Justice Minister Eric Dupond-Moretti recently detailed the main measures of the “Law to Strengthen Republican Principles”, including penalties for those who post hateful content online. We wanted iGamesNews to speak to two lawyers specializing in new technology law and intellectual property law. And especially in the field of video games and esports. As such, they are rightly convinced that video game publishers have a role to play in the fight against cybercrime. Here is your call that we are happy to pass on.
see also: PSN: our interview with Guillaume Lovet, expert on cybercrime
Today the video game industry represents the most lucrative cultural sector in France and the world, which unfortunately makes video games a real niche for hate content.
The success of this industry is, in fact, the level of risks it brings. The dramatic events that have shaken France in recent weeks have made the consequences of such a scourge clear on social networks. But video games are by no means spared, on the contrary.
This is why it is absolutely essential for video game editors Strengthen their policies against the increase in hate content in their chat platforms and forums.
Terrible toxicity in this booming industry
However, the majority of video game publishers have established a real arsenal of player protection: the presence of volunteer moderators in the chat rooms, deleting illegal messages, reporting to support, the procedure for the temporary suspension of a player’s account that is classified as toxic, and the repeat player banning process, which aims to permanently ban a player from the community.
Some games have a reputation for containing more hate speech than others, such as League of Legends, DotA2, Call of Duty, Fortnite or Rainbow Six Siege.
The publishers of these games understand the need to act in connection with the distribution of this content. For example, Ubisoft, editor and developer of the game Rainbow Six Siege continues to improve the system of sanctions against players who do not adhere to the established code of conduct. Players who do not act in an exemplary manner may receive a message informing them of the “User has been banned for toxicity” penalty.
The discussion forums of platforms specializing in the video game sector also play a role.
To illustrate: Blah’s 18-25 year old forum had a sulphurous reputation due to the proliferation of hate speech and cyber-harassment campaigns and is far from an isolated incident.
Unfortunately, the measures taken by publishers and hosts remain inadequate. Raising players’ awareness of this type of content does not allow its deletion.
Locking an account always allows a player or internet user to create another account and join the community that locked them.
The need to go beyond the gambling sanction and reach the legislative sanction
In the game League of LegendsArtificial intelligence enables the identification of harmful behaviors, taking into account the countries and local cultures, in order to impose quick sanctions of just a few minutes or hours. Sanctions can also be public to create a sense of justice within the community.
The Riot Games Studio has already sanctioned professional gamers from League of Legends for their behavior in depriving them of some major esports competitions.
The fact remains that this equity belongs 100% to video game publishers. Despite their goodwill or forums, the fight against cybercrime in multiplayer games is incomplete.
The courts and the police are alien to this phenomenon, and it is risk
In the current context, it is absolutely critical that the judicial system change and adapt to respond to the risks posed by the immediate exchange rate within network video games and their platform.
The fact that a player is excluded from a game (usually under a pseudonym) for making hateful or radical comments does not allow the person behind his screen to be held criminally responsible. The severity of certain comments and the relapse of players who simply change intends to continue unleashing their online hatred that deserves real legal action.
In this context, it is imperative to facilitate the removal of the anonymity of players and to reform the signaling system so that justice can be seized.
Video game editors must be able to work hand-in-hand with a specialized police unit to report people with hate speech.
The reporting process should make it easier and faster to find the player’s IP address to identify the perpetrators of the comments and punish them, aside from the simple penalties imposed by the video game editors.
Last but not the least, publishers need to continue their efforts to tackle harmful words in their games and redouble their vigilance to better protect their community from this hatred that is now ubiquitous.
Maria Berrada and Julie Jacob
Jacob Avocat’s cabinet