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

701–710 of 1001 posts

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

#701

Post by lordnacho »

tw04 wrote: post #335
lordnacho wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can agree with you, but still think there's a problem. The fact is nobody who wrote the constitution thought we'd get to a point where there was such a dominant private speech player. So yeah, it made sense at the time, since government was the big player historically, but we're looking at a different situation now.

>The fact is nobody who wrote the constitution thought we'd get to a point where there was such a dominant private speech player. I'm quite certain that's not true. Papers in the 1700s had just as much dominance in speech as social media does today. https://csac.history.wisc.edu/document-collections/themes-of... I think HN has a gross overestimation of twitter's influence. There are 7.9 Billion people on the planet,…

Papers? Every town had several. You could reasonably rely on someone taking up your opinion.

That's quite different to having a handful of internet giants, who seem to act similarly.

It's also different to having a huge Murdoch controlled network of media a firms.

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

#702

Post by ipaddr »

thelean12 wrote: post #284
ipaddr wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twitch takes half of the subscription fee. Twitch doesn't employ streamers. Twitch takes platform fees.

You are all getting way too caught up in terms. It doesn't matter. A company firing an employee for getting arrested is a very close situation to Twitch "firing" a streamer for getting arrested.

You can't fire a user. You can kick them off your platform.

If I say come drink from my waterhose. At some point I dislike you and I say you can't drink here. You can't fire them.

If google disables your email you didn't get fired you were kicked off the platform.

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

#703

Post by viraptor »

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'…

Sure, it sucks that twitch is the only game in town for professional gamers. For some reason other attempts never worked long term. But what options are there? Either it needs to be worth for someone to compete with the service, or streamers would have to gain some kind of law protection status which would be worse than now. Or even worse, twitch could go the way of pro physical sports where as long as you don't kill someone, nobody cares. (and you may even get positive pr to keep covered up)

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

#704

Post by eschaton »

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…

Well, they were eventually “persecuted” in Holland the same way they were “persecuted” in England: They weren’t allowed to impose their religious rules on others. That’s the “persecution” they “fled.”

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

#705

Post by GuB-42 »

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…

And there is that recent one: Twitch banned the Revision demoparty mid-stream.

We suppose it is related to nudity (there was a few artistic nudes) but we are not even sure.

Thankfully, the orga team was awesome and the CCC came to the rescue. 30 minutes later the stream was back on on a new (and better!) server.

Announcement: https://twitter.com/revision_party/status/137842718551876403...

HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26684247

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

#706

Post by slg »

xupybd wrote: post #696
slg wrote: post #648

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 p…

There are plenty of sources that agree with me on the Pilgrims.[1][2][3]

Almost no one is "cancelled" permanently. Maybe they go away for a few months or years, but they almost always are able to resume some sort of normal life eventually. It is much less severe than a jail sentence. If they truly do reform and become a better person, that usually speeds up the process, but it is rarely an actual requirement.

[1] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-the...

[2] - https://www.history.com/news/why-pilgrims-came-to-america-ma...

[3] - https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/americas-true-history...

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

#707

Post by weird-eye-issue »

onethought wrote: post #694
weird-eye-issue wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"?

That was up to the sporting agencies though right? Not some third party network

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

#708

Post by teachtwolearn »

MattGaiser wrote: post #204
teachtwolearn wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably the eras when it was feasible to regularly communicate with small groups of people outside of a few highly-centralized platforms. At this point, there's a credible argument to be made that the Facebook empire is a sort of natural monopoly, like our public utilities. They need to be heavily regulated, split up into regional operators, and/or legislated out of existence.

You can communicate with small groups outside of a few central platforms. Stormfront remains alive. The incels have their own site as well. You want the ability to communicate with everyone (tweeting is a message to the world) or if you aren't allowed to do that, for nobody to have that ability.

Those are fringe global communities.

I'm talking about how you cannot effectively stay in touch with your neighbors and local community without using Facebook's platforms. People who you see every day, but who may not share all of your views; keeping up with those people is important if we want to heal our society's deep divides.

I've tried, but very few shared interest/volunteer/neighborhood groups will go out of their way to contact the one or two people who don't join their Facebook groups about scheduling or events.

It has nothing to do with racist or misogynist strawmen, but since you mention them, Facebook has done a lot to inflate those groups' ranks.

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

#710

Post by slg »

themacguffinman wrote: post #692
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…

> 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 regres…

For much of the history you are referencing there was no difference between the whims of society and the whims of the judicial system. We now have the separation of the two which opens the loophole I previously mentioned. Do you have any suggestion for how to address that loophole?

For example, imagine a scenario in which a loved one comes to you and says they were sexually assaulted two years ago. It happened long enough ago that there is no hope to recover any corroborating evidence. It will simply be the victim's word against the perpetrator and therefore there is almost zero hope of conviction. Do you tell this person "just trust the judicial system" or would you help them achieve some sort of punishment outside of the judicial system such as getting the perpetrator fired?

Post reply on HN