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

621–630 of 1001 posts

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

#621

Post by slg »

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?

>Held accountable by whom? We didn't elect twitch.

Society. Don't like it, pick a new society like the two commenters you responded to you are considering.

>Who decides who needs to be held accountable, and for what?

Once again, society.

>Shouldn't that be the justice system?

The justice system is purposely setup in a way to make it difficult to punish people. This is good. We don't want the government throwing people in jail with flimsily excuses. However this allows a loophole for people to get away with a wide variety of crime and criminal like behavior which is obviously bad. How would you suggest these people are held accountable if it isn't through "cancel culture" which is basically just the modern equivalent of social shunning that various cultures have been doing for centuries?

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

#622

Post by chc »

handoflixue wrote: post #207
Pfhreak wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be clear, the controversial political opinions you believe should be platformed by Twitch are: "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." and "America Deserved 9/11"? Because those are the literal quotes from things that got people pulled from Twitch and you've labelled "controversial politica…

I'm old enough to remember when "gay people are all pedophiles" was the mainstream position given by the New York Times. It was utterly unacceptable to endorse such perverts. I'm not so old to remember the arguments about how women are too emotional to be allowed to vote, or the ones about black people, but it was pretty unacceptable to come out in defense of either of those groups either. Why in the world would I be…

These sorts of arguments always fall a bit flat with me for one simple reason: They assume a false causality. Our forbearance doesn't force others to reciprocate. If we try to stop people from encouraging the mass murder of protesters, sure, some people will look for ways to censor other ideas that I support. But if we don't oppose pro-murder propaganda, those people will still look for ways to censor ideas I support. When homophobia was the mainstream opinion, gay perspectives were commonly censored (in the sense we're talking about here of "powerful private parties not wanting to associate with them"). It seems pretty unrealistic to expect reciprocal generosity from someone who thinks protesters should be killed in the street, so I don't see how an argument based on ideas of "What if they did it to you?" could be persuasive.

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

#623

Post by viraptor »

refenestrator wrote: post #595
viraptor wrote: post #583

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're thinking of it like a legal process. Think of a private party instead - you're happy to invite lots of people, but everyone heard Adam was a real asshole to someone in public, so you don't want to have him at the party anymore (even though he was never bad at your previous parties specifically). It's a reasonable thing to do and you have about the same level of responsibility for your party as twitch has for t…

I don't have the power to ban Adam from all parties. Twitch effectively does, in this case.

You mean they can ban someone from YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and all other services with live streaming option? That's not really the case.

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

#624

Post by psychiatrist24 »

nostromo wrote: post #589
psychiatrist24 wrote: post #539

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course that supermarket should be entitled to ban the misbehaving person from their store. To turn the story around, why should a business that takes it on itself to provide for a remote community be punished for it by forcing them to accept unruly customers?

The point is that they're banning people for things not done in the store. What if there's a single major provider of groceries in a state and they decide to ban everyone convicted of a felony for life. Would that be ok?

In the case of the supermarket, the person who is banned could pay somebody else to buy stuff for them. In an extreme case, that somebody would have to be the government preventing the person from starving.

In general I think private businesses should be allowed to decide who they want to do business with.

In the case of Twitch, the question to me is what is the contract the users enter with Twitch - what promise does Twitch make? If it doesn't promise anything, users invest at their own risk.

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

#625

Post by exporectomy »

josephcsible wrote: post #504
wpietri wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not an argument against moderation. That's an argument against monopolies and oligopolies. Banning a guy from the store isn't even in the top 10 worst things that will be going wrong in that scenario.

Okay, that's another way to fix the problem then: break Twitch up into 100 baby Twitches, and don't let anyone have ownership/stake/control of more than one of them. If all 100 decide to ban someone, they probably deserve to be banned, and if they don't, then the person can keep streaming on one that didn't.

No because the same social and economic pressures may apply to all of them. That's exactly what used to happen to black tenants when all of the "100 baby landlords" decided to ban them. It doesn't mean they probably deserved to be banned, it's that there was a systemic problem that couldn't be fixed simply by having competition. We already see this with politically unpopular people being banned from all popular social media sites, despite them being separate companies with different owners.

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

#626

Post by krapp »

filoleg wrote: post #602
krapp wrote: post #585

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "witches" in Salem weren't actually witches. Racist and violent assholes on social media trying to drape themselves in the false flag of liberty are still racist, violent assholes.

I think the parent comment is trying to point out that the people who were deciding who was a "witch" in Salem back then could be the same type of people who are deciding what counts as "racist" or "hate speech" these days when it comes to "canceling" others.

Yes, practically everything every social media platform has done over nearly the last decade which anyone has ever disagreed with has been equated to Nazism, Stalinism, Orwellian dystopia or the Salem Witch trials. The slippery slope fallacy is very popular, especially on Hacker News.

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

#627

Post by thephyber »

My concern isn’t that a site/platform can ban you for your actions. This is fairly similar to how employers already have the legal right to fire employees/contractors for subjective reasons (eg. Decency clauses). That part is not new.

My worry is that Twitch is owned by Amazon. What happens if what I do something not on any Amazon property, but some Twitch PR decision leads to degraded access on my AWS account or my Amazon shopping account or “Login with Amazon” or “Checkout with Amazon”?

The fact that successful tech companies are collecting+building companies coupled with these “shoot first and maybe ask questions later” policies means there is more risk in using multiple services from one of these monolith companies than from choosing unaffiliated vendors.

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

#628

Post by gh-throw »

AzzieElbab wrote: post #433
thomaslangston wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"There is no question that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of that day." -Mitch McConnell

You and I and McConnell might agree, but the congress didnt. Moreover, Trump was calling for everyone to chill when he got banned, which to me indicates really bad risk management on behalf of twitter and fb. They risked further escalation to avoid responsibility.

Ever read Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar? There’s a certain speech you might find enlightening if you think Trump was trying to cool things off with those tweets.

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

#629

Post by babesh »

germinalphrase wrote: post #421
babesh wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why stop at websites? Why shouldn't airlines, hotels, banks, apartments, stores, and private universities ban whoever they like? How about creating a rule banning people who dye their hair blue?

There is - of course - rules around this. Certain qualities like race and sex are protected classes against which you cannot discriminate. To your example - a nightclub very well might discriminate against someone with blue hair.

Political speech is not a protected class.

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

#630

Post by babesh »

yifanl wrote: post #467
babesh wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why stop at websites? Why shouldn't airlines, hotels, banks, apartments, stores, and private universities ban whoever they like? How about creating a rule banning people who dye their hair blue?

I have to ask, what is the point you are trying to argue? That it shouldn't ever be possible to enforce rules on internet communities?

You should not have rules for behavior outside your community. Second, your rules should be restricted to actions that have an effect on your community.
Post reply on HN