Until Twitch is a public service owned by the government this is all perfectly legal and fine. There are other platforms if you want to be "bad" (in Twitch's estimation) and post your opinion. They don't owe anyone a platform.
Twitch will ban users for 'severe misconduct' that occurs away from its site
671–680 of 1001 posts
Re: Twitch will ban users for 'severe misconduct' that occurs away from its site
#672After reddit started banning people for upvoting the wrong things, this is a logical next step. Contrary to the popular belief, slippery slope isn't a logical fallacy. Anonymity is the only way to combat this. Make sure your online identity isn't connected to your real name. Ideally, you should have separate identities for each website. Using Tor or a VPN is also a good idea.
I was unaware that mods can see the users who upvote a post. That seams borderline too much power of for a basic reddit moderator.
Re: Twitch will ban users for 'severe misconduct' that occurs away from its site
#673I 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…
Perhaps this will encourage or lead to more people protecting their privacy and avoiding cross-service linkage?
It isn't a given (and certainly would be hugely problematic to assume) that the same human sits behind the same username on each service. Absent strong linkage and enduring proof of that link, this will be weaponised (register same username on Gab and post hate, then report the user to Twitch). That's an obvious attack vector, and I assume they will be wanting to see proper links.
The game theory rational response for all users is surely therefore to not link or associate their online social presences together.
While I guess this might not work in modern social media culture of trying to gather a following everywhere on multiple platforms, this disclosing those accounts ("follow my Instagram and Twitter, like my YouTube videos, etc."), it perhaps will normalise less linkage (or leakage, depending on your perspective) between platforms?
If you depend on twitch, but don't want someone to try get you deplatformed based on something elsewhere, one of the best ways to prevent that would be to not have any linkable off-site activity. Then there's nothing for them to ban you for.
Or am I just reminiscing too much for the old internet before social media took off?
Re: Twitch will ban users for 'severe misconduct' that occurs away from its site
#674Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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?
Not a single firearm? https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/17/politics/capitol-insurrection...
However, I'm not sure where you got the "opinion" that an insurrection must be carried out with a firearm? You can do a quick Google search for the definition of the term. Here's one from the Cambridge dictionary
> an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and take control of their country, usually by violence
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/insurrec...
Re: Twitch will ban users for 'severe misconduct' that occurs away from its site
#675Earlier 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…
> then what precisely are they defending their users _from_?
You are replying to a poor argument from the parent poster, they don't have to be protecting anyone, it's fine for them to simply say "I don't want that jerk at my party"
> Your corporation has no natural right to exist
Natural right is a weird qualifier, some corps have a legal right or privilege to exist depending on "must grant" or "may grant" in the locality.
> and therefore does not have the natural right to do business solely as it pleases
Well sure, they aren't allowed to ban people for their membership in a protected class, e.g. their race or disability for the same reason that they aren't allowed to sell cocaine or kill people, because the law prohibits all of those things.
Re: Twitch will ban users for 'severe misconduct' that occurs away from its site
#676What 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 an…
See SCOTUS justice Clarence Thomas’ comments on why this such an alarming problem. (Was on HN front page recently)
https://www.protocol.com/bulletins/thomas-scotus-twitter-tru... and https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20579870/order-li...
Re: Twitch will ban users for 'severe misconduct' that occurs away from its site
#677Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Not a single firearm? https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/17/politics/capitol-insurrection... However, I'm not sure where you got the "opinion" that an insurrection must be carried out with a firearm? You can do a quick Google search for the definition of the term. Here's one from the Cambridge dictionary > an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and take control of their country, usually by viol…
[deleted]
Re: Twitch will ban users for 'severe misconduct' that occurs away from its site
#678Earlier 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
#679Coming 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, instead of being a streaming platform, twitch instead baked cakes. Would you still say they can exclude anyone they want for any reason? Or would you say that you’re limited in the choices you can make once you engage in public commerce like most every other type of business.
Re: Twitch will ban users for 'severe misconduct' that occurs away from its site
#680I 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 think it's kinda fascinating to see the things that powerful public figures thought they could get away with.
There's a Hollywood bigwig in trouble these days for doing pretty much what Marco Pierre White did to Gordon Ramsay when Ramsay was an apprentice. In other words, they both violently threw stuff at people in fits of hysterical rage.
If I did that, they'd lock me up. Try being in a rage and throwing stuff at a cop, or perhaps a judge in court. Context seems to matter here: but the question is, should a brilliant chef in the brigade system, or a powerful Hollywood executive, GET to physically attack people? When a regular person does not get to commit assault as just a random everyday thing?
What's making it weird is, we're more or less talking about rule of law, but nobody appointed Twitch a government. But by the same token, if you're on Twitch's property, it seems like they've got a right to apply their own rules.
Folks seem to want to force something like Twitch to also have courts, and treat people innocent unless proven guilty. We expect this of governments because they're so powerful, but a private residence might have a great deal more freedom for the occupant to apply their own rules on their property.
Castle doctrine for Twitch? Do they get to blackball you and ruin your social media life if you're on their property and they think you've done something horrible? Do they get to share their information with other private entities, can you be permanently shunned because one entity got mad at you?