341–350 of 1001 posts
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 think that’s exactly what is happening though, they’re adopting the standards that their advertisers, and by extension their users want.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But why is a company's right to speech more important than a real person's civil rights? A company is a mere legal fiction and it's rights should not be given equal weight to those of actual human beings, especially for a corporation as large as Amazon. 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.
Because a company is a group of real people making decisions together. There is no “legal fiction” deciding to not associate with certain others.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The significant difference is I (assume) no one depended on your forum for earning a significant part of their income. Once you set yourself as a place where you want people come and earn money, then banning them, and thus depriving them of something of real monetary value, takes on and entire different set of nuances.
Building your business on someone else's property subjects you to a material risk that the owner may someday kick you out. Being a responsible business owner means you recognize that risk and mitigate it as needed for business continuity, and have contingency plans in the event that it happens.
Coming from the perspective of someone that was an admin of a medium-large forum back in the vBulletin heyday of the early 2000s, I’m somewhat amused by people getting angry at moderation decisions. The rules were pretty clear: This is my website. I pay the bills and maintain it. Here are some clear rules that if you break them, you will be punished with a ban/suspension/shadow an/redirect to goatse upon login/etc. a…
It’s not just some site when you have no credible alternative because it killed all the competition years ago. The network effects are too strong
Then everybody would know that they were only providing them service under threat of government force.
"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.
Yes.
> We aren't talking protected class here
That's besides the point. There are many limitations on private companies picking and choosing who to do business with that apply beyond protected classes, including common carrier regulations[1], regulation of (some) private property as a public square[2], and requiring broadcasters to run political ads[3].
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama
[3]: https://www.broadcastlawblog.com/2012/01/articles/why-broadc...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everyone and their cat understands that it is hypocritical bullshit. They'd let his incitements slide easily if he was their political ally and not an opponent. I don't have a horse in that race, but it is disgusting how people defend this blatant and obvious bias as perfectly normal thing.
No one inciting violence is a company's ally, unless that company sells guns, ammo, etc. Twitter, same as every other corporate entity, benefited from Trump's tax cuts. They went years without silencing him, despite cries that his posts were dangerous. They -wanted- to keep him on their platform; he kept millions engaged with it. They even created 'world leader' exceptions -just so they wouldn't have to apply their o…
It is unfortunate how personal biases stop you from understanding the danger to society from unchecked 'private companies'. Trump haters are ok with it so long as Twitter and Facebook silence him but too shallow to imagine that one day they'll silence the politician they support.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder if you're confusing public debate and a vocal minority with actual bans of things? I'm not aware of any actually banned video games in the US, for instance. 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 o…
I'm not aware of any actually banned video games in the US, for instance. There was an Atari 2600 game that involved rape which was banned in some community on Long Island. That's the only one i can think of.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
"he was banned for inciting violence against the terms of those platforms" So technically Trump should be un-banned after claims of incitement were contested and disproved in congress, right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who decided that Freedom of Speech only applies to government suppression? Does the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment only apply to the government as well?
> Who decided that Freedom of Speech _only_ applies to government suppression Which freedom of speech are you referring to? Because if you're thinking of the first amendment, then the people who decided that are the ones who wrote it, and it's pretty clear in the text.