Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 1001 posts

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

#171

Post by patwolfe »

ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #106
Areibman wrote: post #66

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…

Your 2nd source links to Hasan saying "America deserved 9/11". Since not everyone will click on your sources, I just want to point out what you consider "political speech" for others to see.

I think it’s a bit of a disingenuous example because Hasan has enjoyed TREMENDOUS success since then as well. Like, I think he got a few day ban (which is nothing long-term if you already have a following) and is now a top streamer in terms of subscribers and viewership.

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

#172

Post by aeturnum »

Pfhreak wrote: post #115
aeturnum wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> I also think we're within our rights to pressure them to adopt standards we would like. I think this is what's happening, it's just that the users of Twitch want something different than what you want. You might think they're the vocal minority or something, but Twitch is almost certainly making a data driven decision here.

I am sure there are many different groups here! But yah, there are definitely folks that will be happy. I was just trying to say that, beyond Twitch being within its rights, people can still yell at them and say they shouldn't (or should) do it. No need to leave it at "this is legal and in line with previous behavior."

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

#173

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

tssva wrote: post #108
ronsor wrote: post #60

Because this is always brought up, I will remark that I believe what the majority of commenters likely mean by free speech is the principle itself, and not the restrictions imposed on the government by the First Amendment. First and foremost, free speech is a moral principle. Secondly, while private companies can do what they want, that does not mean they should . Private companies like Apple can avoid taxes, yet man…

Free speech is several principles. One is that you should be free to express yourself. Another is that others should not be able to coerce you into forced speech. Many commenters on HN like to forget that 2nd part because most of their 'solutions" to the first principle violate the 2nd.

So if I say bad things on Twitch OR ELSEWHERE, that this is “their speech”? I disagree, but what you are saying is Twitch is a publisher, not a platform?

If Twitch can’t be compelled to publish my unpopular comments, then any comments they do publish should be legally theirs, and if illegal be held liable for them? Something tells me you aren’t on board anymore.

Are you trying to have it all-the-ways? That Citizens United is wrong and companies don’t have free speech, but also that companies don’t need to recognize free speech but can retain their platform status (when convenient), then also Citizen’s United is right and companies have any speech they want if it means restricting yours?

Quick question... socially, what do we do when I’m banned from Twitch for saying something NOT ON TWITCH that was at the time unpopular but eventually proven correct? Or similarly let’s say I quote the CDC website but am banned because the data is unpopular. Or lastly I quote something that was true at the time according to “official sources” (sarcasm detectable) but later incorrect and I’m retro actively banned?

Instead of all this shifting convenience and liquid enforceability... maybe we just stick to free speech and take the small bad with the giant good? Seems morally just and logically reasonable to me.

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

#174

Post by centimeter »

tw04 wrote: post #111
redm wrote: post #8

"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…

So you want the government to force private companies to continue doing business with someone they no longer wish to provide services to? We aren't talking protected class here, we're talking private companies picking and choosing who to do business with via non-discriminatory means. That's called a free market. Will they be restored if they're proven innocent? Maybe. Maybe not. Again, that's called a free market.

Do you support the right of businesses to refuse business to homosexuals, for example, on religious grounds? If you come back with “homosexuals are legally a protected class”, that’s evading the question and functionally equivalent to “no I don’t actually support freedom of association”.

I ask because in my experience most people on HN only support freedom of association when it’s politically expedient for them.

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

#175

Post by paxys »

leephillips wrote: post #163
paxys wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before people had internet it was ~5 media companies that decided what could be said in public and who could say it. It was hardly as "free" as people imagine.

This was never true. Anyone could stand on the street corner and say anything. Anyone with some spare cash could print up political booklets or flyers and hand them out, and many did.

And you can't do that today?

