Minecraft Java Edition: Chat Reporting

(Page managed by Corman#0001 on discord, or CormanVG on Youtube)
(Inspired by Java Chat Reporting Concerns)
(Based off of a set of Player Opinions collected by Corman, stored in the Player Opinions document)

Addressing Potential Bias: The author of this article is part of the #saveminecraft group, and is biased against the chat reporting feature, and some of that will show in this article. However, the creator of this article is trying to show an unbiased perspective of this feature despite his personal biases.

Table of Contents

What is the purpose of this document?

Ever since Minecraft Java's chat reporting feature was announced, both genuine concern and support have spread, and many have advocated for changes in this system. A significant amount of fear-mongering and misinformation is being presented about this system, and this document is meant to help alleviate that issue by providing an unbiased look at this feature.

The purposes of this document are as follows:

  • To educate people about the chat reporting feature in an unbiased manner.
  • To expose people to the beliefs of both critics and supporters of chat reporting without advocating for either side.
  • To clarify misinformation about the feature and raise genuine ideological and speculative concerns without presenting them as fact.
  • To provide a source of truth about the chat reporting feature that is backed up with sources and links.

What is it?

Minecraft Chat reporting is a new feature implemented in Minecraft Java's 22w24a snapshot for 1.19.1. The feature allows for any player to report any individual chat message as breaking any of the given report categories, as well as providing the context of previous chat messages. The feature has received significant criticism from many users for various reasons.

How it works

(Based off of Player Reporting in Minecraft Java Edition as of July 14, 2022)

A player will first choose to report the offending message, and select a category as well as provide additional details on the report before submitting. After this, the report is sent to a team of investigators who reviews the report and will decide on what action to take, if any at all.

Punishments

Accounts can be temporarily banned from playing all of Java Edition multiplayer, or in a worst-case scenario, permanently banned from all of multiplayer.

Image

Report Categories

(Taken directly from Player Reporting in Minecraft Java Edition as of July 14, 2022)

  • Imminent harm - Self-harm or suicide.
    • Someone is threatening to harm themselves in real life or talking about harming themselves in real life.
  • Child sexual exploitation or abuse.
    • Someone is talking about or otherwise promoting indecent behavior involving children.
  • Terrorism or violent extremism.
    • Someone is talking about, promoting, or threatening with acts of terrorism or violent extremism for political, religious, ideological, or other reasons.
  • Hate speech.
    • Someone is attacking you or another player based on characteristics of their identity, like religion, race, or sexuality.
  • Imminent harm - Threat to harm others.
    • Someone is threatening to harm you or someone else in real life.
  • Non-consensual intimate imagery.
    • Someone is talking about, sharing, or otherwise promoting private and intimate images.
  • Harassment or bullying.
    • Someone is shaming, attacking, or bullying you or someone else. This includes when someone is repeatedly trying to contact you or someone else without consent or posting private personal information about you or someone else without consent (“doxing”).
  • Defamation, impersonation, false information.
    • Someone is damaging someone else's reputation, pretending to be someone they're not, or sharing false information with the aim to exploit or mislead others.
  • Drugs or alcohol.
    • Someone is encouraging others to partake in illegal drug related activities or encouraging underage drinking.

Note: In the Minecraft: Java Edition Player Reporting FAQ, Mojang states that they will not ban players for discussing self-harm and suicide. To quote them, "No. We care deeply about our players and if we are informed about a threat of imminent harm, we attempt to provide players in crisis with support resources in times of need."

Backlash

After this feature was announced, there was a significant amount of community backlash.

Most people directed their anger at Microsoft, the corporation which purchased Minecraft in September of 2014, and believe is driving this change. Many people cite Minecraft Bedrock's chat moderation features as evidence of why this shouldn't be implemented into Minecraft Java, due to the significant number of false-bans and complaints about the feature. However, Minecraft Bedrock Edition's reporting is active moderation, while Minecraft Java is only getting the chat-reporting feature. Whether or not active moderation will come to Java Edition is uncertain. Many people also cite this feedback suggestion as being responsible for the creation of this feature.

However, many people believe that this is a positive and beneficial change for Minecraft Java. They believe that chat reporting will be incredibly helpful towards oppressed communities and minorities who feel harassed. They also cite Minecraft's recent posts and statements which seem to confirm that Minecraft will be executing this feature properly, such as the Minecraft: Java Edition Player Reporting FAQ, or the post, Addressing Player Reporting Tool.

