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

681–690 of 1001 posts

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

#681

Post by sneak »

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)?

The state has already drawn those lines, and does not recognize KKK membership as a religion.

The legal lines for what is or isn't protected are fairly well defined, by people other than me.

My own personal opinions and beliefs on the matter don't count for anything.

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

#682

Post by _carbyau_ »

Spartan-S63 wrote: post #45
tenebrisalietum wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

So much this. Society is balking at the cession of power from governments to private companies and are all of a sudden upset that private companies don't have to grant them any rights. If we really want free speech platforms, lobby government to craft spaces for it in the digital age. Instead of muddying public rights in private property, let's just fund more public property (i.e. nationalized social media platform).

I thought that was the Internet.

Instead of a centralised government backed platform, how about a decentralised platform.

Maybe something like Signal-with-Blog-Posts, with "public" posts hosted on IPFS?

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

#683

Post by sneak »

twobitshifter wrote: post #516

> It said examples of this “severe misconduct” include terrorist activities, child sexual exploitation, violent extremism, credible threats of mass violence, carrying out or deliberately acting as an accomplice to sexual assault and threatening Twitch or its staff. What points here will not already lead to jail time and an outright ban from all social activities? The bans are for criminal acts that are outside of fre…

"Terrorist activities" could simply mean publishing propaganda articles in support of terrorist groups.

That's entirely legal in the US and A.

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

#684

Post by gruez »

ct0 wrote: post #672
clarifier123 wrote: post #362

After 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.

AFAIK it's admins not mods.

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

#685

Post by imnotlost »

jkhdigital wrote: post #666
ngokevin wrote: post #646

Earlier 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?

Maybe if it happened on a random Tuesday in April or whatever, but it did happen at a very specific time, didn't it?

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

#686

Post by ct0 »

_carbyau_ wrote: post #667

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 an…

The problem that I see in the logic is that Twitch is kicking people off of the platform that were at one point of their lives too fat to fit into an Abercrombie and Fitch T-shirt. If they are no longer fat, they still cant be part of the community or buy the t-shirt if it was up to Twitch.

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

#687

Post by g_p »

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…

> 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.

This is a particularly interesting topic - a lot of the parallels around private vs. public places seem to have eroded over time. Facebook, Twitter and others are now serving the function of a public place. They are means of communication used by governments and elected leaders.

I suspect at some point soon there will be a shift in the balance here, to try and address the extent to which companies are "private entities" sitting outside of the legal frameworks, where they deal with the public. NJ views privately owned shopping malls to be public places from a 1st amendment perspective, even though it is not publicly owned - it isn't a huge leap to consider FB or similar as a public space on that basis.

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

#688

Post by ttt0 »

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

I guess you can move out from the US and that's probably a very good decision to make, however: first of all, those corporations are not local to the US, but global, world-wide. Furthermore they are willing to work with authoritarian governments, like Google working with the Chinese government to spy on their citizens. Second, corporations and Western governments are actively trying to remake the rest of the world in US image, project their problems on us and force everyone to make the same mistakes they did. You can run from the problem, but it's not going to solve anything and it will eventually get you too. As far as I'm considered, America falling apart would be an acceptable outcome for me personally, if it wasn't for the fact that you're trying to drag the rest of the world down with you.

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

#689

Post by sneak »

ngokevin wrote: post #658
twobitshifter wrote: post #516

> It said examples of this “severe misconduct” include terrorist activities, child sexual exploitation, violent extremism, credible threats of mass violence, carrying out or deliberately acting as an accomplice to sexual assault and threatening Twitch or its staff. What points here will not already lead to jail time and an outright ban from all social activities? The bans are for criminal acts that are outside of fre…

Yeah, I think many people speaking out against "cancel culture" did not read the article. Few people would argue that Twitch would be wrong to ban a pedophile sharing CP or a domestic terrorist.

I would argue that Twitch would be wrong for banning even a convicted criminal whose publications themselves were legal.

Censorship is abhorrent regardless of who you are censoring.

Mein Kampf is available on amazon.com, for example.

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

#690

Post by TylerE »

jkhdigital wrote: post #666
ngokevin wrote: post #646

Earlier 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?

Oh, come on.

They broke into the Capitol building, and in to the Senate chambers, while congress was in session.

Post reply on HN