So, Steam locked my account today.

And why not? After all, I posted an incredibly suspicious (their
words) comment the other day. It was a response to a review on their
storefront. I forget what the game was, but that review basically
said: 'don't buy this game, even if its on sale, even if it looks
good, it's not worth it.'

So I replied:

"It's true. I saw the game. I saw the pretty graphics. I saw
the negative scores. But I also saw it was on sale and I
thought, 'it couldn't be that bad'. I was >< this close to
buying it. Then I saw this review... and I put away the
credit card. It's like you knew me. Thank you for saving
me $40USD."

(that's my content, quoted in full, that Valve found offensive)

As you can see, it's no surprise that Valve locked the account of
somebody who would say something so dreadful. I'm lucky my NNTP
provider doesn't cancel my account for repeating it here, even if it
was a first-strike by a long-time customer, content provider and
probable 'whale'. Truly heinous stuff, right? Worthy of immediate
locking somebody out of their property.

Obviously I'm being sarcastic. But I think I'm due to some cynicism
given the stupidity of Valve. It just reinforces my belief that
companies like Valve have way to much power over their customers

(similarly, Riot games has threatened to lock people out of their
accounts for posting or saying stuff off-platform outside of their
purview. That's right; do something offensive on Facebook and they'll
keep you from playing League of Legends)

It's not so much a problem of these corporations trying to police
their platforms. With all the misogyny, homophobia, and racism out
there, it's a necessity. But it's the ham-handed, algorithm-led,
shoot-first/investigate-never methodolgy they use. They just depend on
computers to do it, rather than pay for moderators, and trust that
these algorithmic decisions are correct. And then rather than
correspond with the offender first, they just take the nuclear option
and yank the account. It's wrong in every aspect.

I contacted customer support (which is to say, I clicked on a link and
got redirected to a box where I could type out a comment). I politely
requested that Valve investigate the incident and re-instate the
account. I fully believe they will do so. The comment is so patently
inoffensive that I have no idea why it even triggered an algorithm

[maybe it was the use of the "> <" to indicate proximity?]

But it's annoying that I have to jump through these hoops and that a
black mark is now permanently associated with my account.

And it's made me distrust Valve --and their DRM-enforced control over
my property-- just a little bit more.

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

> So, Steam locked my account today.

> And why not? After all, I posted an incredibly suspicious (their
> words) comment the other day. It was a response to a review on their
> storefront. I forget what the game was, but that review basically
> said: 'don't buy this game, even if its on sale, even if it looks
> good, it's not worth it.'

> So I replied:

> "It's true. I saw the game. I saw the pretty graphics. I saw
> the negative scores. But I also saw it was on sale and I
> thought, 'it couldn't be that bad'. I was >< this close to
> buying it. Then I saw this review... and I put away the
> credit card. It's like you knew me. Thank you for saving
> me $40USD."

> (that's my content, quoted in full, that Valve found offensive)

> As you can see, it's no surprise that Valve locked the account of
> somebody who would say something so dreadful. I'm lucky my NNTP
> provider doesn't cancel my account for repeating it here, even if it
> was a first-strike by a long-time customer, content provider and
> probable 'whale'. Truly heinous stuff, right? Worthy of immediate
> locking somebody out of their property.

> Obviously I'm being sarcastic. But I think I'm due to some cynicism
> given the stupidity of Valve. It just reinforces my belief that
> companies like Valve have way to much power over their customers

> (similarly, Riot games has threatened to lock people out of their
> accounts for posting or saying stuff off-platform outside of their
> purview. That's right; do something offensive on Facebook and they'll
> keep you from playing League of Legends)

> It's not so much a problem of these corporations trying to police
> their platforms. With all the misogyny, homophobia, and racism out
> there, it's a necessity. But it's the ham-handed, algorithm-led,
> shoot-first/investigate-never methodolgy they use. They just depend on
> computers to do it, rather than pay for moderators, and trust that
> these algorithmic decisions are correct. And then rather than
> correspond with the offender first, they just take the nuclear option
> and yank the account. It's wrong in every aspect.

> I contacted customer support (which is to say, I clicked on a link and
> got redirected to a box where I could type out a comment). I politely
> requested that Valve investigate the incident and re-instate the
> account. I fully believe they will do so. The comment is so patently
> inoffensive that I have no idea why it even triggered an algorithm

> [maybe it was the use of the "> <" to indicate proximity?]

> But it's annoying that I have to jump through these hoops and that a
> black mark is now permanently associated with my account.

> And it's made me distrust Valve --and their DRM-enforced control over
> my property-- just a little bit more.

