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

741–750 of 1001 posts

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

#741

Post by caseysoftware »

TylerE wrote: post #690
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?

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

Everyone knows that if you reside at the podium for 10 seconds uninterrupted, you become the President of the Senate and can issue any rules you want.

We're just lucky they didn't get the Gavel of Power too!

Or.. in the real world, we understand how the US political system works, realize there was no real "insurrection," and we rightly call it a bunch of jackasses trespassing.

Your call.

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

#742

Post by diob »

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?

This is just moving the goal posts (not to mention plenty of weapons and threats were involved).

In all seriousness, at what point would you call something an insurrection?

Go ahead and define it now, that way in the future when "X" happens you can't reply with "X is bad, but it's not an insurrection". I'm being completely serious, please define insurrection, in your terms, so that in the future I can identify it accurately.

I feel like this has to be the first thing we do with folks who constantly say "X isn't Y". Okay, define how something gets classified as Y.

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

#743

Post by akagusu »

How long to private companies to own our lives?

One by one, companies are taking control of our lives, deciding what we can do, what we can say, what to eat, what to wear, what to read, where we can go, with whom and more.

We know it and allow it. For what?

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

#744

Post by [deleted] »

ProfessorLayton wrote: post #180
theandrewbailey wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We arguably gave up that freedom when governments started forcing people to bake cakes with specific messages.

This is such a bad faith argument. No one is being forced to write specific messages, but merely follow the law. The law that states that to legally do business then the business will not discriminate against certain classes of people — This is not unusual, there are tons of laws a business must follow to stay open. Protected classes are narrowly defined. You may or may not have an issue with what those protected cla…

[deleted]

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

#745

Post by dragonwriter »

theandrewbailey wrote: post #93
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…

We arguably gave up that freedom when governments started forcing people to bake cakes with specific messages.

> We arguably gave up that freedom when governments started forcing people to bake cakes with specific messages.

Who won that case again?

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

#746

Post by mlazos »

darepublic wrote: post #740
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…

The Chaz was worse wasn't it, there were more deaths, it lasted longer and the participants were given very charitable coverage. Violence and lawlessness is ok if you're on the right team basically.

Except if you went to chaz, it was actually fine and the news blatantly exaggerated reality for advertising $$

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

#747

Post by bitmunk »

caseysoftware wrote: post #741
TylerE wrote: post #690

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Everyone knows that if you reside at the podium for 10 seconds uninterrupted, you become the President of the Senate and can issue any rules you want. We're just lucky they didn't get the Gavel of Power too! Or.. in the real world, we understand how the US political system works, realize there was no real "insurrection," and we rightly call it a bunch of jackasses trespassing. Your call.

They chanted about executing your VP.

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

#748

Post by singron »

lrae wrote: post #304
gentleman11 wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, destiny is banned?

No, iirc then he didn't get banned/temporary suspended for that comment. Twitch only decided to not do any direct business (partnership) with him anymore, so they unpartnered him. That means people can't subscribe to him anymore for a monthly fee and he can also not be tipped with Twitch's virtual tip currency. He also doesn't get any ad revenue split anymore. (And I think twitch is currently not running any ads on u…

He also runs independent subscriptions and chat on destiny.gg, his custom open-source website. I think his subs might have predated (2013) the general launch of twitch subscriptions (can't find the year), although some partners like day9 had subs on justin.tv as early as 2011.

I'd guess it's one of the reasons he manages to stay afloat despite his regular controversies.

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

#749

Post by mahogany »

malandrew wrote: post #637
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…

> Furthermore speech as the forefathers probably meant was people physically going to town squares and talking there. Facebook and other such platforms have become a town square of sorts. This idea that the principles that founding fathers championed, especially the Bill of Rights, should somehow be restricted only to what was possible with the technology of their time is pretty preposterous.

>This idea that the principles that founding fathers championed, especially the Bill of Rights, should somehow be restricted only to what was possible with the technology of their time is pretty preposterous.

This is true, but also, the town squares were public places. Are you suggesting to nationalize Facebook?

Adding to this, maybe the best thing to do is to just fund a public social media site, where constitutional protections apply, and treat that as a virtual town square.

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

#750

Post by rm_-rf_slash »

weird-eye-issue wrote: post #377
rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a way you have affirmed parent’s point: it’s the shareholders’ website, and they can mod it as they wish.

You just completely missed the point. Everyone knows who's website it is and that they "can" mod it as they wish. But at a certain scale some moral and ethical questions come into play.

I didn’t miss the point, I just have a different opinion.
Post reply on HN