video game developer Bungie has pledged to donate the profits from a new virtual store launched in partnership with clothing brand Unending. The decision comes amid a growing controversy around extremist use of online spaces—and whether they can be held accountable for their own actions. In light of this new partnership, Bungie and its parent company Activision have announced that all proceeds earned from sales of virtual goods branded under the ‘Unending’ label will go directly to non-profit organizations that aid victims of gun violence.
The statement reads: “We are proud to partner with Unending on this exclusive collection, and we commit to donating 100% of all profits from this partnership directly to various charities that assist victims of gun violence.” Like all online casinos, we at icecasino.com/en/online-slots also understand the responsibility that lies with an online company.
Change Comes Through Transparency
In any discussion about internet censorship, it’s vital to remember one key fact: private companies own and control most of the world’s most important communications platforms. There are no government regulators in charge of controlling Big Tech’s ability to censor and moderate user content, nor any legal obligations for these companies to be transparent about their moderation policies. In other words, the internet isn’t a public space—it’s a privately owned and operated ecosystem that has tremendous potential to be abused. And as we’ve seen countless times throughout history, communities left to stew in their own extremism and ignorance are much more likely to lash out violently.
Extremists Are Using Video Games as a Recruiting Tool
Over the past few years, the online gaming community has become a hotbed for extremist rhetoric. Some of the larger gaming networks have even been accused of facilitating extremist recruitment by providing forums and chat rooms where hateful ideologies like racism and white supremacy are given free rein. In many cases, the gaming networks have been slow to respond to reports of extremist activity on their sites. And when they do intervene, their efforts are often haphazard and ineffective. These issues have led to calls for greater regulation of online gaming networks. In some cases, even governments have stepped in to shut down virtual servers used to host extremist activity. But regulation is a tricky issue. Virtual online gaming communities have existed for decades and have only recently become havens for extremist rhetoric. Why should governments intervene now, when these issues have been allowed to fester for so long?
You Can’t Hold an Online Community Responsible for the Actions of Individuals
As we’ve seen, extremist groups and ideologies are often quick to turn to the internet as a recruitment tool. And once they’re there, their presence can be difficult to control. However, it’s important to remember that online communities are not legally liable for the actions of their users. The Communications Decency Act, passed in 1996, protects website and app owners from any legal consequences resulting from content posted by users. As long as the owners of these spaces remove the content as soon as they’re notified of it, they are protected from prosecution. This legislation was designed to protect internet companies from being held responsible for the content they didn’t create. But it can also be abused by online communities that want to avoid any responsibility for their own users.
Companies Have a Responsibility to Their Users to Expose Extremists
When extremist groups use online spaces to recruit and organize, it can be difficult to identify and shut them down. But when these groups are given free rein to spread their hate, they put vulnerable people in harm’s way—people who have no way of knowing they’re interacting with dangerous ideologues. As more and more companies have started operating online gaming platforms, they have a responsibility to their users to expose and remove extremist groups from their sites. But in order to do so, their moderation team must first be equipped to identify these groups. When moderation teams are given little to no training in identifying problematic behaviour, it’s easy for extremists to slip through the cracks.
Moderation is a tricky business, and there are no easy answers to the complex issues surrounding censorship and hate speech. In the end, it’s important to remember that private companies own and operate the world’s most important communications platforms. It’s on us, as users of these sites, to demand that they take responsibility for their users and make their platforms safe for everyone.