Valve locked mine for posting about a free game. They did not like that so I had to stop. :( Thanks God for usenet! :)
--
"Therefore I tell you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, 'Jesus be cursed,' and no one can say, 'Jesus is Lord,' except by the Holy Spirit." --1 Corinthians 12:3. Superman & Lois' finale was emotionally good!
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )

On 12/3/2024 7:40 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>
> So, Steam locked my account today.
>
> And why not? After all, I posted an incredibly suspicious (their
> words) comment the other day. It was a response to a review on their
> storefront. I forget what the game was, but that review basically
> said: 'don't buy this game, even if its on sale, even if it looks
> good, it's not worth it.'
>
> So I replied:
>
> "It's true. I saw the game. I saw the pretty graphics. I saw
> the negative scores. But I also saw it was on sale and I
> thought, 'it couldn't be that bad'. I was >< this close to
> buying it. Then I saw this review... and I put away the
> credit card. It's like you knew me. Thank you for saving
> me $40USD."
>
Did they lock the account of the person who's review you were responding to?

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 03/12/2024 15:40, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>
> So, Steam locked my account today.
>
> And why not? After all, I posted an incredibly suspicious (their
> words) comment the other day. It was a response to a review on their
> storefront. I forget what the game was, but that review basically
> said: 'don't buy this game, even if its on sale, even if it looks
> good, it's not worth it.'
>
> So I replied:
>
> "It's true. I saw the game. I saw the pretty graphics. I saw
> the negative scores. But I also saw it was on sale and I
> thought, 'it couldn't be that bad'. I was >< this close to
> buying it. Then I saw this review... and I put away the
> credit card. It's like you knew me. Thank you for saving
> me $40USD."
>
> (that's my content, quoted in full, that Valve found offensive)
>
> As you can see, it's no surprise that Valve locked the account of
> somebody who would say something so dreadful. I'm lucky my NNTP
> provider doesn't cancel my account for repeating it here, even if it
> was a first-strike by a long-time customer, content provider and
> probable 'whale'. Truly heinous stuff, right? Worthy of immediate
> locking somebody out of their property.
>
> Obviously I'm being sarcastic. But I think I'm due to some cynicism
> given the stupidity of Valve. It just reinforces my belief that
> companies like Valve have way to much power over their customers
>
> (similarly, Riot games has threatened to lock people out of their
> accounts for posting or saying stuff off-platform outside of their
> purview. That's right; do something offensive on Facebook and they'll
> keep you from playing League of Legends)
>
> It's not so much a problem of these corporations trying to police
> their platforms. With all the misogyny, homophobia, and racism out
> there, it's a necessity. But it's the ham-handed, algorithm-led,
> shoot-first/investigate-never methodolgy they use. They just depend on
> computers to do it, rather than pay for moderators, and trust that
> these algorithmic decisions are correct. And then rather than
> correspond with the offender first, they just take the nuclear option
> and yank the account. It's wrong in every aspect.
>
> I contacted customer support (which is to say, I clicked on a link and
> got redirected to a box where I could type out a comment). I politely
> requested that Valve investigate the incident and re-instate the
> account. I fully believe they will do so. The comment is so patently
> inoffensive that I have no idea why it even triggered an algorithm
>
> [maybe it was the use of the "> <" to indicate proximity?]
>
> But it's annoying that I have to jump through these hoops and that a
> black mark is now permanently associated with my account.
>
> And it's made me distrust Valve --and their DRM-enforced control over
> my property-- just a little bit more.
>

Annoying but realistically I'm not sure what Valve can do in general
beyond trying to learn from where things went wrong and human
interaction* is required somewhere in the process. Facewank is pretty
awful in this respect with an algorithm that seems more like a game of
pin the tail on the donkey. Oh you want to appeal this seven day ban,
well just flag it to get looked at by our team of independent
moderators. Oh sorry about that they haven't got time to do it currently
so you're still banned.

This one though, locking your account. I mean really, I'd expect that
would at least come with fair warning before doing it unless there's
some obscure reason to do with account security or you're a repeat offender.

*The World of Tanks forum was a good example of be careful of what you
wish for. There was no algorithm and it was all down to human
moderators. Sounds good until you realise that they ended up with two
volunteer moderators (why pay staff when you can get people to work for
you for free) and they we so utterly biased it became basically a joke
on the forum. Then again if you have a moderator who thinks they have a
spirit guide called Jesus of Nazareth then you're just asking for trouble!

>So, Steam locked my account today.

