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

661–670 of 1001 posts

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

#661

Post by jlawson »

chc wrote: post #622
handoflixue wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

By the same argument, you'd cheat and steal from literally anyone you could get away with cheating and stealing from. Because not doing it to them doesn't stop them from doing it to you.

But this isn't really how it works. Forebearance actually does have value because it changes society as a whole, shifts expectations at a broad scale, and creates moral authority to demand better from others which is persuasive and powerful.

At the end of the day, what kind of society do you want to live in? Will you contribute to making that society, or not?

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

#662

Post by teachingassist »

omgwtfbbq wrote: post #359

>How different is that from at-will employment though? You can be fired at any time and for more or less any non-federally-protected reason (and can quit any time too). That seems pretty uncontroversial in the US at least. Most Europeans would be horrified by this concept so I'm not sure it supports your argument.

Whether or not you agree with at-will employment, almost nobody would agree your private employer is, in general, obligated to employ you.

So why would a service provider be obligated to continue to provide a service that you can profit from?

Another example: if you found a net profitable bet against the house at a casino, is the casino obligated to continue to offer that bet?

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

#663

Post by [deleted] »

slg wrote: post #652
refenestrator wrote: post #641

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'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?

There is no set percentage, but if the decision makers at Twitch don't represent society, there is nothing stopping a Twitch competitor from sprouting up that is more in line with society's morals.

[deleted]

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

#664

Post by malandrew »

logshipper wrote: post #647
malandrew wrote: post #613

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 societ…

> those societies often imbibe us with some blind spots that we later come to recognize?

It's not just blind spots you recognize and correct. There are societies in history like the USSR, the DDR, North Korea, etc., where those with dissenting views weren't the ones with the blind spots, but that it was society itself that developed blind spots and punished those that did not go along with those blind spots.

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

#665

Post by [deleted] »

exporectomy wrote: post #636
sneak wrote: post #561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)?

[deleted]

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

#666

Post by jkhdigital »

ngokevin wrote: post #646
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…

A rowdy unarmed (not a single firearm) mob is not an “insurrection”. I’m not condoning what happened, but can we please stop using hyperbolic language?

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

#667

Post by _carbyau_ »

What I find weird is why does anyone think ANY of these companies are meant to uphold free speech in the American sense?

Does Abercrombie and Fitch (or most fashion companies) make clothes of all sizes? No? Because what they produce is part of their brand as much as their marketing. They don't want overweight people wearing their stuff, it makes the brand not what they want it to be. Whether that is good or not is another debate.

Same with Twitch, Twitter, Facebook, Google, Parler or ANY other media platform. What they show publicly is part of their brand, along with their marketing etc.

The real issue is that society has come to see these brand platforms as being an inherent part of their ability to communicate. But they are borrowed megaphones at best.

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

#668

Post by smt88 »

concordDance wrote: post #451
smt88 wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> I haven't yet seen a politics-based ban. Wouldn't Trump himself count? > Regardless, politics is not a protected class, nor should it be. I think it should be, because attempting to ban political views gets in the way of finding out which political views are better. I don't know what "fascist" is, but I can definitely imagine political views like "Communism is a good way to run the country" or "Capitalism results i…

> Wouldn't Trump himself count?

No. He was tolerated despite his politics until he (arguably) incited a seditious attack on Congress and his own vice president.

> I think it should be, because attempting to ban political views gets in the way of finding out which political views are better.

The problem is that "political views" is not a defined term. What if I employ 50% Irish employees and have someone who says, "I hate the Irish and wish they'd never ruined this country"?

It harms my business to have that person around. It is bad for my brand, it's bad for my other employees, and maybe I just don't want to hear those comments myself. Why should the government be able to force me to pay that person?

Or, in the case of social networks, why should the government force my employees to publish that content, maintain it, and keep it backed up for millions of people to see?

> I don't know what "fascist" is, but I can definitely imagine political views like "Communism is a good way to run the country" or "Capitalism results in the best outcomes for everyone" being banned and I really don't like it.

These kinds of comments are protected by the First Amendment. You can publish them, and you can shout them on the street. But you can't force people to like you or employ you if you say them. These ideas won't die out because of social pressure.

Also, thousands of websites (including Parler) already ban one or both of the statements you included. It's just that no one really cares because they're small sites.

So at what point do you say that a company is too big to be allowed to decide what they publish? Is it 100M users? Or 500M? If MSNBC or Fox News had 2 billion viewers, should they also be forced to air videos produced by any group?

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

#669

Post by refenestrator »

slg wrote: post #652
refenestrator wrote: post #641

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'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?

There is no set percentage, but if the decision makers at Twitch don't represent society, there is nothing stopping a Twitch competitor from sprouting up that is more in line with society's morals.

I'd submit for your consideration that there's quite a lot stopping someone from just starting a twitch competitor.

Even beyond the tech challenges, there are thousands of posts out there describing the network effect and trend towards winner-takes-all in a given social networking market.

I'm honestly curious about the mindset that leads one to just say 'nothing stopping you, make your own twitch, no biggie'. Is it lack of sympathy for those cast out? Idealistic belief in free markets and meritocracy? Genuine belief that it's easy? What's the underlying angle?

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

#670

Post by smt88 »

ttt0 wrote: post #476
smt88 wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

You can label anything fascism. Trump was labeled a racist and it's as stupid as calling Biden communist. You should have protections so the corporations and bankers don't have too much power over politics.

> You can label anything fascism.

This is like saying that words don't mean anything, so we should stop trying to use them. No one agrees on a hard line between fascist and not-fascist, but that doesn't mean it's entirely an artificial distinction.

Is the ACLU fascist? What about Ron Paul? Obviously "no" to both of those.

And what about neo-Nazis who describe themselves as fascists?

> Trump was labeled a racist and it's as stupid as calling Biden communist.

Someone should tell that to Richard Nixon's Justice Department, who successfully sued Donald Trump for being racist in 1973[1]. Or you should tell the white supremacists who celebrated Trump's victory[2]. If you're going to fish for weak "both sides are the same" examples, you're going to have to find an example that isn't so easy to counter-argue.

> You should have protections so the corporations and bankers don't have too much power over politics.

Unfortunately the First Amendment gives corporations and bankers an enormous amount of power over what they choose to say and publish, which means they have political power. You can't do anything about that except scrap the First Amendment.

1. https://www.npr.org/2016/09/29/495955920/donald-trump-plague...

2. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/us/politics/white-nationa...

Post reply on HN