Concerns

Context

Based on the following Player Opinions: impmallet

One of the most common criticisms of Minecraft Java's Chat Reporting feature is the issue of context. FitMC's video, Minecraft's New "Rules" Are Terrible, asks the question "If someone is standing on a cliff, and I tell them in chat to jump off a cliff, could someone report me for encouraging self-harm?" Many users have also highlighted the issue of context, and anarchy servers could also be at risk of their messages being misinterpreted or reported.

Each Minecraft chat message will be cryptographically signed, meaning that you cannot report a player with a faked message for instance. Minecraft also provides context to messages when a message is reported. When a message is reported, the previous seven messages, the message itself, and the next two messages will be provided as context (citation needed) after a report is sent. Critics of the this feature believe that this amount of context might not even be enough for instance, but Mojang can always add more context before they finalize the object. A few critics have also made a point that too much context could be a risk towards privacy, but since chat reporting only collects the context messages during a report and not during any other time, it doesn't provide Mojang and Microsoft with a method to "spy on you" through chat reports. Some may argue that even if Microsoft can't log chat through this system, the fear of being falsely reported due to an out-of-context message will still make people act differently then they would normally in public Minecraft servers, closing themselves off in chat to avoid even the slightest risk of being punished.

Some critics still don't believe that chat reporting will have enough context, as there can be context outside of chat messages. The Java Chat Reporting Concerns discusses some possible scenarios that the Minecraft chat reporting system would not be able to know the context of.

  • A child could be bullied by another Minecrafter at school and stand up to them in Minecraft chat.
  • A player could also express their anger towards a griefer who destroys their work.
  • What about Minecraft roleplay servers, especially ones with darker themes?

Critics also tend to argue that since Minecraft is a diverse ecosystem, things might be more okay to say in specific contexts on private servers, as opposed to public, family-friendly servers. However, platforms such as Discord have been able to moderate diverse ecosystems before with a single set of rules, which adds credit to the fact that Minecraft could do. However, this means Minecraft would need to be lenient with their rules to accommodate the diverse ecosystem of Minecraft.

Another issue raised by critics is that context could be missing if users use the No Chat Reports mod. Imagine if two users have a conversation, one of them is using the mod, and one of them isn't. Then, the modded user baits them into saying something that they could be punished for regarding the chat report system, and reports them, but can't be liable themselves because their messages aren't cryptographically signed. However, servers can force all players to cryptographically sign their messages, which would make this a non-issue on those servers. This may mean that chat reporting should only work on servers with enforce-secure-profile enabled.

Microsoft has stated publicly that they are making sure the chat-reporting system takes context into account. In the Minecraft: Java Edition Player Reporting FAQ, they state, "Our investigators are trained specifically for Minecraft and are aware that the chat is made in the context of a game that involves combat-related chat.". In the Addressing Player Reporting Tool, they also clarify that there are ways to appeal the bans via submitting an appeal at the Case Review Request.

Trust

Based on the following Player Opinions: NovaStorm93, mrbooboostank, Zo0m, gadgetgolem, IMS, CuppaTea, goat_

One of the most significant concerns of critics regarding the feature is whether or not they should trust the execution of this feature. The Java Chat Reporting Concerns asks multiple times about vague definitions in the FAQ, unclear penalties for specific offenses, and whether or not moderator quality control will be in place to make sure that the decisions made by Mojang are as effective as possible. Others have a general distrust of moderation systems like this in itself.

Critics are generally concerned about trust with regards to the chat reporting feature for three primary reasons:

  • A: They feel as if the chat-reporting system is vague and unclear in multiple different areas.
  • B: They believe that the chat-reporting system may not have proper quality control, leading to a significant amount of false punishments.
  • C: They feel as if the chat-reporting system itself is not just made to prevent offensive and harmful speech, but is also made with other objectives in mind, such as desensitizing the game and making it more family friendly.

Regarding point A, critics generally point towards the Minecraft Community Standards and the Player Chat Reporting in Minecraft: Java Edition articles as evidence of information on this feature being vague. Even users who do support the idea of a chat reporting system being implemented do believe Mojang hasn't been transparent enough regarding the implementation of this feature. The Java Chat Reporting Concerns highlights multiple of these issues.