Yeah, don't get all prolix and cute with any customer service. Just
state what you want, and get outta there. Hope you're unbanned immediately!

rms

On Tue, 3 Dec 2024 18:33:03 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

>On 12/3/2024 7:40 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>
>> So, Steam locked my account today.
>>
>> And why not? After all, I posted an incredibly suspicious (their
>> words) comment the other day. It was a response to a review on their
>> storefront. I forget what the game was, but that review basically
>> said: 'don't buy this game, even if its on sale, even if it looks
>> good, it's not worth it.'
>>
>> So I replied:
>>
>> "It's true. I saw the game. I saw the pretty graphics. I saw
>> the negative scores. But I also saw it was on sale and I
>> thought, 'it couldn't be that bad'. I was >< this close to
>> buying it. Then I saw this review... and I put away the
>> credit card. It's like you knew me. Thank you for saving
>> me $40USD."
>>
>Did they lock the account of the person who's review you were responding to?

I have no idea. I don't remember what the game was. It was a
throw-away comment to some person's review about a not-very-good game;
it didn't occur to me to memorize the details at the time.

Since then, Valve has -unsurprisingly- unlocked the account. They
claim it was about 'suspicious activity' and it was 'merely to help
protect people against account hacking and phishing', which would have
been more convincing if they hadn't quoted the (very unsuspicious)
comment specifically. It's not like I haven't made comments in the
past so they can't even say just the fact that I made a comment is
unusual.

(I also today received a notification that "content of mine has been
removed" because it "violated community guidelines" without any clues
as to what content that was, or how it violated the guidelines. All it
said was "comment", which doesn't really narrow it down much. I've
contacted Steam customer service AGAIN for clarification)

It isn't that Valve is so unusual in this behavior. Internet
corporations are famous for their shoot-first attitude towards any
violations. This, combined with shoddy algorithmically-led detection
schemes, results in a lot of false positives. But it reflects a
certain lack of respect for their customers.

I do wonder if Valve recently changed the algorithm's weighting
tables, following the accusations by the ADL a few weeks ago, and what
we're seeing is growing pains as they tune it. Even so, it still
shouldn't be the customers who pay the price for their problems.

Anyway, it's annoying for me because Steam is really the only service
where I have a significant amount of digital content under somebody
else's control. Were EA or Ubisoft to lock my account, I could shrug
it off fairly easily, but I've a significant investment in games on
Steam. All the more so since to some degree I feel that Steam was
forced on me because I wanted to keep at my PC gaming hobby. It's not
something I would have picked, had there really been an option
otherwise. In fact, when there is an option (read: the game is
available on GOG) I always pick that one instead of Steam. So Valve's
high-handedness seems especially galling to me.

Others might not feel the same way, understandably.

On Wed, 04 Dec 2024 14:14:16 -0500, Spalls Hurgenson
<spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

>(I also today received a notification that "content of mine has been
>removed" because it "violated community guidelines" without any clues
>as to what content that was, or how it violated the guidelines. All it
>said was "comment", which doesn't really narrow it down much. I've
>contacted Steam customer service AGAIN for clarification)

If they reply to you and you don't mind sharing it here, I would like
to know exactly what you said that violated their guidelines. I am
very curious.

>If they reply to you and you don't mind sharing it here, I would like
>to know exactly what you said that violated their guidelines. I am
>very curious.

maybe collateral damage from nuking the other party ?

rms

On 12/4/2024 11:21 AM, Mike S. wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Dec 2024 14:14:16 -0500, Spalls Hurgenson
> <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> (I also today received a notification that "content of mine has been
>> removed" because it "violated community guidelines" without any clues
>> as to what content that was, or how it violated the guidelines. All it
>> said was "comment", which doesn't really narrow it down much. I've
>> contacted Steam customer service AGAIN for clarification)
>
> If they reply to you and you don't mind sharing it here, I would like
> to know exactly what you said that violated their guidelines. I am
> very curious.

Oh, they're not going to tell him THAT!

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 04/12/2024 19:14, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> I do wonder if Valve recently changed the algorithm's weighting
> tables, following the accusations by the ADL a few weeks ago, and what
> we're seeing is growing pains as they tune it. Even so, it still
> shouldn't be the customers who pay the price for their problems.

That sounds quite plausible so even if they tested what a more tuned
algorithm would do then things can always go unnoticed until they roll
it out live. Still I would hope they did better than when the new and
improved battle rigging algorithm for World of Tanks was put into
action. The result, several thousand users were banned and Wargaming had
to admit, oh that was a mistake. I'd like to say it was a one off but
they had a habit of seemingly chucking things out there without actually
testing them.

As for the ADL, I forgot they were even still going and personally I
don't trust an organisation that seem to have a habit of trying to
conflate antisemitism with any criticism of Israel.

On Wed, 04 Dec 2024 14:21:12 -0500, Mike S. <Mike_S@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 04 Dec 2024 14:14:16 -0500, Spalls Hurgenson
><spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>(I also today received a notification that "content of mine has been
>>removed" because it "violated community guidelines" without any clues
>>as to what content that was, or how it violated the guidelines. All it
>>said was "comment", which doesn't really narrow it down much. I've
>>contacted Steam customer service AGAIN for clarification)
>
>If they reply to you and you don't mind sharing it here, I would like
>to know exactly what you said that violated their guidelines. I am
>very curious.

