71–80 of 1001 posts
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.
"The company said users will be able to report such behaviors but it may also investigate cases proactively, for instance if there is a verified news report that a user has been arrested." So we've arrived at "innocent until accused" instead of "innocent until proven guilty"? And if proven guilty, they will both be punished under the law, and again by companies like Twitch? If proven innocent will they be restored? W…
> we've arrived at "innocent until accused" instead of "innocent until proven guilty" For a platform like Twitch, this is fine. They have a brand. They’re akin to a modern television channel, and television has always been this ruthless. There are lots of other streaming sites.
I can imagine twitch's standards will be applied differently for different protected classes - does anyone expect twitch to treat women and men the same? Black and White the same?
It's going to be pretty problematic when some groups get banned for things that other groups wouldn't be banned for
"The company said users will be able to report such behaviors but it may also investigate cases proactively, for instance if there is a verified news report that a user has been arrested." So we've arrived at "innocent until accused" instead of "innocent until proven guilty"? And if proven guilty, they will both be punished under the law, and again by companies like Twitch? If proven innocent will they be restored? W…
> we've arrived at "innocent until accused" instead of "innocent until proven guilty" For a platform like Twitch, this is fine. They have a brand. They’re akin to a modern television channel, and television has always been this ruthless. There are lots of other streaming sites.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
How about we do something silly like letting the police and justice system handle things like "credible threats of mass violence" and "hate crimes", since both are fairly illegal, at least in the US.
As an aside, our police, to put it rather mildly, have historically sucked, in regard to such issues. And they suck right now, too. Badly. For hints on this, tune in to the Derek Chauvin trial, now in progress.
Our "justice system" doesn't have a great record, either.
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…
The replacement cost is so low and with such low impact, you can save even more money by not spending someone's time to review the appeal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> we've arrived at "innocent until accused" instead of "innocent until proven guilty" For a platform like Twitch, this is fine. They have a brand. They’re akin to a modern television channel, and television has always been this ruthless. There are lots of other streaming sites.
I agree that twitch is within their rights . I also think we're within our rights to pressure them to adopt standards we would like. The law has long recognized different rights for "public figures" and private citizens, and I think that most Twitch users are better understood as private citizens. Even if I felt the behavior policing history of media was perfect (I do not), I think this is different in important ways…
My employer can fire me for severe misconduct that occurs away from the office. Is that any different? Isn't this normal at most companies?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Twitch is basically their employer, so it's not much different here. Oh awesome. I am sure Twitch streamers are looking forward to guaranteed minimum wage, paid time-off, health insurance, etc.
What's your point? Does it change my point if they're considered contractors vs employees vs hobbyists vs whatever?
"The company said users will be able to report such behaviors but it may also investigate cases proactively, for instance if there is a verified news report that a user has been arrested." So we've arrived at "innocent until accused" instead of "innocent until proven guilty"? And if proven guilty, they will both be punished under the law, and again by companies like Twitch? If proven innocent will they be restored? W…
I'm not sure why you say "arrived". People have always been fired for arrests at some companies. Twitch is basically their employer, so it's not much different here. Whether it should be allowed or not by law can be a different discussion, but we don't have to pretend that this is new
"The company said users will be able to report such behaviors but it may also investigate cases proactively, for instance if there is a verified news report that a user has been arrested." So we've arrived at "innocent until accused" instead of "innocent until proven guilty"? And if proven guilty, they will both be punished under the law, and again by companies like Twitch? If proven innocent will they be restored? W…
> we've arrived at "innocent until accused" instead of "innocent until proven guilty" For a platform like Twitch, this is fine. They have a brand. They’re akin to a modern television channel, and television has always been this ruthless. There are lots of other streaming sites.
As someone who does not operate a streaming platform, I don't care whether they have a brand or not - I care about the pragmatic benefits of living in a society where principles like innocent-until-proven-guilty are available and practiced in a way that benefits average people like me. I think the number of people who would consider "they have a brand" to be a good justification can't be higher than the number who own major brands.