Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Wednesday June 17 2020, @06:43PM   Printer-friendly
from the Valve-Implementing-New-Steam-Comment-Moderation-Bot dept.

The folks over at at TechRaptor bring us word (recently updated) that Valve Implementing New Steam Comment Moderation Bot:

Steam's forums are an enjoyable place to be when you are discussing the latest happening in the gaming world. It is common to run into internet trolls and the likes, but there is nothing like keeping up with the spam comments giving people unsafe links to click through. Some of those links directed to Counter Strike: Global Offensive skin trading and gambling sites, and other non-safe places where they ask you for sensitive and personal information.

Recently, Steam users went to Reddit to report a new message that appeared to them for a few seconds whenever they comment in forum threads. Not only that, it apparently shows for users as well who are posting reviews of their recently played games.

Reportedly, the following message normally only shows for a few seconds before your comment gets approved, which means the comment moderation bot is only looking for links or any harmful content.

"This comment is awaiting analysis by our automated content check system. It will be temporarily hidden until we verify that it does not contain harmful content (e.g. links to websites that attempt to steal information)."

Valve later got back to TechRaptor with the following message:

Yes, we are scanning the forums and hiding posts that contain links to malicious sites attempting to steal user’s Steam information. We are always looking for ways to improve with new updates, fixes, and features.

Apolitical? Check. Narrowly-scoped? Check. No ideological argument or stretching of the definition of "harm" necessary? Check. Botting like a boss, guys.

[Belated Note: SoylentNews does not use automated moderation. We stick you poor folks with the work instead. --TMB]


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 18 2020, @03:27AM (10 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 18 2020, @03:27AM (#1009415)

    He's Catholic, which means the correct number for that commandment is 4. The fifth commandment for Catholics is "You shall not murder."

  • (Score: 2) by Bot on Friday June 19 2020, @01:39PM (9 children)

    by Bot (3902) on Friday June 19 2020, @01:39PM (#1010027) Journal

    I don't like that one.

    --
    Account abandoned.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 20 2020, @04:18AM (8 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 20 2020, @04:18AM (#1010268)

      Course not, y'all are overdue for another Crusade.

      • (Score: 2) by Bot on Sunday June 21 2020, @05:16AM (7 children)

        by Bot (3902) on Sunday June 21 2020, @05:16AM (#1010586) Journal

        Defense from the saracens and the antichrists is not crusading, kid.

        --
        Account abandoned.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 22 2020, @02:12AM (6 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 22 2020, @02:12AM (#1010885)

          Proactively hunting down and murdering others isn't self defense if you aren't under the literal and imminent threat of the same. And even then, violence is allowed only to the extent that such force is required to do repel aggressors. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, "The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing," "The fifth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful. The murderer and those who cooperate voluntarily in murder commit a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance," and "The fifth commandment forbids doing anything with the intention of indirectly bringing about a person's death. The moral law prohibits exposing someone to mortal danger without grave reason, as well as refusing assistance to a person in danger."

          But go on, tell us how the Vatican got that wrong and how real Catholics are allowed to do so. I'm all ears as, apparently, Jesus didn't really command to turn the other cheek or say "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword."

          • (Score: 2) by Bot on Wednesday June 24 2020, @05:27PM (5 children)

            by Bot (3902) on Wednesday June 24 2020, @05:27PM (#1012060) Journal

            Nicely written non sequitur, yours. Let us say you are in an island and a declared mafiosi family sets in. You either hunt down and permanently incapacitate them or you live with the consequences. What do you define as defense? What if instead of mafia the declared ideology is Islam and what if permanently incapacitate is not feasible except through death? What is defense then?

            --
            Account abandoned.
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2020, @10:21PM (2 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2020, @10:21PM (#1012672)

              Its definitely not getting them first. If and when they decide to cause you physical harm and such harm is imminent, then you might lay claim to a justified use of force. Anything else is just trying to get them first. That, by your own book, is not defense. And the reason is clear, if you are one to proactively use force (live by the sword), then you increase the chance of force, defensive or otherwise, being used against you (die by the sword). It is immoral to "bomb them over there before they bomb me over here" and that doesn't even get to the fact that you are describing no threats other than they are a different religion. "The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing," remember. You can never intentionally use fatal means of protection when things aren't threats. Living on an island with the mob or Muslims or whomever is not enough because there is no force initiation there. Now when specific people come to your door to initiate force against you, you can use proportional force against those specific people using force against you and only enough to repel that force. That is the rules your religion came up with. If you don't like them, fine, but then don't try to claim you are following them or claim the moral high ground of your religion.

              • (Score: 2) by RS3 on Friday June 26 2020, @03:14PM (1 child)

                by RS3 (6367) on Friday June 26 2020, @03:14PM (#1012884)

                You're a great philosopher, but sometimes reality wins over mental gymnastics. (Ask some physicists.)

                If and when they decide to cause you physical harm and such harm is imminent, then you might lay claim to a justified use of force.

                If you ain't breathing anymore, it's a bit late to mount a defense.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2020, @10:04PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2020, @10:04PM (#1013008)

                  three quick points.

                  Imminent doesn't mean after it happens, isn't preemptive either.
                  Religion concerns itself with how your thoughts and actions here affect your place the next world, not this one; and, within such a framework, if you must sacrifice in this life for the next, then so be it.
                  It is easy to follow a rule when it is something you'd do anyway, its hard to do it when there is something on the line.

            • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2020, @06:12PM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2020, @06:12PM (#1012929)

              So you're religious but you don't actually believe?

              What about the 3rd option, make peace and work for change? No? Just murder and maiming?

              You're a fucked up person Bot.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2020, @07:01AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2020, @07:01AM (#1013168)

                Yeah, the person whose response to a rule against murder was, "I don't like that one," trying to take the high ground. Even before the hypothetical, he literally came out and said his preference would be to murder people.