So, it turns out "the content that violated the community guidelines"
was the exact same comment that earlier got triggered for being
'suspicious content'. (see initial comment if you want the exact
wording).

So, they closed my account for that comment, then -when challenged-
agreed that there was nothing wrong with the comment, and then the
next day deleted it anyway.

I (politely) pressed Steam for details, asking how the comment
violated community guidelines so I could avoid doing so in the future,
and was told:

"In this case, we do not have any recommendations based
on the content of your comment, as it does not actually
appear to include suspicious material."

Nonetheless, they did not restore the comment. (They did suggest I
could repost the comment should I chose ;-)

As stated in other posts, I've no real issue with the underlying
principles behind these actions. Monitoring user activity in order to
prevent account hacks or for purposes of moderation is common sense
practice. What I do take umbrage with is /how/ it is done. There is
-not only on Steam, but other online services- such a lack of
transparency that not even the ADMINISTRATORS understand what
triggered these actions. Worse, action is taken on accounts without
any oversight; the algorithm flags content and action is immediately
taken, leaving the end-user very little recourse.

I was fortunate that Valve restored my account. But unfortunately all
the power is in their hands, and very little is on the other side of
the contract. That is extremely problematic, not just with Steam but
with all other Internet interactions.

I have a significant level of distrust of Valve's platform now. Who
knows what little thing I may say or do that might trigger the
over-eager algorithm? It makes me a lot willing to engage with the
community features (playing online, making comments, writing reviews,
providing artwork), which were one of the major draws of the platform
over its competitors. At least if GOG cancels my account, I don't lose
several (tens of?) thousands of dollars worth of games.

On Thu, 05 Dec 2024 10:47:00 -0500, Spalls Hurgenson
<spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

>So, it turns out "the content that violated the community guidelines"
>was the exact same comment that earlier got triggered for being
>'suspicious content'. (see initial comment if you want the exact
>wording).

Thank you.

On 12/5/2024 7:47 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Dec 2024 14:21:12 -0500, Mike S. <Mike_S@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 04 Dec 2024 14:14:16 -0500, Spalls Hurgenson
>> <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> (I also today received a notification that "content of mine has been
>>> removed" because it "violated community guidelines" without any clues
>>> as to what content that was, or how it violated the guidelines. All it
>>> said was "comment", which doesn't really narrow it down much. I've
>>> contacted Steam customer service AGAIN for clarification)
>>
>> If they reply to you and you don't mind sharing it here, I would like
>> to know exactly what you said that violated their guidelines. I am
>> very curious.
>
> So, it turns out "the content that violated the community guidelines"
> was the exact same comment that earlier got triggered for being
> 'suspicious content'. (see initial comment if you want the exact
> wording).
>
> So, they closed my account for that comment, then -when challenged-
> agreed that there was nothing wrong with the comment, and then the
> next day deleted it anyway.
>
> I (politely) pressed Steam for details, asking how the comment
> violated community guidelines so I could avoid doing so in the future,
> and was told:
>
> "In this case, we do not have any recommendations based
> on the content of your comment, as it does not actually
> appear to include suspicious material."
>
> Nonetheless, they did not restore the comment. (They did suggest I
> could repost the comment should I chose ;-)
>
And start the loop over again no doubt.

> As stated in other posts, I've no real issue with the underlying
> principles behind these actions. Monitoring user activity in order to
> prevent account hacks or for purposes of moderation is common sense
> practice. What I do take umbrage with is /how/ it is done. There is
> -not only on Steam, but other online services- such a lack of
> transparency that not even the ADMINISTRATORS understand what
> triggered these actions. Worse, action is taken on accounts without
> any oversight; the algorithm flags content and action is immediately
> taken, leaving the end-user very little recourse.
>
> I was fortunate that Valve restored my account. But unfortunately all
> the power is in their hands, and very little is on the other side of
> the contract. That is extremely problematic, not just with Steam but
> with all other Internet interactions.
>
> I have a significant level of distrust of Valve's platform now. Who
> knows what little thing I may say or do that might trigger the
> over-eager algorithm? It makes me a lot willing to engage with the
> community features (playing online, making comments, writing reviews,
> providing artwork), which were one of the major draws of the platform
> over its competitors. At least if GOG cancels my account, I don't lose
> several (tens of?) thousands of dollars worth of games.
>
>
>
>
>
>

