Square Enix now threatens to send players to jail for criticizing their employees

[Yshnal]

Concern for WHAT? This dog whistle is getting way out of hand. SE is a corporate entity in the business of creating and selling video games. They are neither the judiciary, nor executive, nor legislative of any state. If you think that corporations in today's capitalistic society wield too much influence, then that's a political problem that needs to be solved. They already had every right to cancel business relationships for a myriad of reasons, and I can assure you that "harassment of company employees" is always a justified reason for ending service agreements.

One of the main issues that plagued the DT story was the obvious lack of knowledge how a political apparatus works, that's why we got a story that is more "Highschool drama to elect the next cheerleader squad captain" instead of "political struggle for power in a major economic and military powerhouse that spans a whole content". And quite frankly, you also seem to have no idea how political / legal life works, judging by how naively you think about business interactions. If you think a business is illegally denying you service, then you do what SE has announced to do, and that is take them to court. Either for damages, or to force them into compliance.

The concerns raised by this policy go far beyond just "harassment justifying service termination." When we examine the full scope of the rules, we see a broad range of behaviors that are described in vague, subjective terms—many of which can easily be interpreted to cover actions that most would consider normal consumer behavior.

Take, for instance, the term “abusive language.” It’s unclear whether a heated disagreement or a strongly-worded critique could fall under this definition, especially when it's framed as an expression of dissatisfaction. Similarly, “excessive pursuit or reprimand” is open to interpretation, as what one employee or company representative might consider “excessive” could simply be a customer trying to resolve an issue. Terms like “persistent inquiries” could also penalize a consumer simply following up on unresolved matters, a perfectly legitimate action.

The section on "undue demand" is equally concerning. While asking for product exchanges or compensation is a standard consumer right, the policy could frame this as an unreasonable demand, especially if the company feels a request is disproportionate. “Excessive requests for services” is also notably subjective, and a legitimate concern, such as a request for clarification or additional support, could be interpreted as crossing a line.

The real concern lies in the broad, subjective power granted to Square-Enix by this policy. The terms are vague, leaving room for interpretation that could penalize consumers for behaviors that are otherwise considered legitimate, like asking follow-up questions or expressing dissatisfaction.

Additionally, the policy's reach extends beyond Square-Enix’s platforms and games—it applies to external spaces like YouTube, expanding their control over discussions that aren't directly within their domain. This opens the door to subjective enforcement and potential misuse of the policy, penalizing valid consumer feedback or criticism.

While you correctly point out that Square-Enix has the right to terminate relationships with customers for valid reasons, this doesn't address the main concern, which is how these broad policies could be enforced inconsistently. The vague rules don’t just affect "harassment," but also things like “excessive pursuit” and “undue demand,” which are dangerously open to interpretation. These policies could stifle legitimate consumer concerns if applied too broadly.

You also assert that businesses have the right to enforce such policies and that consumers should simply take legal action if they feel wronged. However, most consumers cannot afford to engage in lengthy legal battles with a multi-billion-dollar corporation. This situation isn't about whether the legal system can address these issues; it's about ensuring that policies like this are clear, reasonable, and fair before they can do harm.

Finally, your assertion that discussing these policies reflects a lack of understanding of legal or political systems misses the point. Advocating for clearer and more balanced policies is part of consumer advocacy. Corporations like Square-Enix thrive on public trust, and it is our duty to ensure that their policies are fair, transparent, and reasonable—especially when they carry the potential for unjust consequences.