  • Several terms are used in the proposed categories for reporting and in the FAQ that remain undefined.
  • There must therefore be a list of behaviors with proposed actions for dealing with them provided to those moderators. We believe that this list of behaviours with corresponding penalties should be published at least and, ideally, discussed with players beforehand. In this way players will know what the possible outcomes are.
  • How will you know who is underage, who is gay, trans, (ginger?) in the chat that is reported. You have stated that ‘Hate speech is talk that is intended to offend’, but how do you determine that offence is actually intended. For example there are a variety of tolerance levels within communities? If a private friend group has normalized a reclaimed slur, how will moderators take into account how offended the targeted user is?

Mojang has made a significant attempt to clarify information on this feature recently, though. The recent Minecraft: Java Edition Player Reporting FAQ and Addressing Player Reporting Tool article have attempted to clarify misinformation about the policy. Critics have also pointed out that the appeal system may be difficult to find, and that sometimes appeal systems end up being inefficient or even redundant in similar cases, but many users have reported being unbanned from Minecraft Bedrock after using its appeal system (although they've also criticized that this appeal system can be difficult to find).

Point B is particularly prominent, as videos like Why Microsoft's New Rules Will Break Minecraft compare Minecraft Chat Reporting to Facebook's Report System and other existing moderation systems. A particular point of contention in this category is whether the investigators can be trusted to be non-biased and not take into account their own opinions while handling reports.

Critics generally point to Roblox's false reporting and false bans, as well as Minecraft Bedrock's false bans as evidence of why a chat moderation system similar to this cannot work probably. However, the moderation on both Roblox and Minecraft Bedrock are active moderation, meaning that all chat messages are logged and can be taken action on, while chat-reporting has to be initiated by a player, and only affects reported messages and their contexts. The teams working on Minecraft Java and Minecraft Bedrock are also separate (citation needed), and may take a different stance on how to treat these reports. Mojang has also clarified that, "Player reports are handled by our team of human investigators, who are trained specifically for investigating reports in Minecraft. Each report will be reviewed before any action is taken." and claims that these reports will be handled only by experienced moderators.

Point C is also prominent, especially for "Minecraft veterans" who have played Minecraft Java for a long time. Critics argue that Minecraft Java is very different to Minecraft Bedrock, because Minecraft Java has a much more mature audience, and Minecraft Bedrock has a much younger audience. Minecraft Java. Minecraft Java also has a much larger mod and plugin ecosystem then Bedrock due to how open Minecraft Java is. Critics argue that a chat moderation feature isn't necessary on Java Edition because of its more mature audience and community-moderated server, while Bedrock with its younger audience has more use for such a feature, and believe that Mojang is trying to make Minecraft more "family friendly".

Whether or not Mojang is trying to make Minecraft more family friendly is unclear, but critics theorize that they want to make the game more desirable to parents who don't want their children to see harmful content. Server owners in particular who already have community moderation teams in place oppose this change. A reddit comment by u/KirbAvion asks, "Why does Mojang consider itself better-equipped to moderate communities that it has no presence or stake in, compared to the people who have been doing so effectively for years?" The Java Chat Reporting Concerns shares this view, asking, "How are children going to be educated in the nuances of what is and isn't reportable, particularly as this move is intended specifically for them?"

Opponents of this state that this isn't just made to protect children (if it is at all), but is also made to support those who are in oppressed communities or who are minorities. Many long-term players also have claimed to experience hate speech and discrimination, and extreme toxicity on Minecraft servers due to their participation in certain communities, ethnicities, or other reasons, and claim that the moderation teams on servers are ineffective and Mojang stepping in is necessary. Mojang itself states, "Ensuring the safety of Minecraft players is at the heart of why we are releasing Player Reporting in Java. Without human moderation, online communities can become unwelcoming, toxic, or in some cases, dangerous to the security of individual players. We need to provide safeguards that will help keep all our players safe and welcome in the online environments where they play Minecraft." in the Minecraft: Java Edition Player Reporting FAQ.

Technical Concerns

Based on the following Player Opinions: guro.
This section was written and is maintained by guro#0666 (71195665727750144) on Discord.

