Sony revokes gamers' digital library access for 1 week due to hate speech

  • 142 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Avatar image for XVision84
#1 Edited by XVision84 (15806 posts) -

Source: https://www.oneangrygamer.net/2019/04/ps4-gamer-loses-access-to-digital-games-for-violating-sonys-hate-speech-policy/82601/

Curious what you system warriors think about this. For the record, the gamer said a lot of heinous and outright racist/sexist things.

Interesting debate going on about it with good points from both sides (for the punishment vs against it).

Should Sony be able to revoke access to your own games, no matter your actions?

Avatar image for mazuiface
#2 Edited by mazuiface (829 posts) -

Revoking someone's digital library because they are an asshole online doesn't address the problem at all. If anything, they could suspend this person from chat and voice options for a week - maybe? Most importantly, other players can just mute them. It's not a big deal really.

Avatar image for uninspiredcup
#3 Edited by uninspiredcup (32826 posts) -

I think just banning people from online games is good enough. Actually removing your games and stuff is massive overkill. And alot of people who play games are basically... dumb kids.

Avatar image for goldenelementxl
#4 Posted by GoldenElementXL (3053 posts) -

People need to stop being stupid online. I'm not sure how we fix it without stepping all over peoples rights, but everyone should be able to enjoy gaming without being subject to bullshit.

Avatar image for lundy86_4
#5 Posted by lundy86_4 (52759 posts) -

Banning from all digital games is just stupid. Clearly, the guy is an idiot for using the slurs, but they should limit any access to online games and voice/text chat like @mazuiface said.

Avatar image for mandzilla
#6 Posted by Mandzilla (4037 posts) -

That's hilarious.

Avatar image for watercrack445
#7 Posted by watercrack445 (1455 posts) -

I don't really care what happened to that guy but I don't think Sony should take this route in the future. This is what gamers fear where a company has the power to take away any digital games no matter the reasons.

Avatar image for madrocketeer
#8 Posted by madrocketeer (6234 posts) -

Well, in this case, it's spelled out in black and white, isn't it. It's Sony's platform, so they're free to moderate it as they wish - and actually have real financial incentive to do so - so long as the rules are consistent and transparent.

The guy has no one to blame but himself.

Avatar image for vaidream45
#9 Posted by Vaidream45 (1851 posts) -

Removing the ability to play online would have been more appropriate. Banning someone access to his or her own purchases should be illegal unless a parent is doing it to their child. This is ridiculous of Sony and I’m shocked it is allowed.

Avatar image for davillain-
#10 Edited by DaVillain- (36087 posts) -

Just don't be a jerk while playing online and you got nothing to worry about.

Avatar image for PSP107
#11 Posted by PSP107 (17442 posts) -

@vaidream45 said:

Removing the ability to play online would have been more appropriate. Banning someone access to his or her own purchases should be illegal unless a parent is doing it to their child. This is ridiculous of Sony and I’m shocked it is allowed.

In regards to online, do you mean removing him forever or just being suspended?

Because if people are suggesting banned forever, isn't that overkill too?

Avatar image for vaidream45
#12 Posted by Vaidream45 (1851 posts) -

@PSP107: if the choice was mine I would ban him for two weeks online with a clear warning that if the behavior continues then next time will be a month ban and go from there. Gotta give people a chance to change IMO.

Avatar image for getyeryayasout
#13 Posted by getyeryayasout (12269 posts) -

There should be an alternate online service that mouthy guys like this get sent to. A gaming Purgatory full of cowardly biggots and edgelords.

That aside, banning people from online game play and communication seems like the best response, rather than locking them out of their entire digital library.

Avatar image for Chutebox
#14 Edited by Chutebox (44497 posts) -

So...they stopped.him from playing games he bought? Dickhead or not, that's some bullshit

Avatar image for Ant_17
#15 Posted by Ant_17 (12169 posts) -

Just like people getting banned on forums, they are guidelines and if you break them, you get punished. I'm surprised it's just 1 month. I remember cod kids getting perma banned last gen.

Avatar image for jcrame10
#16 Posted by jcrame10 (5029 posts) -

Sounds like something the Nintendo crowd would like since they’re so anti voice chat.

Avatar image for ronvalencia
#17 Posted by ronvalencia (27459 posts) -

@XVision84 said:

Source: https://www.oneangrygamer.net/2019/04/ps4-gamer-loses-access-to-digital-games-for-violating-sonys-hate-speech-policy/82601/

Curious what you system warriors think about this. For the record, the gamer said a lot of heinous and outright racist/sexist things.

