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

Post by throwaway894345 » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 8:43 PM UTC

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.

Post by MikeUt » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 8:43 PM UTC

weeblewobble wrote: post #63

TechBro8615 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 propo…

Post by Broken_Hippo » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 8:44 PM UTC

kevinpet wrote: post #141

kstrauser wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's such a huge grey area, though. On one extreme: I work at a desk job and it'd be insane for my employer to fire me for getting a speeding ticket doing 70 in a 65 zone. On the other: if I were shown in a CNN video carrying a swastika flag in a parade, I absolutely 100% expect I'd be jobless by the time I got home. I wouldn't pause for a moment at an employment contract that says the latter violates their rules.

Not in California. Political activity off the clock is legally protected. Because it isn't ever actually carrying a swastika flag. It's supporting the opposite side of a current contentious issue like abortion.

Post by HanayamaTriplet » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 8:44 PM UTC

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.

Post by MR4D » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 8:45 PM UTC

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.