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 12/5/2024 7:47 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Dec 2024 14:21:12 -0500, Mike S. <Mike_S@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 04 Dec 2024 14:14:16 -0500, Spalls Hurgenson
>> <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> (I also today received a notification that "content of mine has been
>>> removed" because it "violated community guidelines" without any clues
>>> as to what content that was, or how it violated the guidelines. All it
>>> said was "comment", which doesn't really narrow it down much. I've
>>> contacted Steam customer service AGAIN for clarification)
>>
>> If they reply to you and you don't mind sharing it here, I would like
>> to know exactly what you said that violated their guidelines. I am
>> very curious.
>
> So, it turns out "the content that violated the community guidelines"
> was the exact same comment that earlier got triggered for being
> 'suspicious content'. (see initial comment if you want the exact
> wording).
>
> So, they closed my account for that comment, then -when challenged-
> agreed that there was nothing wrong with the comment, and then the
> next day deleted it anyway.
>
> I (politely) pressed Steam for details, asking how the comment
> violated community guidelines so I could avoid doing so in the future,
> and was told:
>
> "In this case, we do not have any recommendations based
> on the content of your comment, as it does not actually
> appear to include suspicious material."
>
> Nonetheless, they did not restore the comment. (They did suggest I
> could repost the comment should I chose ;-)
>
> As stated in other posts, I've no real issue with the underlying
> principles behind these actions. Monitoring user activity in order to
> prevent account hacks or for purposes of moderation is common sense
> practice. What I do take umbrage with is /how/ it is done. There is
> -not only on Steam, but other online services- such a lack of
> transparency that not even the ADMINISTRATORS understand what
> triggered these actions. Worse, action is taken on accounts without
> any oversight; the algorithm flags content and action is immediately
> taken, leaving the end-user very little recourse.
>
> I was fortunate that Valve restored my account. But unfortunately all
> the power is in their hands, and very little is on the other side of
> the contract. That is extremely problematic, not just with Steam but
> with all other Internet interactions.
>
> I have a significant level of distrust of Valve's platform now. Who
> knows what little thing I may say or do that might trigger the
> over-eager algorithm? It makes me a lot willing to engage with the
> community features (playing online, making comments, writing reviews,
> providing artwork), which were one of the major draws of the platform
> over its competitors. At least if GOG cancels my account, I don't lose
> several (tens of?) thousands of dollars worth of games.

So banned account as in you just couldn't post anything, or as in you
can't play any of your (tens of?) thousands of games?

I never really trusted Steam, I suppose that's why I rarely post
anything there, especially negative for fear of the same, they hold my
most treasured games hostage afterall.

As to their algorithm, I believe you posted about them changing to AI
moderation, which is orders of magnitude more difficult, or impossible
to figure out what the hell it's doing in the black box of it's program.
From what I've read on it, basically no one knows what it's doing and
all they can do is retrain it, or implement layers on top of it that try
to stop it from doing things they don't want it to. Then there's the
fact they may not even actually try to stop it from doing things that
they *say* they don't want it to, or that one would expect fairness out of.

--
-Justisaur

ø-ø
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
¶¬'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'

On 05/12/2024 21:52, Justisaur wrote:
> As to their algorithm, I believe you posted about them changing to AI
> moderation, which is orders of magnitude more difficult, or impossible
> to figure out what the hell it's doing in the black box of it's program.
>  From what I've read on it, basically no one knows what it's doing and
> all they can do is retrain it, or implement layers on top of it that try
> to stop it from doing things they don't want it to.  Then there's the
> fact they may not even actually try to stop it from doing things that
> they *say* they don't want it to, or that one would expect fairness out of.

My experience of algorithms, mainly FB, is that they are really bad at
detecting sarcasm. So I once said 'burn the heretic' and I got hit with
a seven day ban for extremism language. Do they not understand Brits
have built a whole way of life around sarcasm.

In general I kinda agree with you that companies are more than happy to
accept some users as collateral damage as long as they can avoid getting
a reputation of allowing the likes of hate speech, well unless it's
twitter, sorry X, which seems to embrace it with open arms.

On 12/6/2024 3:31 AM, JAB wrote:
> On 05/12/2024 21:52, Justisaur wrote:
>> As to their algorithm, I believe you posted about them changing to AI
>> moderation, which is orders of magnitude more difficult, or impossible
>> to figure out what the hell it's doing in the black box of it's
>> program.   From what I've read on it, basically no one knows what it's
>> doing and all they can do is retrain it, or implement layers on top of
>> it that try to stop it from doing things they don't want it to.  Then
>> there's the fact they may not even actually try to stop it from doing
>> things that they *say* they don't want it to, or that one would expect
>> fairness out of.
>
> My experience of algorithms, mainly FB, is that they are really bad at
> detecting sarcasm. So I once said 'burn the heretic' and I got hit with
> a seven day ban for extremism language. Do they not understand Brits
> have built a whole way of life around sarcasm.
>
They don't care. But how does one explain humor to computer software?

