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

571–580 of 1001 posts

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

#571

Post by michaelmrose »

rootusrootus wrote: post #492
gambiting wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a really shitty argument though. Would I be happy to earn $100k a year? Sure I would. Would I give up my 28 days of paid holidays per year, unlimited sick leave, year long maternity leave, free healthcare, free education for my children, and yes, 3 months of notice that gives me incredible amount of stability in my life for that higher pay? Absolutely not. At will employment is an abomination of the American e…

I make a lot more than 100K, I have unlimited vacation, unlimited sick leave. Only 12 weeks of FMLA, so there's that. And healthcare isn't free anywhere in the world, just financed differently. I pay for my insurance from my paycheck, but the paycheck is so much larger that it works out fine. My deductible is zero, out-of-pocket maximum is zero, so it's not effectively much different than 'free' healthcare. I am well…

>I am well aware of how much Europeans hate America. It's readily apparent on HN.

There's a lot to dislike about how we have comported ourselves over the last 400 years and how we treat our people. If you reduce this to an irrational emotional hatred you do people a disservice. For myself I only call myself an American for lack of better options.

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

#572

Post by peytn »

Ekaros wrote: post #525
rootusrootus wrote: post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My company employs people in Europe, and across the US. The highest paid Europeans still make less than any of our associates in the midwest. And we have unlimited vacation & sick time, so I'm not sure what advantage the 28 holiday thing is. I completely agree that the U.S. is better suited for high income earners.

Advantage of 28 days is that company can't stop or fire you from using them. And will be punished for not allowing it.

Geez, I’m glad I live in a society where that’s not seen as necessary. I don’t need to invoke the power of the state to take a vacation.

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

#573

Post by ttt0 »

YarickR2 wrote: post #554
ttt0 wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 s…

Does it ("social media influencing elections->government should step in") also apply to traditional media ?

Both "social media" and "traditional media" are called "media", but it's not really the same thing. I assume by traditional media you mean something like newspapers or whatever, but social media is more akin to a telephone company, as it's a mean of communication between people. If a telephone company was just censoring anything they don't like then my answer would be yes. But to take your question literally, no, I don't think it's necessary.

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

#574

Post by ohazi »

CBLT wrote: post #534
ohazi wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> no other choice if they want to reach viewers > are incredibly few esports careers that could survive a Twitch ban (emphasis mine) People have never been entitled to a sports career, or to celebrity status by reaching viewers on someone else's platform. These platforms have democratized the "rags to riches" story, but whether it was the '30s or the '60s or the '90s, you've always had to play by the rules of the pre…

Pretend Harvey Weinstein is talking to you. And that he's reading the top-most comment (by newbie789) on this story: that he owns the company, so he can ban you at his discretion. Or gaslight you. Or show you shock porn. That this is fine, because it's how its always worked here. I'll tentatively assume you got some of the same visceral recoil I got from that mental image. And that we agree that following everything…

FWIW, I agree with you about the visceral recoil, thoughts about Hollywood practices not being ideal, etc. I'm not trying to claim that this state of affairs is good, just that it's basically identical to what we've had previously, and that the relevant laws don't appear to be affected by unprecedented scale or automation.

Passing laws to address this might work, but I think it would be difficult, and I would expect them to be challenged mercilessly. In order to actually work, I think this would require "Civil Rights Act" or "Equal Employment Opportunity Act" caliber landmark legislation, and I'm skeptical that this would be politically tenable any time soon.

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

#575

Post by staticman2 »

baobabKoodaa wrote: post #490
sneak wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We would (should) not accept that someone with “wrong” views be denied a bank account or to shop at a grocery store. Why? I am fine with banks and grocery stores having freedom of association, just as any other business or person should. Being a KKK member is not a protected class, and discriminating against KKK members in hiring and in the provision of goods or services is entirely in-bounds.

You're fine with preventing KKK members from buying food? You would literally have them starve to death? And you're fine with private corporations making decisions on who has the right to live and who doesn't? Personally, I value human rights. I think even KKK members have the right to live.

A KKK member could presumably still buy food if banned from a grocery store for preaching hate speech at the grocery store, they would just have to hire someone to do the shopping for them.

In America there is no right to food or shelter so I don't know why this concern is raised in a discussion of free speech?

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

#576

Post by Mandatum »

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…

If companies policies and media bites were as clear as a forum moderators, we wouldn't see the same backlash. But because they all subscribe to the corporate koolaid, they make claims about being inclusive and a bastion of free speech - they're shooting themselves in the foot.

If Twitch came out and said "I pay the bills, I facilitate your ad revenue - if I don't want you on the platform it's my decision to kick you off and I'll do it whenever I want" .. People would be up in arms and they'd be attacked, but they also wouldn't have to keep up this charade. People getting banned wouldn't have an avenue to complain.

But I guess being a US company there's also litigious reasons they have to worry about that some rinky dink forum wouldn't need to..

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

#577

Post by a1369209993 »

BitwiseFool wrote: post #252
anthonypasq wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

companies have speech rights that you would be infringing on by doing this

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.

> the issue becomes murkier for things like mom and pop shops and sole proprietorships

No it doesn't. The mom, the pop, and the sole proprietor are people; they have rights, which certain curtailments of their business might interfere with. The businesses themselves do not.

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

#578

Post by CharlesW »

refenestrator wrote: post #559
TameAntelope wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's an interesting consequence of accountability, that the people being held accountable tend to vocally dislike being held accountable, but don't want to say so for some reason. It'd honestly be pretty refreshing for a leader to come out and say, "I don't think my actions should be held against me like your actions should be held against you because I'm special/different." Insane, but refreshingly honest. F…

Held accountable by whom? We didn't elect twitch. Who decides who needs to be held accountable, and for what? Shouldn't that be the justice system? Twitch mentioned proactively banning people who are arrested, without using the word 'convicted'. Which demographics is that likely to affect?

Twitch is a private company (Amazon).

Simply don't use it if you don't like it's ToS, or otherwise disagree with how it handles relationships with the creators who've agreed to it.

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

#579

Post by gotoeleven »

TameAntelope wrote: post #339
kodah wrote: post #253

I had to type in this box more times than I'm willing to admit to produce something that didn't violate the guidelines. 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 t…

I think it's an interesting consequence of accountability, that the people being held accountable tend to vocally dislike being held accountable, but don't want to say so for some reason. It'd honestly be pretty refreshing for a leader to come out and say, "I don't think my actions should be held against me like your actions should be held against you because I'm special/different." Insane, but refreshingly honest. F…

Yeah I get your point. Like those witches in Salem, they really didn't like being held accountable for performing witchcraft.

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

#580

Post by edmundsauto »

a1369209993 wrote: post #526
edmundsauto wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also nothing new. Consider the Congressional hearings about rock and roll in the 80s[0], or other moral panics like Prohibition. Anti-abortion groups are a particularly vile form of cancel culture. Politicians will be silently cancelled (not elected) for not publicly pretending to believe in the right sky fairie. Societies have always shut down behavior and media they collectively find inappropriate. There's no…

> There's no need to track this as anything other than a continuation in a long history of collective groups of humans doing what they do. That's fair and accurate as far as it goes, but it doesn't really negate the need to oppose this particular continuation of said history, any more than it negated the need to oppose eg Prohibition or the Spanish Inquision when those were happening.

There is a need to negate the narrative attributed to the phrase "cancel culture" - said narrative is that liberals are censoring conservative voices. (IE, it's often discussed as a directional issue, and not a systemic one.)
Post reply on HN