Sony Ends Support For Playstation Store For PSP, PS3, and Vita
Furnished content.
A few days ago, we discussed the problem of video game preservation as a matter of art when developers, publishers, or platforms shut down certain services. The point of the post was fairly wide-reaching, with the focus being on the idea that game developers in the PC space should embrace the habit of releasing their source codes for games and let the gamer ecosystem take over. While that's an idea I find extremely interesting, it doesn't really apply to the console gaming space. And it was rumors of the shutdown of certain Sony PlayStation stores that kickstarted the whole conversation.Well, that rumored shutdown is now reality. And it's roughly half as bad for the purposes of game preservation as was expected.Today, Sony updated the important notice section of its official site with information about the upcoming shutdowns. While the stores will be closed later in the year, Sony explained that players will still be able to redownload content that they own after the shutdown date. Folks will also still be able to redeem PS Plus and game vouchers, though wallet vouchers will no longer work on these stores after they close. So, that's the top line summary of what's changing, with the headline being that people will still be able to re-download games that they had previously purchased. That's obviously a good thing. But where we dive right back into the preservation question is here.You will no longer be able to purchase PS3, PS Vita, and PSP digital content, including games and video content.You will no longer be able to make in-game purchases through games on PS3, PS Vita, and PSP. So new purchases are not available for games. Whether said games will be made available anywhere else is an open question. As is the question of in-app purchases or DLC. Given that those are going away, the next question is what is being done to preserve the games and their source codes? No answers currently exist. And, if you believe that video games are a form of art and culture, that's very much a problem.Put yourself in the shoes of a preservationist or museum for video games. What in the world happens to this culture from here? Where does the DLC go, given that it's very much a part of the art of the game? Where does the source code go? How will someone 25 years from now be able to experience this art in the same way you can walk into an art museum and see an exhibit.As of today, the answer to most of those questions most of the time is ¯\_()_/¯. But that can't be the answer and it's probably time that either the industry or, if the industry fails to take this seriously, the government take a good long look at carving out some exceptions or requirements to make sure all this culture doesn't end up memory-holed.
Read more here
posted at: 12:00am on 03-Apr-2021
path: /Policy | permalink | edit (requires password)
Content Moderation Case Study: Twitter Briefly Bans Russian Parody Accounts (2016)
Furnished content.
Summary: Twitter allows parody accounts to remain live (often over the protests of those parodied), provided they follow a narrow set of rules -- rules apparently intended to make sure everyone's in on the joke.Here's everything Twitter users agree to do when creating a parody account:- Bio: The bio should clearly indicate that the user is not affiliated with the subject of the account. Non-affiliation can be indicated by incorporating, for example, words such as (but not limited to) "parody," "fake," "fan," or "commentary. Non-affiliation should be stated in a way that can be understood by the intended audience.
- Account name: The account name (note: this is separate from the username, or @handle) should clearly indicate that the user is not affiliated with the subject of the account. Non-affiliation can be indicated by incorporating, for example, words such as (but not limited to) "parody," "fake," "fan," or "commentary. Non-affiliation should be stated in a way that can be understood by the intended audience.
Unfortunately for the very popular Vladimir Putin parody account (@DarthPutinKGB), Twitter's moderators decided the account didn't strictly adhere to the "make it obvious" policies covering accounts like these.In May 2016, Twitter suspended the account for its alleged violations.This ban immediately resulted in backlash from other Twitter users who were fans of the account -- one that made it clear (albeit without all the specifics demanded by Twitter) that it was a parody. Disappointed fans included Estonian president Toomas Hendrik and Radio Free Europe, which published a collection of the account's best tweets.While the ban was technically justified by the violation of the specifics of Twitter's rules, the end result was a lot of Twitter users wondering whether Twitter moderators were capable of recognizing obvious parody without accounts bios copying the platform's parody guidelines word-for-word.Decisions to be made by Twitter:- Is the banning of harmless parody accounts an acceptable tradeoff for protecting users from impersonation?
- Should the parody guidelines be altered to make it easier to identify parody accounts?
- Should moderators be allowed to make judgment calls if an account is clearly a parody but does not strictly adhere to the parody account guidelines?
Questions and policy implications to consider:- Should Twitter use more caution when moderating parody accounts whose parodic nature isn't immediately clear?
- Is impersonation too much of a problem on the platform to ever relax the standards governing this kind of humor?
Resolution: Twitter swiftly reinstated the account following the backlash. The account remains active, despite its new bio not explicitly following the Twitter Rules for parody accounts.But it wasn't the first time Twitter moderated accounts parodying Russian government officials. A similar thing happened roughly a year earlier, when Twitter blocked an account parodying powerful Russian oil executive Igor Sechin, apparently in response to a Russian government complaint the satirical account "violated privacy laws." This happened despite the fact the user's handle was IgorSechinEvilTwin, making it clear it was a parody, rather than an attempt to impersonate the real Igor Sechin.Originally published on the Trust & Safety Foundation website.
Read more here
posted at: 12:00am on 03-Apr-2021
path: /Policy | permalink | edit (requires password)
|
|