Interesting debate going on about it with good points from both sides (for the punishment vs against it).

Should Sony be able to revoke access to your own games, no matter your actions?

Shadow ban i.e. offender's communication send to null space.

Avatar image for Telekill
#18 Edited by Telekill (8411 posts) -

Does Japan have freedom of speech?

Avatar image for lundy86_4
#19 Posted by lundy86_4 (52759 posts) -

@Telekill said:

Does Japan have freedom of speech?

Yes, but this wouldn't count. It's a private business, so rules can be different.

Avatar image for vfighter
#20 Posted by VFighter (4804 posts) -

Total BS on Sony's part. Ban him from chat, ban him from online play, 100% agree with that. But to ban him from playing his legally bought digital games, thats some shady BS, and yet again we're shown why an all digital future is just an absolute awful idea.

Avatar image for Dark_sageX
#21 Posted by Dark_sageX (3387 posts) -

Getting banned online is understandable, but removing your account worths of games? yeah this is the kind of crap that will encourage piracy, just imagine someone who works at sony or valve or ms or whatever doesn't like you and will abuse their authority to rob you of the games that you PAID for just to punish you, this is why I have sworn to never buy anything off of EA via Origin, they removed a game I rightfully bought and their solution was for me to buy it again, they can go eat some, I decided I will only pirate from them (not that they have anything even worth pirating) and the same fate awaits any dev who thinks they can snatch off anything I paid for with MY MONEY.

Avatar image for clone01
#22 Posted by clone01 (27440 posts) -

@Ant_17 said:

Just like people getting banned on forums, they are guidelines and if you break them, you get punished. I'm surprised it's just 1 month. I remember cod kids getting perma banned last gen.

This^

Avatar image for nepu7supastar7
#23 Posted by nepu7supastar7 (5072 posts) -

@XVision84:

The remedy is simple: don't be an as$hole! They got what was coming to them.

Avatar image for ajstyles
#24 Edited by AJStyles (739 posts) -

The best solution is to offer censored servers and uncensored servers.

Those of us who love trash talking and trolling should be allowed our own area. No reporting or banning allowed. Anything goes. Be as ignorant as you want.

Those people who wish to play in safe spaces should have their own safe space. No swearing at all. Banning and reporting encouraged.

I am sure parents would prefer this also because we know damn well kids are playing CoD and GTA despite them not being able to purchase the games. Put those kids and thin skinned people on child friendly servers.

Avatar image for locopatho
#25 Posted by locopatho (23597 posts) -
@clone01 said:
@Ant_17 said:

Just like people getting banned on forums, they are guidelines and if you break them, you get punished. I'm surprised it's just 1 month. I remember cod kids getting perma banned last gen.

This^

You don't get banned from reading the forums and viewing the reviews/videos etc though. Just communicating with others.

Ban from online communications? Sure. Ban from online play entirely? Seems very excessive to me, but maybe, to avoid non-verbal/text in game griefing.

But banning someone from playing their own single player games, by themselves, no one else involved? That seems brutal, a real abuse of corporate power over digital libraries.

Avatar image for Pedro
#26 Posted by Pedro (34015 posts) -

His access to his games should not be in jeopardy regardless of his conduct. Restrict online access is a different monster.

Avatar image for Ant_17
#27 Posted by Ant_17 (12169 posts) -

@locopatho: you are not obligated to buy stuff from the store. If you invest in something you should take care you don't lose it. He can be an ass all he wants, doesn't mean he won't get punished on the platform he is being an ass.

Avatar image for Telekill
#28 Posted by Telekill (8411 posts) -

@lundy86_4: Interesting.

Eh, I'm thinking they disabled his account to remove him from online play and being unable to access his digital games were a side effect.

I can't fault Sony for sending the ban hammer his way. People are pretty well out of control online and an occasional bitch slap is necessary these days.

Avatar image for XVision84
#29 Posted by XVision84 (15806 posts) -
@ajstyles said:

The best solution is to offer censored servers and uncensored servers.

Those of us who love trash talking and trolling should be allowed our own area. No reporting or banning allowed. Anything goes. Be as ignorant as you want.

Those people who wish to play in safe spaces should have their own safe space. No swearing at all. Banning and reporting encouraged.

I am sure parents would prefer this also because we know damn well kids are playing CoD and GTA despite them not being able to purchase the games. Put those kids and thin skinned people on child friendly servers.

That move would be rather controversial and it would segment the playerbase. I don't think they'd follow through with it since there's a big push for unity rather than segmentation in gaming nowadays.