The basis of the chat reporting system is a form of cryptography that utilizes public and private keys. This is a widely used principle that is behind many technologies that keep the entire internet safe (like giving you the green lock on HTTPS sites). This works by generating 2 keys, one is for yourself that you use to generate a "signature," a mathematical function of applying the private key onto any arbitrary data (text, files, etc.), and one that you share with everyone, using which they are able to check if a message truly originated from you. This type of cryptography is secure and used by security experts, and there is no way to forge a message to appear as being from someone else without having their private keys (more on that later).

In the Minecraft implementation, every player is given a set of public and private keys when they log in, which are signed by Mojang (meaning people can't go off and generate any random keys). When a player joins a server, it gives its public key to the server, and the server checks to see if it was given out by Mojang to the player, and if it was, lets the player in. The server distributes the player's keys to all players on the server, allowing their games to independently verify if the signatures on the messages are correct. This way, it is not possible for the server to pretend that a message is secure when it really isn't. When the player sends a message, their game will sign the message and the server will check the signature to make sure it matches with the key they sent earlier (and if it doesn't, the player gets kicked).

Diagram of Cryptographic Signatures

As a result of the Gaslight exploit, this signature is now based on previous chat messages as well as the current one. This forms what is known as the "chat chain," which increases tamper resistance, and means that if someone were to maliciously edit a report to include fake context, it would be easy to spot, because it would break that chain. Because the messages were signed using a key that Mojang knows, they can be sent off to Mojang for review. All of the technology that was just mentioned will be used to ensure that messages were legitimately from who they all claim to be. Importantly, your messages are only ever sent to Mojang when a player reports your messages. Mojang is not actively watching any server chats in Minecraft: Java Edition.

This system may sound quite secure, but it isn't foolproof. The main weak point with this is the private key. This is a bit of data stored in plain text (i.e. completely unencrypted, out in the open) in your game folder (.minecraft/profilekeys). If someone were to download a malicious mod or program, they could have their private keys stolen and used to sign messages that were never actually typed by that player. Everything would look perfectly correct on Mojang's side, and therefore the player could still be banned. According to Mojang's Player Reporting FAQ:

Unfortunately, if an attacker has gained access to your account, we would not be able to distinguish between you and them. That’s why it’s important to enable 2FA, use a strong password for your account, and don’t install untrusted mods or programs.

It is also of note that any lenience or fault tolerance that is built into the system is a vector for attack. If the chat chain verification is too strict, people with poor internet connections may be completely unable to chat on a server without being kicked. On the other hand, if the verification is not strict enough, it leaves a gap to be exploited by malicious actors.

Another point of confusion about this feature is the chat preview feature. Chat preview is a feature that allows servers to format a message as you're typing it. You may be familiar with typing out messages that look like this: Text in &cred. In &bblue. In &4dark red. With the addition of the chat preview feature, you will now be able to be shown a preview of what colors that will apply to your message before you even send it. Servers are also able to add in their own custom formatting, for instance, allowing you to replace {item} with the name of something you're holding, {house} with a link to teleport someone to your house, and so on, all without entering a command.

This chat preview feature may seem handy, but there are many issues with this. By default, everything you send you type into your chat box directly to the server so that the server can edit and return the message to you. Think about how many times you've accidentally typed in the wrong window, or pasted something somewhere you shouldn't have. Even if you caught your mistake, it would be too late by that point. A malicious 3rd-party server could have already logged whatever you just typed.

Secondly, and most relevant to chat reporting itself, the messages you send that have been modified by the server will be signed as if you had written it yourself. This means that if you were to write something innocuous, like "Hey, does anyone want to see my house?", the server could modify it to something horrible, and you could be responsible. Now, this does have limitations, but the principle applies. Namely, the game will display what the server suggests in a bar above chat, so you can always read what the server wants you to say. The game will also not sign the message if 200 milliseconds (that is 1/5th of a second) has not elapsed between receiving the modified message from the server, and the player hitting enter on their keyboard (in pre-release 5 this is represented by a coloured bar to the left of the preview). These protections, while not nothing, are very thin. You can imagine someone who doesn't know how to type without looking up from their keyboard getting tricked into sending foul messages that are cryptographically linked as originating from them. Not to mention the additional review time this feature will cause, making it much harder to have fun in the chat by going with the flow.