> In general I kinda agree with you that companies are more than happy to
> accept some users as collateral damage as long as they can avoid getting
> a reputation of allowing the likes of hate speech, well unless it's
> twitter, sorry X, which seems to embrace it with open arms.
>
Doesn't "seem to embrace", has been stated by the owner that it welcomes
and encourages it.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Thu, 5 Dec 2024 13:52:26 -0800, Justisaur <justisaur@gmail.com>
wrote:

>So banned account as in you just couldn't post anything, or as in you
>can't play any of your (tens of?) thousands of games?

Honestly, I'm not sure. I turned on the computer in the morning to
check the email, and -because I leave Steam running all the time-
"account locked" message was front and foremost on the screen. I fired
off a message to Valve's customer service, and then went and did Real
Stuff (tm) because I didn't have time to play games. I assume it was a
"hahaha we got your games" but maybe it was more limited? I didn't
test it. By the time I /could/, Valve had unlocked the account
already.

Either way, though, it's still annoying.

>I never really trusted Steam, I suppose that's why I rarely post
>anything there, especially negative for fear of the same, they hold my
>most treasured games hostage afterall.

It's always been a worry with Steam (and any other online service).
Arguably, Valve may be better than any of the others. But it's the
price the PC gaming community has chosen to pay (or chooses to ignore
the cost) when we rallied around Steam and other online marketplaces,
despite the warnings of some.

>As to their algorithm, I believe you posted about them changing to AI
>moderation, which is orders of magnitude more difficult, or impossible
>to figure out what the hell it's doing in the black box of it's program.

I don't know if they actually ARE tweaking their moderation
algorithms. It was just a guess. However, Steam has come under fire
--rightfully so-- for the amount of hateful comments that can be found
on their service (the ADL highlighted anti-Semitic comments, but Steam
users can be pretty broad in their spite). Having had a flashlight
shone upon them, I wouldn't be surprised if Valve is scampering to
stamp out some of the worst examples. But I don't know if this is what
actually happened.

Which is, again, the primary thrust of my complaint: the lack of
transparency in the process. It's so black-box not even the
administrators know why the algorithm flags certain content, and yet
they blindly trust it and follow its recommendations (or allow it to
take action on its own recognizance) without human oversight. I find
that problematic. Not just on a personal level but because --as
evidenced by your own comment above-- it stifles free expression
because nobody knows just WHAT will get them flagged. That's murder on
an online community, and if unchecked can drive people away.

Steam (and other online services, from EGS to YouTube to Bluesky) can
and should moderate. But they need to be clear to people about what
will and will not trigger actions, and they need to ensure human
oversight rather than relying on the AI to correctly judge the
situation.

At the moment, the issue with my account is resolved. But like you, I
feel chary about engaging with the community there anymore.

On Fri, 6 Dec 2024 07:27:33 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>On 12/6/2024 3:31 AM, JAB wrote:

>> In general I kinda agree with you that companies are more than happy to
>> accept some users as collateral damage as long as they can avoid getting
>> a reputation of allowing the likes of hate speech, well unless it's
>> twitter, sorry X, which seems to embrace it with open arms.

>Doesn't "seem to embrace", has been stated by the owner that it welcomes
>and encourages it.

To be fair, Twitter only embraces hate speech directed at people the
owner himself dislikes. Say anything bad about him or his allies,
though, and you're out on your ass. ;-)

Fortunately, there are alternatives to Twitter, and those are becoming
increasingly popular.

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 16:42 this Friday (GMT):
> On Fri, 6 Dec 2024 07:27:33 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
><dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>On 12/6/2024 3:31 AM, JAB wrote:
>
>>> In general I kinda agree with you that companies are more than happy to
>>> accept some users as collateral damage as long as they can avoid getting
>>> a reputation of allowing the likes of hate speech, well unless it's
>>> twitter, sorry X, which seems to embrace it with open arms.
>
>
>>Doesn't "seem to embrace", has been stated by the owner that it welcomes
>>and encourages it.
>
> To be fair, Twitter only embraces hate speech directed at people the
> owner himself dislikes. Say anything bad about him or his allies,
> though, and you're out on your ass. ;-)
>
> Fortunately, there are alternatives to Twitter, and those are becoming
> increasingly popular.