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

#176

Post by Alupis »

objclxt wrote: post #167
Alupis wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At a certain point, these platforms have such enormous, unprecedented influence and control over public discourse, that they aught to be thought of differently than, say a restaurant refusing service to a guy without a shirt or shoes on. We're clearly in uncharted territory, when it comes to the control and release of information. Just using Twitter and Facebook for example - they've silenced the second-most voted fo…

> they've silenced the second-most voted for President in American history, because he isn't their brand of politics 1. The second - and third, for that matter - most voted for President is Obama (69.5 and 65.9M votes). Trump is the fourth (62.9M votes)[1]. 2. He was not banned because he wasn’t ‘their brand of politics’, he was banned for inciting violence against the terms of those platforms. You can certainly argu…

The guy got 74,216,154 votes in 2020. The second most votes in American History, only outclassed by the current President with 81,268,924 votes.[1]

Your other point is based on your own personal political biases, which just furthers my point about these platforms controlling the release of information (or disinformation) to the general public.

Just imagine if Twitter was a Right-Wing organization, and decided to silence the current President. How would that change this discussion?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidentia...

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

#177

Post by nonameiguess »

redm wrote: post #8

"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 haven't arrived anywhere. We were already here. Personally, I'd like to see less rather than more of this type of thing, but studios, sports leagues, and sometimes legislative bodies have long had traditions of removing celebrities from their umbrella for misconduct and various morality clauses even if they are never convicted of a crime.

Twitch streamers are just another form of celebrity and subject to the same dynamics.

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

#178

Post by clairity »

jb775 wrote: post #121
Alupis wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We may be arriving at a time and place where we must consider broadening the scope of the First Amendment to not just apply to government. I'm fully aware there's good reason for organizations and companies to limit free speech, but it often (lately) has gone way too far, dabbling in political witch hunting. I can think of few things less inline with classical American Constitutional ideals than to cheer on organizat…

My first thought was that this is likely politically motivated. They are building "cancel culture" into their platform. They're opening the door to threaten influencers making money using their platform that support the "wrong" political party. If they say the wrong thing on Twitter, they will be banned on twitch/fb/google/etc. Incredible times we live in.

i don't buy into the cancel culture meme, but what you're describing is exactly how accumulating power exerts itself to eradicate dissent. it happens with every form of governance throughout time once a tipping point of consolidation is reached (which is why i don't buy into this meme, because it's only a specific and ultimately a distracting manifestation of this larger phenomenon).

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

#179

Post by throwaway33432 »

Spartan-S63 wrote: post #45
tenebrisalietum wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your speech is really valuable you shouldn't depend on the free services of a privately-owned ad-supported company meant for streaming games to propagate it. Furthermore speech as the forefathers probably meant was people physically going to town squares and talking there. There is free press, which is what social media is more like, and the owner of a press has the right to decide what he/she will print--the Cons…

So much this. Society is balking at the cession of power from governments to private companies and are all of a sudden upset that private companies don't have to grant them any rights. If we really want free speech platforms, lobby government to craft spaces for it in the digital age. Instead of muddying public rights in private property, let's just fund more public property (i.e. nationalized social media platform).

There's no cession of power from governments to corporations; consider the recurrent social media hearings in DC, which as far I can tell are effectively just the bullying of CEOs to censor less/more.

Even this latest Delta, Coca-Cola, etc. seems to be just bullying: https://twitter.com/AmyBeePhoenix/status/1379295393301868546

It's just an upheaval of the elite.

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

#180

Post by ProfessorLayton »

theandrewbailey wrote: post #93
tenebrisalietum wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your speech is really valuable you shouldn't depend on the free services of a privately-owned ad-supported company meant for streaming games to propagate it. Furthermore speech as the forefathers probably meant was people physically going to town squares and talking there. There is free press, which is what social media is more like, and the owner of a press has the right to decide what he/she will print--the Cons…

We arguably gave up that freedom when governments started forcing people to bake cakes with specific messages.

This is such a bad faith argument. No one is being forced to write specific messages, but merely follow the law. The law that states that to legally do business then the business will not discriminate against certain classes of people — This is not unusual, there are tons of laws a business must follow to stay open.

Protected classes are narrowly defined. You may or may not have an issue with what those protected classes are, but that's a separate argument. The main argument is that businesses must follow the law to stay in business.

Post reply on HN