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

#641

Post by refenestrator » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 11:52 PM UTC

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…

'Society' by how thick a margin? 80%? 50.1%? Less?

What if the decision-makers at twitch represent 'society' less than they think they do?

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

#642

Post by viraptor » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 11:52 PM UTC

insert_coin wrote: post #612

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…

They are deciding how they view each user and their actions. Shouldn't I also be expected to have the same privilege? If I want to see it like a legal process there is nothing they can say, specially after this, to make me change my outlook in the same way they ban people for violating their way of thinking and give them no appeal not even the time of day.

You do have that privilege. Why do you think you don't?

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

#643

Post by malandrew » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 11:52 PM UTC

vsareto wrote: post #9

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.

Companies were already willing to fire you for posting racist stuff before Twitch made this decision.

The word "racism" has become mutable to the point where it has lost all meaning. Who knows what things that aren't considered in the least bit racism today will be considered racist in 10 to 20 years time as institutions that only exist to combat racism keep broadening the scope of what is racist to continue to justify their very existence (i.e. the Shirky Principle).

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

#644

Post by refenestrator » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 11:55 PM UTC

viraptor wrote: post #623

refenestrator wrote: post #595

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There are posts elsewhere indicating that twitch is close to the only game in town for live game streaming. People were denied access to tournaments, not intending to stream or commentate themselves, because the tourney organizers wanted to stream on twitch.

Sure, it's just video games, but we have to reckon in general with the consequences of an oligopoly that's 'just exercising control over their private property' when it adds up to most digital communications.

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

#645

Post by malandrew » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 11:57 PM UTC

joshuamorton wrote: post #70

colllectorof wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. If you know anything about history, you know that attacks on free speech do not have to start or stop with official government sanction. In Soviet Union it wasn't uncommon for dissidents and their families to be nominally "free", while being unable to find employment, housing or otherwise get basics for operating in the society. It worked through a backstage "reputation" system that begins to look eerily familiar…

> It worked through a backstage "reputation" system that begins to look eerily familiar. A system that was government driven. Don't try to pretend that decentralized consequences are authoritarian.

Hollywood Blacklists during the Red Scare were a backstage reputation system that kept people from being employable in an industry. There was nothing officially government driven about those blacklists. Lots of it was nod and wink and soft coercion. Merely associating with the "wrong" people was enough to get you blacklisted.

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

#646

Post by ngokevin » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 11:57 PM UTC

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…

"Terrorist activities, child sexual exploitation, violent extremism, credible threats of mass violence, carrying out or deliberately acting as an accomplice to sexual assault" falls under moralism and cancel culture?

We've seen things that fester online that lead to real life tragedies or to the damaging of the fabric of democracy itself. Including insurrection on the US Capitol which took its roots on Twitter.

There's a spectrum between "cancel culture is bad" vs. "let domestic terrorists and CP sharers gather". And I don't think there's a slippery slope concern. Twitch already bans people for unexplained reasons anyways.

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

#647

Post by logshipper » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 11:57 PM UTC

malandrew wrote: post #613

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…

> or if the perpetrator was not a user when they committed the acts. if this becomes more widespread, this is one of the most chilling aspects. I don't think it takes much imagination at all for anyone to consider a future where something you said today that is totally acceptable by today's standards keeps you from participating in some aspect of society* in 10 to 20 years time. Think about how many public figures ha…

I was having this exact conversation with a friend the other day. To engage in any form of (even remotely) political discourse on the internet is to step into a landmine once you consider the 20-year horizon. People are now being fired for things they said as teenagers [1], and while I am all for anti-racism and inclusiveness, have we forgotten that people grow and change with time? That we are products of our society and those societies often imbibe us with some blind spots that we later come to recognize?

The only way I can see out of this displaced and performative moralism is to not attach your name to anything that could be considered even remotely problematic in the future.

To get rid of old tweets, FB posts, anyone reading this might want to try the Jumbo app [2].

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/18/business/media/teen-vogue... [2] https://apps.apple.com/ca/app/jumbo-privacy-security/id14540...

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

#648

Post by slg » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 11:58 PM UTC

xupybd wrote: post #635

slg wrote: post #621

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

The idea that the Pilgrims came to America for religious freedom is mostly a fairy tale. But either way, there is a world a difference between shunning someone for exercising religious freedom and shunning someone who very likely committed sexual assault.

EDIT: This is being downvoted. I'm not sure if it is the Pilgrims comments, so I will point people to the Wikipedia article and the second sentence which notes that the Pilgrims "fled religious persecution in England for the tolerance of 17th-century Holland in the Netherlands." They spent over a decade in Holland. They didn't come to America due to persecution because they already had religious freedom in Holland.[1]

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilgrims_(Plymouth_Colony)

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

#649

Post by mindslight » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 11:58 PM UTC

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…

Large enough quantitative differences create qualitative differences. If your hypothetical KKK member gets banned from a supermarket or two for preaching there, they can still go elsewhere. If your hypothetical KKK member tries preaching at one supermarket, and gets put on an industry-wide blacklist shared by all supermarkets out of an abundance of caution, then that collusion constitutes de facto government despite being administered by "private" companies.

Also keep in mind that in this hypothetical scenario, no grocery store has to ban this KKK member outright to punish the problematic behavior. They can allow them to still shop there while notifying them that any future preaching will be grounds for trespass charges. This is the right solution when the market isn't big enough for meaningful choice between supermarkets.

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

#650

Post by jlawson » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 11:59 PM UTC

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…

No, it's not society. That makes it sound like everyone has a say.

It's only a very small minority of people are the ones that decide who gets punished and excluded.

It's not society, its the powerful.

This is how you have people getting banned for supporting a national politician who won election with ~49% of popular vote. Those 49% clearly didn't get a say in who gets punished and excluded. Only the powerful get that say.