251–260 of 1001 posts
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.
No, presumption of innocence is first and foremost a moral principle. Our legal systems are reflections of our collective morals.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm getting to the point where yes, I want to force these "private" companies to uphold civil liberties and principles such as innocent until proven guilty. I care way more about citizen freedom and expression than the concept of a "free market" which is a platonic ideal that has never existed and never will.
companies have speech rights that you would be infringing on by doing this
Edit: I know the issue becomes murkier for things like mom and pop shops and sole proprietorships, but I am willing to make distinctions based on scale.
Let's examine why this is problematic:
- This will absolutely be leveraged on anyone in a precarious position. It's their ultimate out. Minority groups, majority groups, it doesn't matter - you're in trouble and need a platform to tell your story? Not happening on Twitch. Expect more to sign on to this idea; it is the ultimate tool for cancel culture proponents.
- Foreword: I am not making a constitutional argument. Private companies now own most of the highways we use for speech, much less widespread speech. Sure, Newspapers and mail can be argued, but there's plenty of examples where they had to tolerate nasty messages for some self-imposed access to speech principles. Secondarily, nobody used a newspaper to talk to their auntie, while Twitch isn't Facebook or Twitter self-expression is not limited to certain platforms. That is lost on tech companies.
This new stage of American moralism is pretty tiring no matter what group or direction it comes from. I can't imagine staying in this country much longer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 sile…
That probably would change the current discussion, yes. An amazing number of people would flip positions. For that to happen, though, the current president would have to do something that was at least colorable as a violation of terms and services. I haven't heard even right-wingers claim that this is so, so far. (But maybe I just haven't heard, not being one who listens to those circles.)
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…
To be clear, the controversial political opinions you believe should be platformed by Twitch are: "If that means white redneck militia dudes mowing down dipshit protesters that think they can torch buildings at 10 PM, at this point they have my fucking blessing." and "America Deserved 9/11"? Because those are the literal quotes from things that got people pulled from Twitch and you've labelled "controversial politica…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be clear, the controversial political opinions you believe should be platformed by Twitch are: "If that means white redneck militia dudes mowing down dipshit protesters that think they can torch buildings at 10 PM, at this point they have my fucking blessing." and "America Deserved 9/11"? Because those are the literal quotes from things that got people pulled from Twitch and you've labelled "controversial politica…
The full quote from Destiny—a liberal anti-racist, mind you—is: The rioting needs to fucking stop. If that means white redneck militia dudes mowing down dipshit protesters that think they can torch buildings at 10 PM, at this point they have my fucking blessing. Holy shit, this shit needs to stop. It needed to stop a long time ago. To the rest of us, he is expressing exacerbation that law enforcement is allowing chao…
> he is expressing exacerbation that law enforcement is allowing chaos from one particular political faction.
You might read that from his comment, I believe that's one possible reading. Another is that he's encouraging additional chaos, literally calling for folks to be "mowed down" with his blessing.
> do you believe that bluechecks on Twitter who freely speak in similar terms about White people are actually advocating for the slaughter/genocide of Whites?
This is bait. It's also a distraction from the specific Destiny quote that was suspended on Twitch. Don't ask a leading question, state your thesis and provide specific evidence of it (E.g. "Twitch suspensions are applied unevenly for calls of violence, here are cases where the standards were inconsistent....")
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't this slippery slope argument technically a logical fallacy? Wouldn't we just not accept the unacceptable change?
Slippery Slope is not necessarily a fallacy because it's a very real phenomenon. My test is examining the "slippery slope" by asking if it instead "establishes a precedent". And then I see how easy it might be to justify going further down such a path based on past justifications.
I guess I reject the idea that policy (a well considered and debated, long lasting decision) would actually fall for something like a slippery slope.
The proverbial boiled frog just jumps out of the pot when the water gets too hot, in reality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Twitch is just the latest organization to jump onto the political silence bandwagon.
Personally I find it hilarious that American conservatives who have for decades been advocates of silencing people for things like being against wars, sex/violence in music/film/video games, and homosexuality, are now campaigning on being victims of the "cancel culture" they themselves have advocated for.
We should talk about those things in public - and not everyone will agree. That's how it's supposed to be.
It's brand new, however, to wield the power to literally cut off your political enemies from more than half of the population with a single click of the mouse.