Twitch will ban users for 'severe misconduct' that occurs away from its site • Hacker News Board

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

#371

Post by ttt0 » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 9:43 PM UTC

newbie789 wrote: post #250

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…

> I can also ban you if I don’t like you. Or if I think it’s funny, or really any other reason.

Yeah, just like a game server admin that banned you simply because he lost to you in a game. Everyone loved them. Just because you can abuse your powers doesn't mean you should.

If social media that are influencing the outcome of the elections (reminder that we're in the middle of Covid lockdowns) are not aware that they shouldn't abuse their powers then it's time for the government to step in.

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

#372

Post by Retric » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 9:43 PM UTC

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #328

ctdonath wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no bright line between Facebook and Bob’s Forum.

There's no bright line between a wheelbarrow and a bulk freighter but even Hellen Keller could tell you they're very different.

There are several bright lines like having an engine.

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

#373

Post by nitwit005 » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 9:43 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.

> So you want the government to force private companies to continue doing business with someone they no longer wish to provide services to?

We do have a set of reasons you can't refuse service to people for (race, religion, etc), and if you get classified as a utility you generally have to serve everyone, so it's not exactly an exotic idea.

Some of these services are entering a more ambiguous state. Twitter and Facebook have official government communications flowing through them. Banning people may eventually have more serious consequences closer to the "having your water cut off" situation.

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

#374

Post by Goronmon » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 9:43 PM UTC

LudwigNagasena wrote: post #360

newbie789 wrote: post #250

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…

At some point a website stops being just a website and becomes a social institution in itself. And with great power comes great responsibility.

That's a easy statement to make until you actually try to define what "some point" actually means.

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

#375

Post by enjoythecode » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 9:44 PM UTC

shadowfox wrote: post #338

dagw wrote: 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.

There are thousands of other employers you can apply to and work for. You'll be unemployed in the short term, but getting fired isn't catastrophic long-term, for the most part.

The parallel doesn't really exist for Twitch. Other than perhaps YouTube, are there any platforms that would get you anywhere close to the pool of potential users on Twitch?

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

#376

Post by concordDance » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 9:45 PM UTC

hackersword wrote: post #162

Alupis wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

They didn't "silence" him because his brand of politics. Their stated reason for banning him from their platform was literally " due to the risk of further incitement of violence." Their TOS have specific "Glorification of Violence policy", which aims to prevent the glorification of violence that could inspire others to replicate violent acts and determined that they were highly likely to encourage and inspire people…

I personally have no idea where to find Trump's latest babble. This is also true for pretty much everyone I know.

He has been effectively silenced. (And at least in the case of Twitter, it was definitely not for glorification of violence given the two tweets they cited in their blogpost)

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

#377

Post by weird-eye-issue » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 9:46 PM UTC

rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #358

CBLT wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To add a little extra context to what other people are giving you: large, million-dollar digital tournaments stream on Twitch because they have no other choice if they want to reach viewers. ESL signed a deal with Facebook streaming that destroyed their viewership numbers because people go to Twitch to watch, not the website for the tournament. Organizers have clearly seen this and will not move their stream to anoth…

In a way you have affirmed parent’s point: it’s the shareholders’ website, and they can mod it as they wish.

You just completely missed the point. Everyone knows who's website it is and that they "can" mod it as they wish. But at a certain scale some moral and ethical questions come into play.

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

#378

Post by anigbrowl » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 9:46 PM UTC

dagw wrote: post #276

newbie789 wrote: post #250

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…

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.

But nobody owes you a market stall. And if you do have one, then you have to balance your business witht he extracurricular activities. If the latter gets you in trouble or attracts sufficient attention that it reflects poorly on your industry, your brand might suffer and other industry participants will do whatever they need to avoid contagion.

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

#379

Post by sthnblllII » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 9:46 PM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #345

gentleman11 wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Would it be okay to like segregate the misconduct accounts under a domain like shitbirds.twitch.tv? Then everybody would know that they were only providing them service under threat of government force.

If they did that all the popular streamers would end up there pretty fast for microagressions. Lets not pretend this isnt political. I dont think billionaires should decide what is socially acceptable and what isnt.

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

#380

Post by anchpop » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 9:46 PM UTC

Bud wrote: post #35

cik wrote: post #7

Is there any doubt that we've entered the era of approved, or not free speech. 'Severe misconduct' today means racist behaviour, perhaps tomorrow it means support for the NRA, or anti-environmental behaviour. The thought police have finally invaded ever part of society.

Please look up what "free speech" actually means, in order to disabuse yourself of the notion that private companies' actions have anything to do with it.

Free speech isn’t a concept that was invented or defined by the United State’s first amendment. What kind of logic is that? When foreign governments kill dissidents, do you say “don’t worry guys, the first amendment only applies to the US government, so nobody’s right to free speech is getting violated here”.