I think there should be more than one standard. "Reasonable expectation of privacy" is usually used to dismiss people's concerns about constant surveillance. Let's stop being complicit in public surveillance.
Accusing someone of having blood on their hands is generally an attack to mean that the accused has caused unjustifiable death. To contrast, if person A saves person B from a mass shooter by killing said shooter, it'd be odd for person B to say to A "You have blood on your hands!" (unless it's literally true).
"You have committed unjustifiable harm." is clearly an attack. People who commit unjustifiable harm are generally supposed to be shunned, penalized, or killed according to how human societies have operated across the world (various things can get in the way of this, but this is the baseline).
So now we're at "My employer's client is someone who should be shunned, penalized, or killed. (and I'm going to post it publicly in a way to make it possible for said client to be able to see it!)".
Finally, a lot of business runs on vibes. Having employees that attack your clients in public sends bad vibes. Even if it's just a 'rude comment', why endanger your business for someone who so deeply fails the vibe check?
yeah of course it's not either or, but if i had to choose, i would prefer a larger catalog of those kinds of games. but also i find the nintendo store to be confusing. i basically find games elsewhere then search for them there. none of the recommendations are very useful. so maybe that catalog is there i just dont find it.
Hate speech IS up. The claim was "hate speech is up". Impressions being down matters to the impact of the speech, but the claim stands - hate speech is up. You can claim it doesn't matter (and I might agree with you, since impressions are down, people know what to expect now, and the increase is significant but not huge at this point), but you can't honestly say the claim "hate speech is up" is misinformation.
Edit: Actually, I had the claim backwards - YOU said it was DOWN, and you were wrong (according to the report). So to correct myself - the person refuting your claim was right, and spread no misinformation.
I'll retract my opinion that "hate speech is down" as it's apparently difficult to measure but I am going to continue to say that "hate speech is up" is at the very least "highly misleading" as it gives the impression that the platform is worse for minorities than it was pre-acquisition. The reverse is the truth, given the lower impressions of hate speech, it effectively means that those that would verbally attack minorities are being highly squelched versus the situation before the acquisition. That's all around a good thing.
There's one weird trick Blizzard / Netease used to avoid (some of) these laws. A game system that gets classified as gambling usually does the following:
User pays money > User gets premium currency > User presses button > User gets random reward(s)
Here's DI's version:
User pays money > User gets premium currency > User "uses" item before rift > User plays rift > User gets random reward(s)
That extra step means that instead of simply playing a slot machine with real money, you're playing a (very very easy) game segment that gives you (exponentially better) rewards, since you used real money.
