Twitch will ban users for 'severe misconduct' that occurs away from its site • Hacker News Board

Re: Twitch will ban users for 'severe misconduct' that occurs away from its site

#61

Post by benja123 » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 7:10 PM UTC

I have a hard time with this. Don’t get me wrong overall I am for banning terrorists, pedophiles etc. from services like twitch, but, it needs to be done in a smart way.

The concerns I have around this is that

1. It’s not clear where you draw the line of what counts as severe misconduct

2. What happens if someone did something that counts as severe misconduct five years ago and today they are a completely different person. Will services like twitch take this into account when deciding whether someone should be banned?

3. How easy will it be for people to abuse this system and get innocent people they don’t like banned from using services like Twitch. Will they put in place a proper appeal process or will it be similar to the appeal processes we see in other big companies in which there is no one you can actually speak to.

Banning people from a service is an often necessary but extreme action that needs to be done with care. When it is for something that someone did while using your system it is easier to be confident that the ban is justified. Banning people for actions outside of your system is really uncharted territory so it will be interesting to see how this plays out and to see how many false positives there are.

Re: Twitch will ban users for 'severe misconduct' that occurs away from its site

#62

Post by challengly » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 7:17 PM UTC

vsareto wrote: post #9

cik wrote: post #7

Is there any doubt that we've entered the era of approved, or not free speech. 'Severe misconduct' today means racist behaviour, perhaps tomorrow it means support for the NRA, or anti-environmental behaviour. The thought police have finally invaded ever part of society.

Companies were already willing to fire you for posting racist stuff before Twitch made this decision.

Yes, but that was when we had an agreed upon definition. Now the definition is so broad it includes mere disagreement.

Re: Twitch will ban users for 'severe misconduct' that occurs away from its site

#63

Post by weeblewobble » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 7:22 PM UTC

TechBro8615 wrote: post #39

weego wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumption of innocence is a legal principle and does not and will never apply to a corporation providing you services at their own discretion.

This is such a lazy argument that I'm so tired of hearing applied to quasi-public services. Maybe Twitch isn't a great example, but a few social media sites are. They might not be the government, but they're platforms with billions of people on them. Justice Thomas recently pointed out that we'll soon have no choice but to grapple with this distinction and determine how principles like the First Amendment apply to no…

It's not a lazy argument, you're just tired of hearing it. It's actually a very strong argument. "quasi-public", "maybe Twitch isn't a great example", "maybe not legally... yet", "some forthcoming legal doctrine"-- these are weak qualifiers. What are you proposing, exactly? How many users is a service allowed to have before their content moderation policies are nationalized?

Somewhat ironically, whatever you're proposing would almost certainly require weakening the first amendment. Personally, I'd prefer a strong first amendment (which is concrete and actually means something) to the nebulous "spirit of the 1A".

Re: Twitch will ban users for 'severe misconduct' that occurs away from its site

#64

Post by voldacar » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 7:28 PM UTC

Bud wrote: post #36

voldacar wrote: post #28

The infantile hyper-moralization of online discourse, on social media but also elsewhere, is starting to get really, really tiring. Is there any solution other than total anonymity, keeping one's online and IRL personae hermetically sealed off from one another? What do you all think? Is this atmosphere here to stay or do you expect the winds of culture to shift anytime soon?

Private companies reacting to hate crimes is "infantile", now? Banning people for making credible threats of mass violence is "infantile"? No it's not. And you should retract that.

I don't think I will, actually.

Assuming you aren't being disingenuous, by "hypermoralization" I was referring less to this specific action by Twitch and more to a general cultural phenomenon, developed over the past decade and greatly intensified since ~2015, which made Twitch's actions seem normal and possible in the first place

Re: Twitch will ban users for 'severe misconduct' that occurs away from its site

#65

Post by Bud » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 7:34 PM UTC

Veen wrote: post #53

Bud wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Yes, mob justice and public humiliation are very useful when people do and think things you don't like. Just what we need to deeply heal our damaged society.

Except there was no "mob justice" here; you are overreacting and using terms that should be reserved for violent consequences in situations that do not justify such words.

I understand why you have to exaggerate, though.