Thankfully, this feature can be disabled from the game by going into Options → Chat Settings → Chat Preview: OFF, but it is still a very dangerous system to have enabled by default, especially when the means of disabling it is buried so deep in the settings. However, is also concerning that Mojang has decided on 2 separate occasions that this system is a good idea, even in the face of these direct concerns.

Freedom of Speech

Based on the following Player Opinions: NovaStorm93, Rivedoublar, Mr. Fluff, guro.

A particular point of criticism of Minecraft's Java chat Reporting Feature is one of Minecraft's core principles - freedom. The open letter to Mojang states that, "In a game where the only thing that remained going from server to server was your username, skin, and cape...". Freedom of speech is a particularly strong concern with the system because it's an ideological concern. People feel very strongly about it.

There are three keys reasons which explain why many people are concerned about the chat reporting feature regarding freedom of speech:

  • A: They feel that Chat Moderation is a move to desensitize Java Edition, as it is seemingly intended to attract parents to come into the game and disallow mature discussions to be said in Minecraft. The categories are vague enough that political, religious, dark and mature themes, roleplay, and etc can effectively be censored.
  • B: (SPECULATION) They speculate that the addition of Minecraft Java Chat Reporting, anyone can report any message for any reason. How do we know Microsoft will stay true to their report categories, and not censor things that governments and/or sponsors ask them to?
  • C: (SPECULATION) They speculate that abuse of this system could make people refuse to use chat out of fear. There are already cases on existing platforms such as Roblox and Discord where people desensitize themselves out of fear of being false reported.

Regarding point A, the idea that this feature is intended to limit free speech by desensitizing it is a very common belief held my many. People cite Minecraft: Bedrock Edition as being the more family-friendly alternative to Java Edition. This seems to be a widely accepted belief and is attributed to Bedrock's minecoins, parental controls, and featured servers. Generally, it considered that Java has a much more mature playerbase than Bedrock, partly because of its lack of centralization, freedom, extensive plugin/modding community, and server ecosystem.

The idea that Mojang is trying to make Minecraft Java "more family friendly" through the feature is a common statement among critics due to their existing track record with Bedrock. A particular point of speculation is the idea that, "Microsoft wants to make more money by attracting parents concerned about their children's safety." Critics may argue that this isn't necessary because Minecraft Bedrock is better for them, though Java has many more mods and servers. Mojang has made no reference to the idea that chat reporting is focused on children, and is more focused on promoting inclusivity within Minecraft communities. Quoting the Minecraft: Java Edition Player Reporting FAQ, "Without human moderation, online communities can become unwelcoming, toxic, or in some cases, dangerous to the security of individual players."

Supporters of the feature argue that, "the feature doesn't limit your free speech, but free speech doesn't mean your speech is without consequences." The point can also be made that you have never technically had free speech while playing Minecraft. As Mojang is a private entity, you don't legally have free speech. However, Mojang has endorsed free speech multiple times before, including in the 2011 Trailer, Notch in 2012 (although both of these instances were before the first iteration of the EULA was published), as well as having been recognized by Minecraft communites like PlanetMinecraft.

Regarding point B, many also speculate that the chat reporting feature will or could potentially be used to actively censor specific topics. There isn't any evidence to the contrary that shows Microsoft couldn't globally ban someone for an inaccurate reason, or that they couldn't lump in specific sensitive topics into their "global bans" criteria. Particularly, critics suggest that categories like "Hate speech" are vague enough to potentially be interpreted as, "don't talk about specific political topics, religious topics, or other mature themes in any context." Particularly extreme critics have even suggested the idea that governments and/or sponsors could force them to actively censor specific information using this feature, though they usually don't believe in the possibility themselves.

The idea that Microsoft and Mojang could misuse their feature like this for harmful purposes is not theoretically impossible, though does seem somewhat irrational, and as if it was fear-mongering. Mojang has stated the purpose of this is for inclusivity publicly, and none of the chat reporting categories have anything to say about mature topics being rationally discussed. This entire point could be chalked up to speculation, and most would, but some critics argue it's important to even note the potential that this system could be abused.

