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

221–230 of 1001 posts

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

#221

Post by athms »

benja123 wrote: post #61

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 p…

>I am for banning terrorists, pedophiles etc.

Who is a terrorist in your opinion?

Pedophiles? Pedophilia is the sexual attraction to prepubescent children. It isn't anything more than that. Puberty normally begins from 9-11 in girls and 10-12 in boys. All the research done to date has shown that pedophilia develops in the womb, hence people are born this way. No different than homosexuality. Also, most pedophiles don't molest children and most child molesters are not pedophiles. The molestation is usually done because the person has access and control over the child, not necessarily attraction to the child.

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

#223

Post by benja123 »

mrguyorama wrote: post #101
benja123 wrote: post #61

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 p…

Specifically, when it comes to entertainment and mass market stuff like this, the rules have always been crystal clear: 1. Make us money. Make us so much goddamned money. If you don't, we'll probably just get rid of you at some point 2. Don't embarrass us, cost us money, waste our resources, bring media scrutiny upon us, make literally any small part of our life even a little bit more difficult, or screw with us. Rul…

I agree about rule number 2 although that has seemed to have changed a bit more recently with the banning of Trump and other extremely popular right wing social media users from multiple platforms

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

#224

Post by gentleman11 »

ctrlp wrote: post #147
tw04 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Would you be ok with businesses refusing to serve accused/convicted criminals? How about illegal immigrants? If the standard is law-breaking does it meet the definition of non-discriminatory?

Do people really deserve an entire lifetime of exclusion even after doing their time? Even the Catholic Church in medieval times was more forgiving in many cases

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

#225

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

Broken_Hippo wrote: post #158
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've always been there. We lock people up pre-trial, sometimes for months if they cannot pay. People lose jobs and have trouble caring for children and so much more while this happens. You can lose a job if you get arrested. This happens before trial. We (Americans) don't really regulate the folks that do criminal background checks, so that arrest can cost you later too. Civil forfeiture is legal. Though some places…

What's so unfortunate to me is that I thought we were moving away from that. Just 4 years ago, my state passed a law prohibiting employers from hiring or firing based on arrests which didn't lead to a conviction. It's confusing and terribly disheartening to discover that many of the same people who pushed for that bill have no interest in the underlying principles of due process.

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

#226

Post by himinlomax »

crisdux wrote: post #24

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?

Can your employee fire you for your religious beliefs?

Twitch will most certainly fire you if you believe certain things about marriage, for instance. Things I don't happen believe, I have to add.

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

#227

Post by zapnuk »

Alupis wrote: post #142
tw04 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

> second-most voted for President in American history

The population of the USA is continuously rising. This is not an achievement. All it takes is an unusual voter turnout and a somewhat close election.

> because he isn't their brand of politics.

No. They banned him because at that time they determined that his violence encouraging speech was a real danger to society.

> he is a former US President - we aught to know what he thinks, even if we disagree or think it's outlandish - no?

Also no. Traditionally, former presidents live a more private life to pave the way for a new generation of politics. And even if you think he should be able to continue to influence the day-to-day political news, he has the ability to release press statements and contact any media outlet he wants.

Trump literally is an example that being banned from social media does NOT limit his public speech. Anything he puts out is discussed in mainstream media. Just a few days ago we were informed of his utterly stupid idea of using cancel culture to protest cancel culture.

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

#228

Post by echelon »

paxys wrote: post #197
alacombe wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Your 2nd source links to Hasan saying "America deserved 9/11". Maybe it did.

It's hilarious that in a thread full of people hating on companies for deplatforming people for their opinions, you are getting massively downvoted for voicing your own opinion. Goes to show that no one really wants "free speech".

It's a minority (on both sides of the political spectrum) that doesn't want free speech, but they're very vocal about it. It's fascism, regardless of who is doing it.

As long as the country and constitution remain in the "defend to the death your right to say it", we'll be fine.

Diversity of ideas and opinions should be celebrated.

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

#230

Post by sdenton4 »

Alupis wrote: post #142
tw04 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

How did previous generations claim to value free speech when mainly reading heavily curated newspapers and watching network television? (...where you could famously prick your finger, but not the reverse...)

We can tolerate the existence of nazis, but there's no obligation to give them a platform.

Post reply on HN