New Mod Low? HIV-Positivity Defended, Criticism Shunned

A looooong-standing position of this blog has been that mods should avoid censoring other people based on their personal opinions. Unfortunately, the moderators on Gamefaqs continue to inject their personal opinions into their moderations, despite recent changes to the terms of use - and these opinions of theirs are often abhorrent.

Gamefaqs recently made some changes to their site, which didn't go as far as what was originally proposed, but they were significant ones. A lot of rules were relaxed, which is great by us. But on the opposite end of that, a rule against namecalling was expanded in a big way. As for Yours Truly, I can't say that this would have an impact on me, since my arguments do not rely on namecalling but on factual statements - but as for others who like to namecall often, the rule sought to crack down on that. The "playground heckler" rule was criticized by many, as it meant that basically the mods would be playing schoolteacher to five year olds, telling them not to call people "children," "idiots," etc. Long-time memes like "Saxon=joke account" would now get you modded under these rules.

But more importantly for this little entry of our blog, the new rules did away with 3 karma loss notifications. Sounds good? A lot of people thought so, us included. At the same time there are obvious drawbacks. In place of 3kls, you would either be getting a message from the mods (a nanny lecture saying "I'll keep this up, but don't you do it again!") or you'd go straight to a warning. Some questioned why moderators, who already claimed they were overburdened and couldn't keep up with the queue, are now expanding their job to lecture people about messages they weren't even going to take down. But on the more dangerous side of things, people could go straight to warnings - meaning that instead of a 3kl, they would now get their account locked for several days over a single message - and they even wanted to remove disputes so you couldn't defend yourself!

Warnings breed contempt, which is something I can tell you from personal experience. And few things are more contemptible than the mods' ongoing stranglehold over anything to do with HIV issues. This is where their personal opinions come in. If you're in favor of the status quo, great. If you aren't, and if you want to point out that the status quo has failed, prepare to be moderated.

By all accounts, Yours Truly has been a good kid. There has not been a single moderation on this end at any time this year - and quite frankly, we were almost convinced that the mods were done with these games of theirs. But mods are always changing, and there's always someone out there looking to abuse a position. So here we go.

As always, the full text can be found here and here. At issue are basic facts from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which a moderator claimed were "misrepresented." Now, as the saying goes, you're entitled to your own opinions but you aren't entitled to your own facts. It's difficult to see how I misrepresented an article that I quoted extensively from, and almost entirely. It is hard to say how I misrepresented anything when the article literally states "The number of people in the military who take...Truvada, began surging after the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in 2011." It's data that some people obviously do not like, but it's a fact. Nothing was misrepresented.

My original source was the Washington Examiner, which is the website that the mod took issue with. I don't know why it's any of his business which source I choose, but since he (incorrectly) claimed that the CDC was misrepresented - and that this was the reason for his moderation - I changed the source and went to the CDC directly.


https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/67/wr/mm6720a1.htm

Would anyone be surprised at what happened next? This "fixed" topic was also taken down and sent straight to warning. Additional details that the moderators don't want anyone to know:

"The maximum estimated annual cost of PrEP to the military health care system is substantial, and new prescriptions for PrEP are expected to continue to rise...In addition, indirect costs associated with HIV-infected personnel who are prohibited from combat deployment might have substantial impact on military unit readiness and ability to accomplish specific missions.

"285 (37%) had at least some college education. The indication for initiating PrEP was most commonly sexual contact with men (87%) and condomless sex (73%); 30% reported exposure to sexual partners with known HIV infection."


Additional information left unquoted: the soldiers obviously didn't get HIV on the battlefield and this was contracted mainly within the US (in a manner which the military itself points out is unprofessional), and that drugs like Truvada are not readily deployable to battlefield situations. Knowing all this, knowing that the cost of HIV per person can ruin their lives to the tune of $450,000, would you assume that this is open to political discussion on a politics board? Well, maybe on a better board than the one at Gamefaqs. Because they were having none of it.

After this additional moderation, it became obvious that I was correct the first time and their real issue with the message was not the source used - but the facts provided. In another shining example of mod work, the moderator claimed that the data was anti-gay:

A Mod/Admin said on 5/27/2018 7:46:55 AM:
You will continue to be moderated if you continue to imply that any man who has sex with another man is 'knowingly having sex with others who have HIV'. This is you generalizing homosexual men as inherently having HIV and that is an offensive stereotype that will not be allowed here.

If anyone is misrepresenting the data here, it's the moderators. If you ctrl+f any of the text from my message, you will not find any mention of gay or homosexual soldiers made by me in that topic. The data from the CDC, which is there for anyone to see, literally says "30% REPORTED EXPOSURE TO SEXUAL PARTNERS WITH KNOWN HIV INFECTION." Does this say "any man who has sex with another man" as the mod claimed? No. Does this mention orientation at all? No. This is another one of those situations where we wish mods could display some evidence of reading comprehension.

Gamefaqs moderators should stop inserting their own political opinions into their moderations, and should look at what the message actually says - none of this "you implied" or "I think you meant to say" which is just their projection of my feelings onto the message, and has nothing to do with what the actual message itself says.

But furthermore, and more troubling for free speech, what if the data HAD said all that? What if the facts were that all men who had sex with men were undermining military readiness, as the mod claimed? Would moderators have banned talk of that as well? Is this an issue we just aren't allowed to talk about, regardless of what the percentage is? As I pointed out within that topic before its deletion, not everyone who smokes will get lung cancer. On any other issue, would discussion be banned? For fear of offending smokers, would a factual correlation between smoking and lung cancer be censored by Gamefaqs unless it could be proven to be 100%? This would be an absurd approach. So why is there a ban on mentioning any correlation between DADT repeal, and the results of said repeal? Why is there special treatment here?

Are there some special groups that just aren't allowed to be criticized, no matter what? Imagine if Gamefaqs did this for a church. Enforced speech codes for protected groups are the modern-day equivalent of blasphemy laws, and I simply don't think that this bigotry has any place in modern society.

And so, since the moderator in question decided to attack my character with "you implied so-and-so" and other made-up accusations, I decided to question their character as well and point out what they're effectively doing through their censorship. As another Gamefaqs user pointed out before the topic's deletion, there are now "HIV-positive" activists who think it's fine and dandy to infect other people with HIV, despite the massive costs to society, despite the damaged and ruined lives that result from it. This group was the target of my criticism, and in the military this was the 30% who self-reported that they knowingly got it that way (it may be higher). Regardless of orientation, I pointed out that the VA is already scandal-plagued, overstretched with waiting lists, as people died without treatment from wounds they received while serving honorably on the battlefield.

What kind of society would justify, and even praise, watching those veterans die while HIV spreads - even though this is a disease that is entirely avoidable? A society that sits back as both of these things happen, is simply wrong. And so, I decided to call out moderators for enabling censorship that seeks to silence anyone who wants to put a stop to both these tragedies:

Why not debate like anyone else if you disagree? I suppose it's because that would require taking a stand for something, rather than hiding behind anonymity. Now, I understand why the person in question doesn't want to play defense for HIV/AIDS on a forum where they would be held accountable for what they say - but that simply means that the person should re-examine their own flawed and gravely incorrect worldview, not sweep under the rug those who are right. I do believe an apology is in order.

As for me, I will never apologize for wanting to end the scourge of HIV/AIDS - and this site continues to remain an embarrassment to the internet when they continue to actively fight against those who do.

I've asked them for an apology. We'll see how it goes.