761–770 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is - of course - rules around this. Certain qualities like race and sex are protected classes against which you cannot discriminate. To your example - a nightclub very well might discriminate against someone with blue hair.
Political speech is not a protected class.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's an interesting consequence of accountability, that the people being held accountable tend to vocally dislike being held accountable, but don't want to say so for some reason. It'd honestly be pretty refreshing for a leader to come out and say, "I don't think my actions should be held against me like your actions should be held against you because I'm special/different." Insane, but refreshingly honest. F…
"We can ban anyone at will for any reason or none" (which is what this kind of policy amounts to) is corrosive to actual accountability. Twitch are appointing themselves as judge, jury and executioner; there's no evidentiary standard, no right of appeal, no procedural safeguards. It's the same kind of "accountability" as the Star Chamber - a way for the strong to impose their will on the weak.
Is there any doubt that we've entered the era of approved, or not free speech. 'Severe misconduct' today means racist behaviour, perhaps tomorrow it means support for the NRA, or anti-environmental behaviour. The thought police have finally invaded ever part of society.
Please look up what "free speech" actually means, in order to disabuse yourself of the notion that private companies' actions have anything to do with it.
>Legal penalties are, however, in the modern world, the least of the obstacles to freedom of thoughts. The two great obstacles are economic penalties and distortion of evidence. It is clear that thought is not free if the profession of certain opinions makes it impossible to earn a living.
I 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…
"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…
I find your comment quite one sided and exaggerated.
There was no insurrection on the Capitol because there was no guns, no widespread weapon carry, no significant violence inside and no proof of an organization to actually overthrow the government was shown in the various reports and court cases. The surveillance videos showing the protesters walking in calmly in file following the cordon is the definitive proof of that. In fact the censorship and manipulation of social media is known to cause the formation of various ideological bubbles that acts as positive feedback loops for extremism.
On the other hand we saw waves of violence since last year that were instigated by actual self-proclaimed insurrectionists. News presenting the violence were minimized while news of politicians supporting the protests and news stations downright lying the violence while buildings were burning on the background. This is all due to the censorship and narrative control of big media conglomerates, not actual open conversations.
> There's a spectrum between "cancel culture is bad" vs. "let domestic terrorists and CP sharers gather"
Crimes are not on a spectrum, either someone is guilty or not, there is no in between. And as pointed out by Justice Thomas recently, when organizations become too big they can be subject to regulations as public utilities, which will made them unable to infringe on the first amendment of their users.
> And I don't think there's a slippery slope concern.
Contrary to popular belief, fascism and Nazism did not rise because of free speech, but because of speech suppression and narrative control (read propaganda) along side with a close collaboration with intelligence services that began as early as the 1920s. Given that the more we they censor the more they have power which makes them more and more successful in censorship and narrative control means that we are in a positive feedback loop, which is slippery slope.
> Twitch already bans people for unexplained reasons anyways.
And?
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?
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 acc…
My definition would be rioting, specifically using escalating violence until success, to attempt to coerce a system into passing laws that it would not otherwise have passed or wanted to pass (up to and including deposing the leader).
I feel like my view loosely fits the Capitol riot, heavily fits the BLM riots, and heavily fits the 1776 insurrection.
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).
The smart move is to hit them with the hammer of regulation here. They can either be the small exclusive club with tight control over their members and their behavior, or the mass market app with minimal control over their userbase.
The alternative is to have the full cyberpunk future, where "I like " means being cut off from everything. Banks, search, email. We're already seeing the slope, and it's pretty damn slippery.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 irri…
Here's your gun. https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/case-multi-defendant/file/13...
Nothings in your court case says anything about the Capitol building.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please look up what "free speech" actually means, in order to disabuse yourself of the notion that private companies' actions have anything to do with it.
Quoting Bertrand Russell's "Free Thought and Official Propaganda" from the 1920s: >Legal penalties are, however, in the modern world, the least of the obstacles to freedom of thoughts. The two great obstacles are economic penalties and distortion of evidence. It is clear that thought is not free if the profession of certain opinions makes it impossible to earn a living.
Mind you, that quote has no qualifiers, so by "earn a living," the implication is earn any living, anywhere. Please give an example of someone has been banned from Twitch for opinions which have made it impossible for them to earn any living, anywhere.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Wasn't an idle threat either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"We can ban anyone at will for any reason or none" (which is what this kind of policy amounts to) is corrosive to actual accountability. Twitch are appointing themselves as judge, jury and executioner; there's no evidentiary standard, no right of appeal, no procedural safeguards. It's the same kind of "accountability" as the Star Chamber - a way for the strong to impose their will on the weak.
Twitch is a private company. You are free to not use their services (which may be a good idea).