Live data from Hacker News

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

reuters.com

851–860 of 1001 posts

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

#851

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both "I think gay folks should have equal rights" and "America deserved 9/11" are fundamentally statements about ethics, and neither is calling for violence.

Yes, that's very true. The second statement though, was a blatant call to violence (if white redneck militia dudes...), and the author did not get banned from twitch, instead they were simply limited in their monetization options. But "America deserved 9/11" was an ethical statement, you're right.

It most definitely is not, especially if you take the surrounding text, rather than the cherry picked except.

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

#852
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…

Gotcha, I do appreciate you taking the time to reply seriously. My issue with your definition is that means the only thing you'll deem an insurrection is a revolution (basically a successful insurrection).

I think the BLM protests (funny these are always deemed riots by certain folk, reminds me of how the military uses terminology to dehumanize, such as the word target) escalated to insurrection in one scenario that I know of, namely the CHAZ incident. Ultimately, that insurrection failed, since nothing significant changed.

I would argue folks, for some reason, only deem things X when it's too late. That goes for genocide, insurrection (which is done for many reasons along the entire political and human spectrum), slavery, etc.

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

#853
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…

"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…

And of course punishment without process of law has never gone awry before, and never slippery sloped into something nightmarish. I'm sure it'll all be fine. It's not like we have ample historical examples of this sort of thing.

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

#854

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or burning down a police precinct. Or literally fire bombing federal buildings for MONTHS with virtually no consequences. And all the while politicians and media egg it on. The duplicity on the violence issue is both stunning and terrifying.

I dunno, I tend to regard property damage and murder to be different things. I have been surprised to see how many people disagree, and I'm still trying to understand that perspective.

It depends on the scale of property damage - lives aren’t worth infinite amounts after all. I would say damage in the millions is automatically equivalent to murder. But it doesn’t even have to go that far. Destroying someone’s small business (as an example) is also tantamount to murder - if a person pours years of their life, taking time away from their family, experiencing great stress, taking risks, and surviving via sheer grit, and then sees all of that destroyed by rioting black bloc hooligans in one short night, they would be utterly devastated. That’s a human cost and it is comparable to murder because someone poured their life into building that business.

Then there’s collateral damage. Much of the rioting in the last year was criminality in service of a political goal. That is the literal definition of terrorism. These actions create fear in political opponents and aim to achieve political goals outside our legal process. That has a human cost.

But if I had to simplify it, life is a period of time. And time is used by people to acquire or create property. Therefore when that property is stolen or destroyed, it is taking away life.

A more comprehensive opinion: https://fee.org/articles/vandalism-is-violence-destructive-r...

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

#855

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

There's no cession of power from governments to corporations; consider the recurrent social media hearings in DC, which as far I can tell are effectively just the bullying of CEOs to censor less/more. Even this latest Delta, Coca-Cola, etc. seems to be just bullying: https://twitter.com/AmyBeePhoenix/status/1379295393301868546 It's just an upheaval of the elite.

You call it bullying, I call it ineffective posturing and pretending to get things done. Feels to me like a song and dance to placate the voters while not actually doing anything with impact.

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

#856
post #851

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that's very true. The second statement though, was a blatant call to violence (if white redneck militia dudes...), and the author did not get banned from twitch, instead they were simply limited in their monetization options. But "America deserved 9/11" was an ethical statement, you're right.

It most definitely is not, especially if you take the surrounding text, rather than the cherry picked except.

I watched the stream live, and instantly unsubscribed from Destiny's youtube channel.

Saying that you feel like the situation allows for lethal violence to be used and that you would bless it is certainly, without a doubt, inciting violence.

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

#857

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you’re confused as to what upvoting and downvoting are for. The voting system is design to lift up comments that provide value to the discussion, and hide comments that don’t. Someone being downvoted doesn’t mean everyone is disagreeing with them, or punishing them for their opinion, rather just recognizing that it doesn’t bring any value to the topic of conversation.

Voting is primarily a way to express that you agree/disagree without adding a redundant comment. Maybe you're thinking of other sites that are indeed intended to be used that way.

> Maybe you're thinking of other sites that are indeed intended to be used that way.

Do you have an example? It also seems probable that HN intended voting to be used that way as well. The intended use case isn't always what users use something for.

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

#858

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that's very true. The second statement though, was a blatant call to violence (if white redneck militia dudes...), and the author did not get banned from twitch, instead they were simply limited in their monetization options. But "America deserved 9/11" was an ethical statement, you're right.

No, the second statement isn’t a call to violence. > "If that means white redneck militia dudes mowing down dipshit protesters that think they can torch buildings at 10 PM, at this point they have my fucking blessing." This is clearly not a call to violence: it’s an approval of people intervening in serial arson, even if that means using force against the arsonists and lamenting that the state has failed to stop the…

"Mowing down" doesn't mean anything except mass murder, generally using fully automatic firearms. We both know this.

This is Destiny saying that if it takes someone committing mass murder to stop property damage, it is justified. There's no two ways about it.

Whether it is tamer or not than "America deserved 9/11" is a matter of opinion, I won't pronounce myself on it but I totally understand that opinion. It is categorically true that while "America deserved 9/11" is a statement of ethics, saying that you personally bless mass murder to prevent property destruction is incitement of violence.

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

#859

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…

See my other comment, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26734738 . Meets the definition of insurrection, and there were many weapons present, incuding the ones you acknowledged, several unlicensed guns, and Molotovs.

How many people were engaged in activities that fit the definition of “insurrection” and how many have been charged with more than just trespassing? How many with conspiracy? If that number is nearly zero, out of hundreds who entered the Capitol grounds, who in turn were a small fraction of the tens of thousands in DC that day to support Trump, how can all of it and all these participants be described in such extreme terms? That seems like a false description.

The reality is in the end, very few will serve jail time (https://www.politico.com/news/2021/03/30/jan-6-capitol-riot-...):

> Although prosecutors have loaded up their charging documents with language about the existential threat of the insurrection to the republic, the actions of many of the individual rioters often boiled down to trespassing. And judges have wrestled with how aggressively to lump those cases in with those of the more sinister suspects.

> “My bet is a lot of these cases will get resolved and probably without prison time or jail time,” said Erica Hashimoto, a former federal public defender who is now a law professor at Georgetown. "One of the core values of this country is that we can protest if we disagree with our government. Of course, some protests involve criminal acts, but as long as the people who are trying to express their view do not engage in violence, misdemeanors may be more appropriate than felonies.”

> The prospect of dozens of Jan. 6 rioters cutting deals for minor sentences could be hard to explain for the Biden administration, which has characterized the Capitol Hill mob as a uniquely dangerous threat.

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

#860

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that's very true. The second statement though, was a blatant call to violence (if white redneck militia dudes...), and the author did not get banned from twitch, instead they were simply limited in their monetization options. But "America deserved 9/11" was an ethical statement, you're right.

No, the second statement isn’t a call to violence. > "If that means white redneck militia dudes mowing down dipshit protesters that think they can torch buildings at 10 PM, at this point they have my fucking blessing." This is clearly not a call to violence: it’s an approval of people intervening in serial arson, even if that means using force against the arsonists and lamenting that the state has failed to stop the…

> What specific violent act do you believe that quote calls for?

> "mowing down dipshit protesters"

... it says it right on the tin.

> I suspect you’re being uncharitable because you personally support the arsonists’ crime spree.

We don't shoot criminals, dude. Even if you thought there were arsonists out there, you don't just invite random people to come and shoot them.

Post reply on HN