Bluesky is quite a nice platform.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
> Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 16:42 this Friday (GMT):
> > On Fri, 6 Dec 2024 07:27:33 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
> ><dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
> >>On 12/6/2024 3:31 AM, JAB wrote:
> >
> >>> In general I kinda agree with you that companies are more than happy to
> >>> accept some users as collateral damage as long as they can avoid getting
> >>> a reputation of allowing the likes of hate speech, well unless it's
> >>> twitter, sorry X, which seems to embrace it with open arms.
> >
> >
> >>Doesn't "seem to embrace", has been stated by the owner that it welcomes
> >>and encourages it.
> >
> > To be fair, Twitter only embraces hate speech directed at people the
> > owner himself dislikes. Say anything bad about him or his allies,
> > though, and you're out on your ass. ;-)
> >
> > Fortunately, there are alternatives to Twitter, and those are becoming
> > increasingly popular.

> Bluesky is quite a nice platform.

Try Mastodon! ;)
--
"Just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, so in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others." --Romans 12:4-5. Which is member for this old ant?
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Dec 2024 13:52:26 -0800, Justisaur <justisaur@gmail.com>
> wrote:

> >So banned account as in you just couldn't post anything, or as in you
> >can't play any of your (tens of?) thousands of games?

> Honestly, I'm not sure. I turned on the computer in the morning to
> check the email, and -because I leave Steam running all the time-
> "account locked" message was front and foremost on the screen. I fired
> off a message to Valve's customer service, and then went and did Real
> Stuff (tm) because I didn't have time to play games. I assume it was a
> "hahaha we got your games" but maybe it was more limited? I didn't
> test it. By the time I /could/, Valve had unlocked the account
> already.

> Either way, though, it's still annoying.

For me IIRC, I couldn't log in so I had to contact Valve's customer
support as well. Whew. I thought I lost everything. See, I hate online
services like gaming. Bah 2 DRM.

> >I never really trusted Steam, I suppose that's why I rarely post
> >anything there, especially negative for fear of the same, they hold my
> >most treasured games hostage afterall.

> It's always been a worry with Steam (and any other online service).
> Arguably, Valve may be better than any of the others. But it's the
> price the PC gaming community has chosen to pay (or chooses to ignore
> the cost) when we rallied around Steam and other online marketplaces,
> despite the warnings of some.

> >As to their algorithm, I believe you posted about them changing to AI
> >moderation, which is orders of magnitude more difficult, or impossible
> >to figure out what the hell it's doing in the black box of it's program.

> I don't know if they actually ARE tweaking their moderation
> algorithms. It was just a guess. However, Steam has come under fire
> --rightfully so-- for the amount of hateful comments that can be found
> on their service (the ADL highlighted anti-Semitic comments, but Steam
> users can be pretty broad in their spite). Having had a flashlight
> shone upon them, I wouldn't be surprised if Valve is scampering to
> stamp out some of the worst examples. But I don't know if this is what
> actually happened.

> Which is, again, the primary thrust of my complaint: the lack of
> transparency in the process. It's so black-box not even the
> administrators know why the algorithm flags certain content, and yet
> they blindly trust it and follow its recommendations (or allow it to
> take action on its own recognizance) without human oversight. I find
> that problematic. Not just on a personal level but because --as
> evidenced by your own comment above-- it stifles free expression
> because nobody knows just WHAT will get them flagged. That's murder on
> an online community, and if unchecked can drive people away.

> Steam (and other online services, from EGS to YouTube to Bluesky) can
> and should moderate. But they need to be clear to people about what
> will and will not trigger actions, and they need to ensure human
> oversight rather than relying on the AI to correctly judge the
> situation.

> At the moment, the issue with my account is resolved. But like you, I
> feel chary about engaging with the community there anymore.

Yep.
--
"Just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, so in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others." --Romans 12:4-5. Which is member for this old ant?
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )

Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> wrote at 23:00 this Friday (GMT):
> candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
>> Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 16:42 this Friday (GMT):
>> > On Fri, 6 Dec 2024 07:27:33 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
>> ><dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>> >>On 12/6/2024 3:31 AM, JAB wrote:
>> >
>> >>> In general I kinda agree with you that companies are more than happy to
>> >>> accept some users as collateral damage as long as they can avoid getting
>> >>> a reputation of allowing the likes of hate speech, well unless it's
>> >>> twitter, sorry X, which seems to embrace it with open arms.
>> >
>> >
>> >>Doesn't "seem to embrace", has been stated by the owner that it welcomes
>> >>and encourages it.
>> >
>> > To be fair, Twitter only embraces hate speech directed at people the
>> > owner himself dislikes. Say anything bad about him or his allies,
>> > though, and you're out on your ass. ;-)
>> >
>> > Fortunately, there are alternatives to Twitter, and those are becoming
>> > increasingly popular.
>
>> Bluesky is quite a nice platform.
>
> Try Mastodon! ;)

I don't like mastadon.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

JAB <noway@nochance.com> looked up from reading the entrails of the porn
spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:

