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

631–640 of 1001 posts

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

#631

Post by weeblewobble »

TechBro8615 wrote: post #241
weeblewobble wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a lazy argument, you're just tired of hearing it. It's actually a very strong argument. "quasi-public", "maybe Twitch isn't a great example", "maybe not legally... yet", "some forthcoming legal doctrine"-- these are weak qualifiers. What are you proposing, exactly? How many users is a service allowed to have before their content moderation policies are nationalized? Somewhat ironically, whatever you're propo…

> whatever you're proposing would almost certainly require weakening the first amendment I assume you're referring to the 1A rights of the corporation, e.g. Twitter's right to decline to publish content it disagrees with. I agree with you there. It's a complex problem. My complaint is more with the argument that only the government can restrict free speech. It's a lazy argument because the reality is far more nuanced…

Your belief that large social media platforms should be more permissive has nothing to do with the First Amendment, which is a limitation on a grant of power to a non-human entity (i.e. the Federal government). The idea that the "spirit" of the 1A constrains the actions of human individuals is somewhat perverse.

Sometimes platforms ban people I think they shouldn't. We agree on that much. I hope user pressure pushes them into more fair and transparent processes. But I strongly believe they should have the right to publish or not publish whatever they want. And on ideological grounds, I strongly oppose any weakening of the First Amendment.

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

#632

Post by devmunchies »

krapp wrote: post #620
insert_coin wrote: post #616

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no false flag of liberty, that is an oxymoron. Liberty is having the right to offend people, that’s what it means.

And if you exercise your right to offend people in my establishment, I have the right to toss you onto the pavement. Liberty is a two-edged sword, which is something a lot of people seem to have forgotten.

> if you exercise your right to offend people in my establishment, I have the right to toss you onto the pavement

not anymore (if you are implying physical removal). you can't even apprehend shoplifters anymore without getting sued.

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

#633

Post by adzzzz »

coldpie wrote: post #296
adzzzz wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes they are entitled and we are allowed to disagree with it. That's the point everyone is trying to make. These legalistic arguments are silly and distracting.

Apparently Twitch's employees like these policies for ethical reasons, and/or their businesspeople and advertisers think these policies will bring in more money. Personally, I like these policies and I'd like to see more of this kind of proactive action. I like Twitch more knowing that they have this policy. It shows that they understand their role in shaping public discourse and are taking responsibility for it. It'…

>and/or their businesspeople and advertisers think these policies will bring in more money

Yes this is the reason. They will continue to stifle speech so its more palatable for corporations to run ads on their platform. Censoring art and dissent is working well for the people you agree with right now. 60 years ago the current culture would have been unfathomable. In 60 years it may be unfathomable to you again, but now you've taken the stand that it's right and just that they stifle dissent. Hope that never bites you.

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

#634

Post by thephyber »

akira2501 wrote: post #596
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…

> Think of a private party instead The extent to which corporations should be considered private entities does not seem like a settled question to me. Your corporation has no natural right to exist, and therefore does not have the natural right to do business solely as it pleases. > and you have about the same level of responsibility for your party as twitch has for their platform. What responsibility are they exerci…

Honest question: is there an exhaustive list of natural rights?

The only ones I know about are related to the Declaration of Independence and I don’t have any evidence they are comprehensive.

I don’t have any evidence to believe of a conscious higher power, so my list of natural rights is likely to differ from people who do.

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

#635

Post by xupybd »

slg wrote: post #621
refenestrator wrote: post #559

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 peopl…

Early American culture was designed to prevent this. Early pilgrims were persecuted by other Christian groups in Europe. So they built in ideas like religious freedoms to try to build a society that could accept differences of opinions. I'm not American but have a lot of respect for what they were trying to achieve.

By all means have your group of close contacts that you shun when they step out of line but doing that society wide causes too many injustices.

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

#636

Post by exporectomy »

sneak wrote: post #561
baobabKoodaa wrote: post #490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, I'm fine with any individual who sells food (or any other thing) being able to opt to not do business with anyone they like. That's a big difference from what you claimed. That's actually already true now (outside of protected classes). Any restaurant can ask KKK members to leave if they so desire. Same with any supermarket. Any individual proprietor having freedom of association is a long long way from "specific…

How do you draw a line between religion (protected class) and other ideologies/oragnizations/beliefs that you don't want protection for? Where do, eg Scientologists, Pastafarians, and cult members fit? Is it right to be able to exclude Islamists (political ideology) despite them being Muslims (religion)?

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

#637

Post by malandrew »

tenebrisalietum wrote: post #10
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.

If your speech is really valuable you shouldn't depend on the free services of a privately-owned ad-supported company meant for streaming games to propagate it. Furthermore speech as the forefathers probably meant was people physically going to town squares and talking there. There is free press, which is what social media is more like, and the owner of a press has the right to decide what he/she will print--the Cons…

> Furthermore speech as the forefathers probably meant was people physically going to town squares and talking there.

Facebook and other such platforms have become a town square of sorts.

This idea that the principles that founding fathers championed, especially the Bill of Rights, should somehow be restricted only to what was possible with the technology of their time is pretty preposterous.

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

#638

Post by techrat »

Areibman wrote: post #66

It's strange to see a company that once prided itself on active engagement with its users to find product-market fit antagonize its content creators so much. And as a user, it gives me the perception that the platform is just plainly unfair. (Plus the platform is unusable without Adblock). Top streamers have been banned or lost partnerships for playing their own music[0], stating controversial political opinions[1][2…

>It's strange to see a company that once prided itself ...

Twitch is an Amazon property now.

All prior impressions are now moot.

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

#639

Post by claudiawerner »

insert_coin wrote: post #616
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.

There is no false flag of liberty, that is an oxymoron. Liberty is having the right to offend people, that’s what it means.

> There is no false flag of liberty, that is an oxymoron.

Several political philosophers critical of liberalism (and even those sympathetic to liberalism) have argued that several free actions we take do indeed disadvantage people in various ways, whether it comes to democritic citizenship or other social interactions. It is entirely possible to act under the flag of liberty while still (knowingly or not) disadvantaging other people. This 'paradox' (speaking loosely) has given birth to the (currently popular) philosophy of egalitarian liberalism (or, liberal egalitarianism, as opposed to other theories such as Marxian egalitarianism).

You can read more about this at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/#NewLib

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

#640

Post by wongarsu »

Pfhreak wrote: post #297
nitrogen wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your second quote should be no more or less controversial than saying that any of the countries the US invaded afterward also deserved those invasions. 9/11 was, in part, blowback from previous American foreign policy. Interpreting that as saying that people deserve to be killed by terrorists is 1. confusing a country as a whole with its citizens as individuals and 2. an unrealistically literal interpretation of clea…

I think discussions about invasions and attacks, even if they are uncomfortable, is totally reasonable. I'll happily talk with you about why American Imperialism is bad until I'm blue in the face. I will say, when someone says we should attack civilians because of their government's foreign policy, I will say that crosses a line. It's unacceptable in my view. There's a huge gap between, "We should have uncomfortable…

By that logic "the use of atomic bombs in WWII was justified" should also be an unacceptable statement. ... I mean, I'm not saying that it shouldn't be unacceptable. Attacking civilians is pretty horrible and uncivilized. But is also is a common thread throughout most notable wars in the last 100 years or so.
Post reply on HN