Avatar image for headninjadog
#30 Posted by headninjadog (740 posts) -

The person should sue Sony. Corporations can't walk all over people even if the person says nasty things. Corporations have done more damage to society than any hateful online gamer.

Avatar image for mrbojangles25
#32 Posted by mrbojangles25 (43800 posts) -

I don't think it's a corporations job or duty to punish people, so I think banning or removing his collection is A.) overkill and B.) not ethical.

With that said, they do have a business to run and a bunch of racists can really ruin that, so some sort of action needs to be taken. What they should do is just mute him so he can't say anything. Let him play games, let him even play online, just don't let him say anything or otherwise be able to communicate with people unless they're on his friends list.

Avatar image for GarGx1
#33 Posted by GarGx1 (10928 posts) -

The easiest thing to do is self police assholes, mute them and block them. If a company needs to get involved then they should have banned his chat privileges (text and voice).

I have to wonder though does the Sony Eula for games, especially offline games, state anything about online behaviour? If not they could open themselves to a lawsuit if the person has been banned from any single player/offline content they have paid for. I seriously doubt that the likes of Horizon Zero Dawn or Spider-man EULA's make any mention of "don't be an asshole to others", as they really don't need it.

Avatar image for locopatho
#34 Posted by locopatho (23597 posts) -
@Ant_17 said:

@locopatho: you are not obligated to buy stuff from the store. If you invest in something you should take care you don't lose it. He can be an ass all he wants, doesn't mean he won't get punished on the platform he is being an ass.

How far does that go? Can Samsung disable my phone if they dislike what I text my friends? Can Toyota disable my car if they think I'm a discourteous driver? Can my Xbox just be permanently bricked if I diss Halo 5 for sucking?

"Shut the hell up and do what the trillion dollar corporations say" isn't good enough. "Bow to corporate values or they'll confiscate your property" isn't good enough.

Of course, even physical disks always claimed you never owned them, just a license... technically lending games to our friends or reselling them was all "breaking the license"... and I'm sure from a legal point of view they are airtight. But that doesn't mean I have to like it, and I do find it depressing gamers would defend this.

Dude is an ass online in COD, so he can't play the Last Of Us or GOW campaign now? Do you really think that's appropriate and fair?

Avatar image for uninspiredcup
#35 Edited by uninspiredcup (32826 posts) -

@mrbojangles25 said:

I don't think it's a corporations job or duty to punish people, so I think banning or removing his collection is A.) overkill and B.) not ethical.

With that said, they do have a business to run and a bunch of racists can really ruin that, so some sort of action needs to be taken. What they should do is just mute him so he can't say anything. Let him play games, let him even play online, just don't let him say anything or otherwise be able to communicate with people unless they're on his friends list.

That seems like a much better option, not sure how the mechanics of that would work, I'm guessing they can do it universal across all games.

Avatar image for Archangel3371
#36 Posted by Archangel3371 (27598 posts) -

I think that giving progressively longer bans from playing and communicating with others online until eventually banning them permanently for repetitive infractions would be sufficient enough. Having said that though I’m definitely not going to sympathize with this guy and don’t really have any issues with companies laying down this kind of punishment on such toxic individuals.

Avatar image for onesiphorus
#37 Posted by onesiphorus (2829 posts) -

@headninjadog said:

The person should sue Sony. Corporations can't walk all over people even if the person says nasty things. Corporations have done more damage to society than any hateful online gamer.

Good luck in court for the racist claiming that a private business violated his free speech rights. The First Amendment does not apply outside the government, so Sony can supress any speech it disagree with. Just like Google, Facebook, and Twitter.

Avatar image for Ant_17
#38 Posted by Ant_17 (12169 posts) -

@locopatho: does Samsung have guidelines? Yes? Do you drive like a moron? Police will deal with you, not Toyota. You can live without those thing if you don't like their guidelines, but at least have the 2 brain cells to read them and understand them if you want to use them. They are not doing you a favour, they are providing a service. It works both ways. A waiter will be fired if he insults you and you will be kicked out if you insult him even if you paid.

Avatar image for locopatho
#39 Posted by locopatho (23597 posts) -
@Ant_17 said:

@locopatho: does Samsung have guidelines? Yes? Do you drive like a moron? Police will deal with you, not Toyota. You can live without those thing if you don't like their guidelines, but at least have the 2 brain cells to read them and understand them if you want to use them. They are not doing you a favour, they are providing a service. It works both ways.