>On 05/12/2024 21:52, Justisaur wrote:
>> As to their algorithm, I believe you posted about them changing to AI
>> moderation, which is orders of magnitude more difficult, or impossible
>> to figure out what the hell it's doing in the black box of it's program.
>>  From what I've read on it, basically no one knows what it's doing and
>> all they can do is retrain it, or implement layers on top of it that try
>> to stop it from doing things they don't want it to.  Then there's the
>> fact they may not even actually try to stop it from doing things that
>> they *say* they don't want it to, or that one would expect fairness out of.
>
>My experience of algorithms, mainly FB, is that they are really bad at
>detecting sarcasm. So I once said 'burn the heretic' and I got hit with
>a seven day ban for extremism language. Do they not understand Brits
>have built a whole way of life around sarcasm.

Americans rarely get British humor, so an American Algorithm has little
chance.

These are the folks who decided to remake Fawlty Towers, and decided
that Basil had to go.

Xocyll

On 12/6/2024 6:00 PM, Xocyll wrote:
> JAB <noway@nochance.com> looked up from reading the entrails of the porn
> spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>
>> On 05/12/2024 21:52, Justisaur wrote:
>>> As to their algorithm, I believe you posted about them changing to AI
>>> moderation, which is orders of magnitude more difficult, or impossible
>>> to figure out what the hell it's doing in the black box of it's program.
>>>  From what I've read on it, basically no one knows what it's doing and
>>> all they can do is retrain it, or implement layers on top of it that try
>>> to stop it from doing things they don't want it to.  Then there's the
>>> fact they may not even actually try to stop it from doing things that
>>> they *say* they don't want it to, or that one would expect fairness out of.
>>
>> My experience of algorithms, mainly FB, is that they are really bad at
>> detecting sarcasm. So I once said 'burn the heretic' and I got hit with
>> a seven day ban for extremism language. Do they not understand Brits
>> have built a whole way of life around sarcasm.
>
> Americans rarely get British humor, so an American Algorithm has little
> chance.
>
> These are the folks who decided to remake Fawlty Towers, and decided
> that Basil had to go.

As an American that grew up on PBS (which played a lot of BBS shows) and
enjoys it, I agree. The number of shows I've seen even recently where
they were remade here after I saw the British versions first is
astounding. I don't understand why they need to be remade here.
Generally it's much prettier people who are far worse actors, and the
scripts rewritten for the braindead. Wait I think I just answered my
own question. *facepalm*

--
-Justisaur

ø-ø
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
¶¬'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'

On 07/12/2024 04:00, Justisaur wrote:
> On 12/6/2024 6:00 PM, Xocyll wrote:
>> JAB <noway@nochance.com> looked up from reading the entrails of the porn
>> spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>>
>>> On 05/12/2024 21:52, Justisaur wrote:
>>>> As to their algorithm, I believe you posted about them changing to AI
>>>> moderation, which is orders of magnitude more difficult, or impossible
>>>> to figure out what the hell it's doing in the black box of it's
>>>> program.
>>>>    From what I've read on it, basically no one knows what it's doing
>>>> and
>>>> all they can do is retrain it, or implement layers on top of it that
>>>> try
>>>> to stop it from doing things they don't want it to.  Then there's the
>>>> fact they may not even actually try to stop it from doing things that
>>>> they *say* they don't want it to, or that one would expect fairness
>>>> out of.
>>>
>>> My experience of algorithms, mainly FB, is that they are really bad at
>>> detecting sarcasm. So I once said 'burn the heretic' and I got hit with
>>> a seven day ban for extremism language. Do they not understand Brits
>>> have built a whole way of life around sarcasm.
>>
>> Americans rarely get British humor, so an American Algorithm has little
>> chance.
>>
>> These are the folks who decided to remake Fawlty Towers, and decided
>> that Basil had to go.
>
> As an American that grew up on PBS (which played a lot of BBS shows) and
> enjoys it, I agree.  The number of shows I've seen even recently where
> they were remade here after I saw the British versions first is
> astounding.  I don't understand why they need to be remade here.
> Generally it's much prettier people who are far worse actors, and the
> scripts rewritten for the braindead.  Wait I think I just answered my
> own question.  *facepalm*
>

I can understand tweaking the jokes to make them more accessible but
they often seem to go beyond that into what feels like being patronising
as though US audiences need a banner appearing saying this is the joke,
please laugh.

The other part I find perplexing is the likes of Red Dwarf, Absolutely
Fabulous, The Inbetweeners etc. where a fundamental part is the main
characters are basically losers but somehow manage to be relatable
(maybe it's related to the joke of why there is no British dream like
the American dream - because we're awake). Tear that up and make them
nice. Why bother remaking it at all then?