Finally, point C is particularly well known. The potential abuse of this feature is has become particularly well known among critics, as many hacked client developers have planned to add in a mass report feature, which would report as many people as possible to flood Mojang with false requests, and some are even working to exploit technical vulnerabilities to make use of this. Even ignoring the use of modified clients to exploit the feature, critics propose the idea that someone could report you for something you said out-of-context causes fear-mongering in itself. For instance, on Discord, many users refrain from talking about their personal beliefs, or any controversial/mature topics, because of the threat of being false-reported or even being toxxed (mass-reported) is enough to make people desensitize themselves on Discord.

Interestingly enough, if this fear-mongering is popular enough, people would act differently even if Mojang takes great care in dealing with chat reports. Critics say, "The threat of being reported is enough to make people desensitize themselves even if that threat isn't credible." Misinformation about the feature has already been spread by popular YouTubers such as Xisumavoid and PhoenixSC, so critics argue that the idea that fear-mongering would be just as easily spread around this feature as false bans start coming in. It doesn't help that Bedrock's chat moderation system (which is not the same as Java's as it is active moderation, but critics argue the comparison is still useful) appeals are inaccessible. In the Bedrock article, Why have I been banned from Minecraft? has no links to any sort of appeal system and on a quick google search, there was a lack of information about appeals in Bedrock.

Supporters of the feature argue that as long as Mojang takes great care into this system and makes sure appeals are accessible, none of these things will happen. Minecraft Bedrock is also has a different primary physical office than Minecraft Java, and Mojang will definitely take much more care in implementing this feature for the Java community. As for appeals, both Addressing Player Reporting Tool and Minecraft: Java Edition Player Reporting FAQ show how to appeal a chat report ban, and directly link the Case Review Request. Mojang has stated, "The reason, and duration of a ban will be displayed on the ban screen when launching the game from version 1.19.1 onward.", as well as addressing report exploits by stating, "Abuse of the report system with multiple/fake reports will result in action taken against the reporter including temporary or permanent bans, depending on the severity and frequency of the abuse." Supporters are also claim that using alts to bypass the punishments of false reporting is much more difficult to do with the added security benefits of Microsoft accounts.

Decentralization

Based on the following Player Opinions: ZephaniahNoah, Rivedoublar

Many users feel as if Minecraft Java's Chat Reporting feature is an issue because of Minecraft's principle of decentralization. The open letter to Mojang states that, "an overlord moderator preventing our connections from going through is an insult to the freedoms that we have enjoyed for all of these years". The first technical consideration from Java Chat Reporting Concerns states that, "Given the decentralized nature of Minecraft's multiplayer ecosystem, it is nearly impossible to trust any part of the reporting process to make honest reports of the chat."

Many users are unhappy with the chat reporting feature regarding decentralization for two main reasons:

  • A: They feel like one set of rules cannot work for all of Minecraft's diverse and decentralized ecosystem of servers. Each server can feel like an entirely different game, and one set of rules being enforced on all of them will inevitably lead to problems.
  • B: They may also believe that this feature is an overstepping of Microsoft's boundaries since each server is decentralized and self-hosted.

Regarding point A, some may argue that there are diverse communities and ecosystems that can be moderated with a standardized set of rules, like Discord, without major issues. However, the amount of people are falsely banned from platforms like these sheds doubt on these systems, and Discord is also a centralized platform, where as Minecraft is not. Conversations in Minecraft are also very different then Discord and arguably much more prone to false bans.

Regarding point B, people who contest this point typically argue that Minecraft is actually not fully decentralized, as the auth servers are fully maintained by Mojang. However, servers are still self-hosted, and Minecraft's ecosystem is still very diverse and decentralized. Most people believe Minecraft is much more decentralized then it is centralized. The open letter to Mojang states that, "In a game where the only thing that remained going from server to server was your username, skin, and cape, adding an overlord moderator preventing our connections from going through is an insult to the freedoms that we have enjoyed for all of these years.".

The point can be made that Minecraft's EULA and Community Standards have already prohibited these types of content in the past, and that Minecraft was never "truly free", but opponents of this state that the EULA and Community Standards are too vague to justify this, and that the EULA is a legal document which doesn't reflect on the opinions of Mojang. Whether or not this is the case is up to interpretation.

Sources

Edit
Pub: 29 Jul 2022 23:43 UTC
Views: 350