By Cyra Paladini and Evan Enzer
In the wake of major corporate setbacks in last moth’s Pride celebrations—think Starbucks’ “no decorations” policy or Target pulling Pride merchandise—videogame developer Blizzard Entertainment opted for inclusivity. Blizzard launched an in-game Pride celebration on Overwatch, a popular multiplayer game. The event features new costumes for LGBTQ+ characters and re-skinned maps to commemorate Pride. This festivity is the latest example of video games’ growing importance as a space for social expression and connection. Resourceful players use video games for political rallies, religious ceremonies, protests, and dating. Although gaming can provide an important digital public forum, new research finds that game moderation programs alienate minority players, and in-game censorship limits free expression. Sadly, historically marginalized gamers, like the LGBTQ players Overwatch is celebrating, feel these harms most strongly. It’s time for governments and companies to rethink video game content moderation.
Nearly all multiplayer online video games implement some form of content moderation to reduce harassment and create a fun environment. To stem the constant flow of foul play, entertainment companies rely on computer programs and overworked moderators to filter offensive communications and ban abusive players. Unfortunately, these programs lack social context, and often mistakenly censor players merely responding to or defending against the harassment.
Game moderator programs consistently flag women, LGBTQ gamers, and members of other underrepresented groups who stand up for themselves against trolls. Many turn to Reddit to share experiences like this player’s: “A guy got me suspended on PlayStation for a week. He said some extremely racist and antisemitic stuff then proceeded to message me…baiting me into paraphrasing what he said and reporting my message.”
Research shows that many content moderation programs block words like “lesbian,” “gay,” or “sapphic.” This not only punishes gamers who use these terms as insults but also those who use them for self-expression, including a fellow Reddit poster whose username, “GaymFace,” (a play on the phrase “game face”) earned him a seven-day suspension. GaymFace, too, took to Reddit to express his discontent: “I’m a member of the LGBT community and have proudly been playing under this name for 5+ years. […] my username changed to a Temp name because it ‘violates the community code of conduct.’”
The unintended consequence of content moderation is that companies routinely ban historically marginalized players from gaming platforms, sending the message that game developers have no desire to correct such a critical oversight, and don’t value their participation.
In the absence of effective industry moderation, Congress is also stepping in to prevent virtual violence, bullying, and restrict children’s access to age-inappropriate content. Similar to industry regulation, legislators paint with broad strokes when it comes to limiting digital speech. Again, such interference in gaming affects everyone, not just kids. When the government limits gamers’ ability to speak freely with such rigid content-based restrictions, they also dictate how players may express themselves. The American government ought not to be the judge of acceptable expression. Furthermore, when we allow point blank banning of certain speech as a practice by state officials, we set a precedent for the imposition of ideologically motivated limitations on digital actors and the media they participate in.
The fundamental issue is that governments, companies, and players hold contradictory understandings of what video games are supposed to be. To entertainment companies like Blizzard, games are art, revenue streams, and places to play creatively. Government officials view videogames as mass media to regulate like any other industry. But to players, games are a channel for spending time with friends and loved ones. To them, digital self-expression — so long as it’s not at the expense of others — is critical, and gaming is often a medium for otherwise impossible explorations of personal identity. Players go on dates with their long-distance partners, navigate fantasy worlds with their best friends, and build virtual homes. When gaming is an extension of life, it is natural that players will become livid when moderators ban them from expressing their identity or defending themselves.
Video games are not media that players passively consume. They are immersive virtual worlds, the closest thing to a real metaverse we have. If we approach gaming in this way, as players, we need to rethink how governments and companies censor speech and content inside video games. This should include decision-making procedures that allow gamers to present their side before the company bans them. It also must include building context-aware moderation programs, complete with thorough and subjective human review rather than just artificial intelligence word filters. Lastly, game publishers, led by diverse teams, should release more titles designed to represent historically marginalized gamers authentically. There is less need for content moderation when games represent all players and promote pro-social behavior from the start, meaning inclusive games provide a better opportunity for everyone to express themselves in the new virtual world.
Evan Enzer is a Berkeley Law graduate, certified privacy professional, and legal fellow at The Surveillance Technology Oversight Project. Cyra Paladini is a communications intern at S.T.O.P. She is currently studying Cognitive Science at Barnard College and is a staff reporter at the Columbia Daily Spectator, and formerly served as an advocacy coordinator for Amnesty International and March For Our Lives.