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

691–700 of 1001 posts

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

#691

Post by thaumasiotes »

neaden wrote: post #87
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…

First link: DMCA problems, this is super common but Twitch is reacting to a very poorly written law. Second link: Someone got in trouble for saying "America Deserved 9/11" which is a bit beyond a controversial political opinion. Third link: Person advocated that people start shooting protestors, a literal call for violence once again beyond a controversial political opinion. Fourth Link: Played a game (not a movie) t…

> Fourth Link: Played a game (not a movie) that included nudity. Twitch has pretty clear policy on that and while it wasn't intentional on the streamers part, not allowing nudity is a pretty standard thing.

From the link:

>> According to Twitch rules, nudity and sexual content are allowed if they are originally part of the game, but not if the game is modded to include sexually explicit material.

>> In this case, the original Blade Runner game has been modified to add some elements from Blade Runner 2049, including the famous hologram girl scene.

You could call that a "clear" policy, but it's also self-evidently insane. The problem isn't that there was nudity. The problem is that someone modified the game. Of course, that's also allowed.

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

#692

Post by themacguffinman »

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…

> How would you suggest these people are held accountable if it isn't through "cancel culture" which is basically just the modern equivalent of social shunning that various cultures have been doing for centuries?

Long-held traditions of social shunning, ostracization and extrajudicial bullying are widely understood to be terrible and have produced horrific injustices for centuries. What you're calling for is a regression of justice. It's precisely the disgusting consequences of vigilante justice that led us to develop the modern systems of justice that we rely on today.

Accountability quickly turns into a witch hunt when people start tearing down standards of proof and judicial restraints as "loopholes". When did we forget that?

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

#693

Post by _carbyau_ »

ct0 wrote: post #686
_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.

Companies do dumb stuff to their branding ALL the time. See the Wix article where they shoot themselves in their own foot. (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26728471)

I am NOT saying Twitch is doing a good job. But it is the company's platform, not society's, and they can do whatever stupid thing they want with it.

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

#694

Post by onethought »

weird-eye-issue wrote: post #482
onethought wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn’t this just like other sports, where a star is pilloried for some indiscretion outside of their sport which can result in them being dropped from a team etc?

That is up to the team though. This is closer to a TV station banning somebody so now they can't compete in a sport that will be broadcast on that station, forcing the team to kick them off.

Like how Lance Armstrong was banned for from professional sport for life for "not a crime"?

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

#695

Post by CyberDildonics »

refenestrator wrote: post #669
slg wrote: post #652

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 l…

Now you're moving the goal posts from "able to broadcast yourself" to "starting a twitch competitor.

Then you're moving the goal posts from "streaming yourself" to "reaching as many people as possible and/or making the most money from it".

You can say what you want on the internet, but people don't have to listen and companies don't have to broadcast you, promote you or pay you.

Alex Jones still does his show, but if you accuse the victims of a mass shooting of being actors in a conspiracy for gun control, you might not get to have people subscribe to you on youtube.

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

#696

Post by xupybd »

slg wrote: post #648
xupybd wrote: post #635

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think we will have to agree to disagree on the history of the Pilgrims.

I don't think there is a world of difference between the two. You are shunning someone because it is very likely the did something wrong. If that is your close friend and you think they did it, then it's probably a good idea to shun them. The hope is that they will see they did something wrong, own up and change. This makes the world a better place.

Some person on the internet that has been accused of doing something wrong could be black listed from online life, but what does that achieve? We don't even know if they did it?

Then what happens when someone changes their ways and becomes a better person? Do we keep them blacklisted? This seems to be the way we are operating.

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

#697

Post by TheAdamAndChe »

rising-sky wrote: post #674
jkhdigital wrote: post #666

Earlier 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…

A protest that was larger than expected and overran the existing security isn't exactly an organized attempt.

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

#698

Post by TameAntelope »

refenestrator wrote: post #644
viraptor wrote: post #623

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'…

If it’s important enough, the government should run it.

Game live-streaming isn’t important enough.

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

#699

Post by slg »

refenestrator wrote: post #669
slg wrote: post #652

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 l…

Remember your hypothetical started with Twitch's morals being out of line with society's morals. That represents a huge demand for a competitor.

I would compare it to when Reddit started cracking down on immoral content. That created demand of competitors. Multiple ones popped up. However they weren't able to sustain themselves or grow demand because society was on Reddit's side and not the side of Voat and the like.

The reason it is currently difficult for Twitch competitor to gain traction is because people are largely fine with Twitch. Even so, there are still plenty of other streaming options including those with sizable userbases even if they are targeting different market segments like Facebook and Youtube.

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

#700

Post by nfyjkbxa »

rising-sky wrote: post #674
jkhdigital wrote: post #666

Earlier 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…

Organized, it says right there. You think that mob was organized? There was no plan

Also, your CNN citation says in the headline that there was a gun found, but then the body of the article contradicts it

> Some of the weapons that were confiscated had been seen being used inside the US Capitol including a baseball bat, a fire extinguisher, a wooden club, a spear, crutches, a flagpole, bear spray, mace, chemical irritants, stolen police shields, a wooden beam, a hockey stick, a stun gun, and knives.

Where're the guns? CNN knows people only read headlines; they're so brazen with their narrative.

After they claimed over and over that Sicknick was killed with a fire extinguisher based on zero evidence for weeks there's no reason to trust the rest of these details in an article from February are true anyway, especially if CNN can't keep the facts straight between the headline and the article body

Post reply on HN