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

771–780 of 1001 posts

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

#771

Post by Dylan16807 »

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…

> Someone got in trouble for saying "America Deserved 9/11" which is a bit beyond a controversial political opinion.

Why do you say that? I would definitely file that under controversial political opinion. That opinion isn't calling for another one, or saying that the individuals killed deserved it.

Especially because he's saying it out of disappointment, not anger.

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

#772

Post by esyir »

mahogany wrote: post #749
malandrew wrote: post #637

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 constitutiona…

Everyone saying "just build your own lol" is either accidentally or deliberately ignoring network effects and said impact on social media dominance. The government writes legislation, it doesn't build, or build well anyway. This goes 10x for tech platforms, where the US government is beyond incompetent and will remain that way for the foreseeable future.

I would rather suggest something along the lines of this.

At a certain scale (user count), sufficient implicit selection of users and their content revokes section 230 rights. If you start implicitly removing specific viewpoints and topics it's no longer "user-generated content" and is now your content. Of course there have to be provisions for explicit content scope and spam, but that's roughly where I would start.

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

#773

Post by esyir »

colinmhayes wrote: post #738
dimgl wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue with this sentiment is that while some things are blatantly racist, there are other things that aren't so black and white. This is one of those slippery slopes where if left unchecked, anything and everything will be considered racist. Also, you don't have to have good morals or even be intelligent to be good at your job. Some people are fantastic at their job, but are pretty damn "stupid" as you put it.

Examples of people being fired for saying things that "aren't so black and white"?

Damore? Doubly so if you've actually read his report.

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

#774

Post by dionian »

kodah wrote: post #253

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…

America has changed a lot, used to be whether you were on the left or the right, you were radically pro-free speech because bad speech needs to be exposed. Somehow it's turned to "we need to censor bad speech" which is a dangerous cultural turn.

If you support it because it hurts your political enemies, maybe you will be the political enemy in 5 or 10 years, and you will have no recourse

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

#775

Post by Kim_Bruning »

TeeMassive wrote: post #764
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…

> 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. 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 actua…

If you say "there was no violence"; how do you explain the deaths?

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

#776

Post by dionian »

7sidedmarble wrote: post #737
nfyjkbxa wrote: post #700

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…

Police literally were interviewed and said 'they were confiscating guns all day'.

And they didn't press charges? It's not legal to have guns in DC in public, i thought...

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

#777

Post by CyberDildonics »

ttt0 wrote: post #341
paxys wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you can't do that today?

You can't. Lockdowns.

To be clear, because sports aren't open in most places and a video game streaming website changed their terms of service, there is no longer free speech?

Can you help make sense of your comment, because it seems to be closer to a cult chant than a connected chain of thoughts.

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

#778

Post by esyir »

voldacar wrote: post #28

The infantile hyper-moralization of online discourse, on social media but also elsewhere, is starting to get really, really tiring. Is there any solution other than total anonymity, keeping one's online and IRL personae hermetically sealed off from one another? What do you all think? Is this atmosphere here to stay or do you expect the winds of culture to shift anytime soon?

Political stance as protected class? Revocation of 230 under some conditions? Hell of a blunt tool, but the threat of that sort of regulation might sufficiently scare companies into providing spaces more healthy for speech.

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

#779

Post by TeeMassive »

ngokevin wrote: post #732
TheAdamAndChe wrote: post #697

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Upon watching the evidence and trial, it's clear it was organized. They had Save the Dates months ahead (at the exact time the election was being certified) with continued rhetoric that the election was stolen and that they had to march to the Capitol and fight.

> with continued rhetoric that the election was stolen and that they had to march to the Capitol and fight.

None of which are proof of a planned insurrection. Of all the meanings you only picked the ones that fitted your predetermined conclusion.

Believing the "election was stolen" is an opinion that comes up every elections from both sides.

"Marching" most often means marches, which is a peaceful demonstration in itself, and the Capitol is not just the Capitol building, it's also the Capitol Grounds and the surrounding areas.

Fighting is a term often used colloquial non-violent way, as in "fight cancer" and "fighting for civil rights".

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

#780

Post by dionian »

jimbob45 wrote: post #765
diob wrote: post #742

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You asked a well-considered question and got a stupid response. What a waste. 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 in…

The footage of the people that actually got into the Senate seems to disprove this painting of the events. I didn't see anyone attempting to abolish the government or whatever. Rather, it was a few people taking pictures and standing around. I dont support them but I'm not going to lie about the footage and claim it was anything close to an unarmed insurrection
Post reply on HN