Live data from Hacker News

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

reuters.com

361–370 of 1001 posts

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

#361

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…

For people who are saying "but losing Twitch kills your career":

In the entertainment industry in general, facing repercussions (including being unable to get any gigs whatsoever) for your actions outside of direct involvement in entertainment has long been the norm. There are several recent examples that people attribute to cancel culture, but the problem goes all the way back at least as far as the 1940s (see the Hollywood blacklist during McCarthyism).

Why should people who stream on Twitch be immune to pressures that those who work for Hollywood have to endure?

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

#362
After reddit started banning people for upvoting the wrong things, this is a logical next step. Contrary to the popular belief, slippery slope isn't a logical fallacy.

Anonymity is the only way to combat this. Make sure your online identity isn't connected to your real name. Ideally, you should have separate identities for each website. Using Tor or a VPN is also a good idea.

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

#363
post #276

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.

How different is that from at-will employment though? You can be fired at any time and for more or less any non-federally-protected reason (and can quit any time too). That seems pretty uncontroversial in the US at least.

In most cases there are multiple employers for any job who pay similar wages so one can go work for some other employer if one fires them.

But in the Twitch, YouTube, Amazon, etc. cases there is no other platform that pays the same.

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

#364
post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

First, Destiny describes himself as a "classical liberal", "hardcore capitalist", and "rule utilitarian." It's important to be specific, because the word "liberal" means different things in different contexts, and it is not always the same meaning as "progressive" or "leftist". > he is expressing exacerbation that law enforcement is allowing chaos from one particular political faction. You might read that from his co…

> First, Destiny describes himself as a "classical liberal", "hardcore capitalist", and "rule utilitarian." It's important to be specific, because the word "liberal" means different things in different contexts, and it is not always the same meaning as "progressive" or "leftist".

None of the things you mentioned are incompatible with the group Americans call “liberal”. He also describes himself as a social democrat. He could certainly be described as a progressive.

Regarding that quote, here is his side (from https://positions.destiny.gg/docs/ , links omitted):

> In general, I do not support vigilantism. I think Kyle Rittenhouse was clearly misguided in his attempts to cross state borders and should have stayed home. I also think there are steps he could have taken to minimize the risk of him needing to discharge a firearm.

> Of a larger 20+ minute debate with someone, a short 16 second clip was cut to make it sound as though I support violence against Black Lives Matter protesters when this couldn't be further from the truth. I am incredibly heated in this clip, but I am clear when I state that my main frustration is with the few rioters burning down private businesses and the idea that Trump's only path to victory was with continued arson and destruction of privately owned businesses across the US (full conversation in August of 2020 with context part clipped).

> I have always defended the existence of BLM and its purpose, sometimes in front of live audiences as the only liberal member on a panel. (Jesse Lee Peterson panel in October of 2020 | Conversation with call-in defending the existence and effectiveness of BLM's protests | Panel debate in August of 2020 | Support in November of 2018 of Kaepernick kneeling in the NFL | Attacking Dave Rubin's criticisms of Kaepernick's protests in September 2017)

> I've consistently pushed back against "white lives matter" and similar types of irresponsible rhetoric from the right. (Jesse Lee Peterson panel in October of 2020)

> I have continually defended protesting, and even rioting against public institutions while condemning the rioting/looting of private businesses, as I believe the latter feeds into Republican tactics to draw attention away from the overwhelmingly positive protests. (Discussion about Minneapolis protesting/looting in May of 2020 | Debate with conservative/Neo-Nazi(?) Ethan Ralph in June 2020 | Discussion on my stream in September of 2020)

> My specific issue in this debate was that I didn't believe it was morally acceptable to defend rioters destroying private businesses, regardless of their legitimate grievances with the local police. When I think of rioters attacking and destroying private property, I generally support citizens' rights to defend that property. I think back to the Korean-Americans that were defending their property in the '92 LA Riots, the Black Panthers in California defending their communities, or the tragedy of the "Black Wall Street" Tulsa massacre in 1921. I was especially moved by the frustrated, black local business owner who was screaming out in frustration about looters and rioters destroying his business in the '92 LA Riots.

> It's incredibly frustrating that people have intentionally and maliciously misconstrued a 16 second cut from a larger conversation to make it sound as though I don't support the BLM protests or somehow approve of racist white people indiscriminately killing protesters when this is an issue that I have been ruthlessly consistent on throughout the years. I unequivocally support BLM's right to both protest and riot against the public institutions that they view as oppressive. I have not changed or wavered on this stance in years.

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

#365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because a company is a group of real people making decisions together. There is no “legal fiction” deciding to not associate with certain others.

I still fail to see how that coordinated group of people motivated by profit takes precedence over the civil rights of an individual.

I fail to see how an individual loses their civil rights just because they joined a "coordinated group of people".

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

#366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because a company is a group of real people making decisions together. There is no “legal fiction” deciding to not associate with certain others.

I still fail to see how that coordinated group of people motivated by profit takes precedence over the civil rights of an individual.

Freedom of association inherently involves groups of individual people mutually deciding to not associate with particular individuals.

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

#367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free speech as a principle you’re after (aka truly free speech without any consequences whatsoever) never existed. You’re free to say whatever you want, and I’m free to take actions based on that. You cannot give free speech benefits only to one side of the argument.

without any consequences This is a pretty big distraction that is often used in these types of discussions. It's a distortion of what people actually want. The "consequences" being advocated are often just the whims of today's favored group. Giving free speech benefits to only one side of the argument is exactly what people are asking for when they ask for "consequences" -- freedom for A, consequences for B.

Sure, favored groups will get more benefits. But that’s different from free speech. Free speech doesn’t guarantee equality.

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

#368

>How different is that from at-will employment though? You can be fired at any time and for more or less any non-federally-protected reason (and can quit any time too). That seems pretty uncontroversial in the US at least. Most Europeans would be horrified by this concept so I'm not sure it supports your argument.

> Most Europeans would be horrified by this concept

But they'd be really happy to earn the same level of income.

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

#369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

Sure. I find it extremely tiring to read about how this is a slippery slope, and how this is somehow oppressive or unusual for American media. I don't mind folks coming in and saying, "Hey, this is a change that I dislike." But a lot of the discourse here today is just outrage and finger pointing and yelling about free speech absolutism. I think that HN's downvoting system actually makes it harder to have a reasoned…

I very much agree that unmarked voting systems like HN's do a really poor job of keeping comments "high quality." Everyone has a different definition of quality.

I understand that there are UX challenges to adding different kinds of votes, but I totally agree that the UI affordances we have right now make conversation harder instead of easier.

I wonder if separating "quality" (vote + or -) from "reports" ("excessively rude", "inappropriate", "off-topic") would be useful. I do think that people can be excessively rude and useful at the same time. Edit: So, this would change from "-3 points" -> "-3 points [rude: 3, off-topic: 5]".

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

#370
post #111
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.

> We aren't talking protected class here

We do. All the people should be protected. That was the point of the French Revolution, no special rights to anyone, everyone is equal under the law.

Post reply on HN