Re: Twitch will ban users for 'severe misconduct' that occurs away from its site

#66

Post by Areibman » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 7:43 PM UTC

It's strange to see a company that once prided itself on active engagement with its users to find product-market fit antagonize its content creators so much. And as a user, it gives me the perception that the platform is just plainly unfair. (Plus the platform is unusable without Adblock).

Top streamers have been banned or lost partnerships for playing their own music[0], stating controversial political opinions[1][2], getting trolled by users who "snipe" streamers and shout vulgarities, or just accidentally showing movie clips with nudity [3]. From what I gather, the ban appeal process is byzantine and is heavily biased towards inaction. Oftentimes appeals are never even considered, or partnership staff plainly doesn't respond.

The upsetting part is Twitch is such a great platform technology wise, and its competitors can't seem to recreate the same magic. I guess we're stuck with lousy moderation until the streaming fad dies down.

[0] https://www.sportskeeda.com/esports/twitch-reportedly-suspen...

[1] https://dotesports.com/streaming/news/hasanabi-banned-from-t...

[2] https://win.gg/news/5496/destiny-loses-twitch-partnership-fo...

[3] https://www.ginx.tv/en/twitch/vinesauce-banned-on-twitch-ove...

Re: Twitch will ban users for 'severe misconduct' that occurs away from its site

#67

Post by analognoise » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 7:51 PM UTC

TechBro8615 wrote: post #39

weego wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumption of innocence is a legal principle and does not and will never apply to a corporation providing you services at their own discretion.

This is such a lazy argument that I'm so tired of hearing applied to quasi-public services. Maybe Twitch isn't a great example, but a few social media sites are. They might not be the government, but they're platforms with billions of people on them. Justice Thomas recently pointed out that we'll soon have no choice but to grapple with this distinction and determine how principles like the First Amendment apply to no…

"I don't understand free speech" isn't a strong argument the other side needs to work around.

Re: Twitch will ban users for 'severe misconduct' that occurs away from its site

#68

Post by Veen » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 7:53 PM UTC

Bud wrote: post #65

Veen wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, mob justice and public humiliation are very useful when people do and think things you don't like. Just what we need to deeply heal our damaged society.

Except there was no "mob justice" here; you are overreacting and using terms that should be reserved for violent consequences in situations that do not justify such words. I understand why you have to exaggerate, though.

And I can understand why you have to minimize. Although, I don't understand how anyone fails to fear the consequences of "people being held accountable by society for their conduct"—an idea that gladdens the hearts of authoritarians, sectarians, and zealots who are absolutely convinced of their righteousness and moral superiority. It will not result in healing, but in deeper division and ever greater polarization. Healing starts with forgiveness and compassion, not with insults, firings, banishments, purity spirals, and language policing.

Re: Twitch will ban users for 'severe misconduct' that occurs away from its site

#69

Post by sergiotapia » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 8:03 PM UTC

voldacar wrote: post #28

The infantile hyper-moralization of online discourse, on social media but also elsewhere, is starting to get really, really tiring. Is there any solution other than total anonymity, keeping one's online and IRL personae hermetically sealed off from one another? What do you all think? Is this atmosphere here to stay or do you expect the winds of culture to shift anytime soon?

You have nothing to gain by using your real information online. Everything to lose.

I don't consider HN a social network but more like a casual linkedin.

For all other uses, anonymous. Always. Put gibberish as username and drop in false info in bio fields.

Re: Twitch will ban users for 'severe misconduct' that occurs away from its site

#70

Post by joshuamorton » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 8:03 PM UTC

colllectorof wrote: post #57

Bud wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please look up what "free speech" actually means, in order to disabuse yourself of the notion that private companies' actions have anything to do with it.

No. If you know anything about history, you know that attacks on free speech do not have to start or stop with official government sanction. In Soviet Union it wasn't uncommon for dissidents and their families to be nominally "free", while being unable to find employment, housing or otherwise get basics for operating in the society. It worked through a backstage "reputation" system that begins to look eerily familiar…

> It worked through a backstage "reputation" system that begins to look eerily familiar.

A system that was government driven. Don't try to pretend that decentralized consequences are authoritarian.