Stop dancing around the question, answer it: do you think it's OK for our property* to be remotely seized by trillion dollar corporations if we violate their "values"? Whether that be PS games, a Samsung phone or a Toyota car? Should we be totally dependant on corporate whims?

I don't. It depresses me that some folks do.

(*Licenses, etc, whatever you want to call digital games)

@Ant_17 said:

A waiter will be fired if he insults you and you will be kicked out if you insult him even if you paid.

Strange example. They wouldn't cut me open and take the food back, no matter how rude I was!

Avatar image for zmanbarzel
#40 Posted by ZmanBarzel (1800 posts) -

After reading “Rob’’s messages in that story, not only do I feel no sympathy for his losing his digital library, but am wondering if Sony could just go ahead and brick his console.

Avatar image for Ant_17
#41 Posted by Ant_17 (12169 posts) -

@locopatho: what whims? It is stated in the guideline not to do it before you make the account which costs nothing. If you can't act in the most basic way they request, then yes, they can take your property to teach you some manners, cause clearly no one else will.

Avatar image for ezekiel43
#42 Posted by Ezekiel43 (1412 posts) -

And you people keep talking badly about physical media... Don't care what he did. Didn't even read it. He paid for those games. I would never trust Sony with all my games.

Avatar image for sancho_panzer
#43 Posted by Sancho_Panzer (814 posts) -

Suspending his online interactions for a time is fair enough I suppose, since that's about protecting the community, but denying a player access to his single-player library achieves nothing. I don't think it's Sony, MS or Nintendo's place to be punishing their customers.

Avatar image for Sevenizz
#44 Posted by Sevenizz (3655 posts) -

Was wondering what happened to Boxwrecked.

Avatar image for MirkoS77
#45 Edited by MirkoS77 (14059 posts) -

Not a fan of censorship, even if I despise what’s being said. Because once it starts, who’s to say I’m not next? The principle matters, and mute options exist for a reason. Personal responsibility instead of big brother looking over my shoulder determining what I should or should not hear.

Avatar image for uitravioience
#46 Posted by UItravioIence (1175 posts) -

After reading the article, I have no problem with "Rob" being permabanned. Dude seems like a real piece of shit.

Avatar image for i_p_daily
#47 Posted by I_P_Daily (11443 posts) -

The tip of the iceberg when it comes to digital, and there are people here that are fully digital, **** that.

When you buy digital or are digital only then you can be fucked any which way these companies see fit.

Avatar image for sancho_panzer
#48 Posted by Sancho_Panzer (814 posts) -

Personally, the most fun I've had online has been on a server full of complete and utter @$$#0/£$ in Quake. There's definitely some merit to this suggestion:

@ajstyles said:

The best solution is to offer censored servers and uncensored servers.

Those of us who love trash talking and trolling should be allowed our own area. No reporting or banning allowed. Anything goes. Be as ignorant as you want.

Those people who wish to play in safe spaces should have their own safe space. No swearing at all. Banning and reporting encouraged.

I am sure parents would prefer this also because we know damn well kids are playing CoD and GTA despite them not being able to purchase the games. Put those kids and thin skinned people on child friendly servers.

I'm not so sure about absolutely anything goes, but I mean, its relative laxness is one of the main reasons why SW is the most active board on GS, right? As long as it's consensual, lol.

Avatar image for mazuiface
#49 Posted by mazuiface (829 posts) -
@vaidream45 said:

Removing the ability to play online would have been more appropriate. Banning someone access to his or her own purchases should be illegal unless a parent is doing it to their child. This is ridiculous of Sony and I’m shocked it is allowed.

The thing is that the Terms of Service agreement specifically states that they can cut off access. This should raise important fundamental questions about the prospects for these "digital only" consoles that have entered the spotlight.


Others in this thread seem to have come to a similar understanding too. "Rob" is a total piece of s*** and deserved to have some sort of punishment handed down to him, although revoking his access to *games* doesn't really accomplish as much as revoking his online play and/or muting his online interactions. However, the question of "digital only" consoles and subscription based gaming is most expressed in this guy's case.

Avatar image for ronvalencia
#50 Edited by ronvalencia (27459 posts) -

@Telekill said:

Does Japan have freedom of speech?

Freedom of speech is guaranteed by Chapter III, Article 21 of the Japanese constitution.

Article 21

Freedom of assembly and association as well as speech, press and all other forms of expression are guaranteed

No censorship shall be maintained, nor shall the secrecy of any means of communication be violated

US 's Freedom of Speech

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Japanese version doesn't have "Congress shall ....".

Companies operates in US operates under US laws not Japan's.