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

381–390 of 1001 posts

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

#381

Post by smt88 »

nitwit005 wrote: post #373
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.

> 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 Faceb…

> Banning people may eventually have more serious consequences closer to the "having your water cut off" situation.

This can be resolved by improving interop and competition among social media, not by forcing moderation decisions on private companies.

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

#382

Post by bilbo0s »

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.

I'm struggling to understand both sides of this argument, so I need help grokking all these positions. I need more information before I know if I can support your position.

If I work for a large company, and I go out and do something that may not even be all that bad. Say, publicly berating an Uber driver like that woman doctor in Miami, my organization will fire me. Just as her organization fired her. Especially if people start publicly connecting me to them. This has happened forever, no internet need be involved.

The difference here, at least one side claims, is that the large organization paying your living exists on the internet, and so should be viewed differently than any other large organization. Since those other large organizations are not internet-based? I find myself unpersuaded though, I'm honestly not really seeing much of a difference.

So just so I understand what you're saying, is your position that no large organization should be able to separate themselves from that lady doctor in Miami for instance? Or is your position that only large internet-based organizations should be precluded from separating themselves from her?

(Dr in Miami that berated the Uber driver is just the most analogous offline example I could think of. Large organization with enormous market power paying her living. They fire her, no one else will touch her. I'm sure there are many many more.)

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

#383

Post by hallway_monitor »

Causality1 wrote: post #316
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…

We really need a public utility alternative for electronic discussion and multimedia sharing. There's no argument that internet is an essential service so where's the internet post office?

You want government-run Internet or a government myspace? No, thank you.

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

#384

Post by concordDance »

tw04 wrote: post #335
lordnacho wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can agree with you, but still think there's a problem. The fact is nobody who wrote the constitution thought we'd get to a point where there was such a dominant private speech player. So yeah, it made sense at the time, since government was the big player historically, but we're looking at a different situation now.

>The fact is nobody who wrote the constitution thought we'd get to a point where there was such a dominant private speech player. I'm quite certain that's not true. Papers in the 1700s had just as much dominance in speech as social media does today. https://csac.history.wisc.edu/document-collections/themes-of... I think HN has a gross overestimation of twitter's influence. There are 7.9 Billion people on the planet,…

> Papers in the 1700s had just as much dominance in speech as social media does today.

The important difference is that less than a billionth of what people communicate was through those newspapers. Nowadays? Maybe half is the the internet and most of that is through the big players (e.g. Facebook).

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

#385

Post by gamblor956 »

gamblor956 wrote: post #17
challengly wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What rule is she breaking?

She frequently violates Twitch's clothing rules, and her account has been suspended many times as a result of Twitch enforcing its rules.

Mys statement was not a value judgement, it was statement of what actually happened.

Twitch has suspended her several times for what it viewed as rule-breaking. Twitch modified its rules several times, and she kept breaking the less restrictive rules, until Twitch finally created the NSFW category.

If you have an issue with this, take it up with Twitch for having unnecessarily restrict rules.

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

#386

Post by valparaiso »

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…

Same with Apple and its policies regarding closed platform (walled garden). But with such analogy people will go mad. Hypocrisy at its best.

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

#387

Post by ImprovedSilence »

jcranmer wrote: post #361
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…

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…

You are using the mcarthy blacklist as precedent for banning peoples ability to participate in a social setting. As far as im concerned, since forever that has been used as a reason to question and challenge censorship.

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

#389

Post by smt88 »

ttt0 wrote: post #192
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.

Yes, and I don't care about free market. We're already doing this, we're forcing private companies to do business with people they don't want to do business with right now. I don't even care so much about social media, but banks and services that provide basic infrastructure to keep your own web services afloat shouldn't be allowed to discriminate people based on their politics.

> discriminate people based on their politics

It usually seems to be based on people's bigotry or sexual misconduct. I haven't yet seen a politics-based ban.

Regardless, politics is not a protected class, nor should it be. If your political view is fascist, why should you have the same protections as someone who is born a minority? One thing can be changed and can be thought of as evil; the other can't.

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

#390

Post by babesh »

jcranmer wrote: post #361
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…

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…

Such an advocate for neo McCarthyism.
Post reply on HN