To welshwelsh's point, he wasn't advocating for no moderation, but rather good and limited moderation. For example, I doubt most would have an issue with something like moderation over cheating.
Most cheaters do — but they’ll represent their viewpoint in terms that claim a “greater cause”, such as individual liberties or rights or whatever, so that they can try to rabble-rouse the crowd against enforcement in order to continue cheating. (This occurs with kernel anti-cheat drivers, for example, but there’s no way to measure what percentage of folks that is.)
Christ, if a game needs access to my operating system runtime to function, I think I'll just play a different game. Might as well just give them every file on your computer and a list of every connected device at that point.
No need to act surprised, and a rabble-rousing post isn’t necessary here. This is HN. We go around the same circular warpath about kernel anti-cheat drivers every few months for the past five years, and your argument is a poorly-presented rehash of a common viewpoint from those many, many discussions.
Eh, we are talking about games hooking into OS kernels, "rabble rousing", if that's what you want to call it, absolutely is necessary. Do the games even notify the users that this is happening and what exactly it means to the security of their computer - the tool they (or their parents) probably use to manage their entire life on? I really don't think so.
Regardless of what you might think, since I'm not a gamer (the isometric Ultima Online was about the last game I was interested in, more than a decade or two ago) this is the first time I heard about it - and it's completely insane. How can we - the industry, the software engineers - allow it? Why do we even turn on the protected mode?
The first post shown, and the first couple pages of results, will help you catch up on the discussions around these methods. I don’t have anything new to offer you that isn’t already hashed out extensively therein. Good luck with the reading, and welcome to HN.
I think there's a bright line between "content moderation" where speech and behavior is being moderated, and spam and/or bug abuse which has nothing to do with content of speech whatsoever. Rate limiting inputs is not the same as picking and choosing who is allowed to say what based on arbitrary standards of speech content.
