Twitch will ban users for 'severe misconduct' that occurs away from its site • Hacker News Board

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

#871

Post by JoshuaDavid » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 5:34 AM UTC

lotsofpulp wrote: post #839

geoduck14 wrote: post #834

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But no one is stopping anyone from sending emails. Or setting up their own website and messaging service. Parler was literally kicked off of AWS and Twillio.

Parler was funded by a billionaire. They did not need to depend on someone else's computers (AWS and Twilio). They could have hosted things themselves and reached their audience. The highway is people typing parler.com in their browser, which was never interrupted. Parler could have made their own exit on the highway instead of telling people to take the exit for Amazon or Twilio. And in the history of the world, thi…

So at what point do you say that is no longer the case?

1. Moderators of groups on social networks have no obligation to let you speak in a space they control. If you want to fully exercise your right to free speech, you must make your own group.

2. Social network companies have no obligation to let you speak in a space they control. If you want to fully exercise your right to free speech, you must build your own social network.

3. Datacenter as a service companies have no obligation to let you speak in a space they control. If you want to fully exercise your right to free speech, you must build your own datacenter.

4. ICANN has no obligation to let you speak in a space they control. If you want to fully exercise your right to free speech, you must make your own internet.

5. Payment processors have no obligation to let you speak in a space they control. If you want to fully exercise your right to free speech, you must make your own financial system.

6. A country no obligation to let you speak in a space it controls. If you want to fully exercise your right to free speech, you must make your own country.

I personally think 1 is obviously fine, it starts getting slightly iffy at 2, quite sketchy and worrying at 3, and 4 is where major alarm bells start ringing. Do you agree that it goes from fine at 1 to a major problem at 6, and merely disagree on where exactly on the road between 1 and 6 we should push back, or do you think 6 is perfectly fine?

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

#872

Post by kansface » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 5:38 AM UTC

judge2020 wrote: post #826

OptionX wrote: post #820

Regardless if you think this is good or bad one things I think bears pointing out. Twitch banning process has no accountability. They can ban you for however slight or even perceived and for a lot of people it means a loss of their livelihood and they don't have to justify to anyone. And it not very hard to frame it on breaking some deliberately vague rule. Now I don't think that is much of leap to understand the chi…

> I don't really want such a entity presiding over the morality of my life, would you? You typing in twitch.com is a choice, you're not forced to watch it or acknowledge its presence. People want Twitch accountability for their bans, and they might succeed, but the reality is that Twitch is currently the biggest gaming livestream platform simply because they already have everything that streamers and viewers want - l…

Right, I’d concede you have a point if it weren’t the entire fucking US Internet hell-bent on doing this.

This comment exists in every thread every time yet another company acquiesces to the new moral police. I’m not personally interested in reimplementing Twitch, Amazon, Twitter, Stripe, email, and a bank.

It is extraordinarily unhealthy for society to completely bifurcate into two mutually exclusive enclaves that ban their political opponents wrongthoughts and seek to destroy the lives of those who transgress. That is the path we are on and it will not end well.

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

#873

Post by imgabe » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 5:38 AM UTC

weswpg wrote: post #869

imgabe wrote: post #840

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm, I wonder if the justice system has any reason for why some kinds of evidence aren’t admissible? Nah, they probably just want to let a few criminals off the hook for funsies.

Your sarcasm aside, there are obviously plenty of reasons why there are failings of the justice system and most people agree that the government isn't the sole arbiter of social accountability.

I'm not saying the justice system is perfect, but we've spent literally thousands of years refining it and people have fought and died for things like rules of evidence, the right to face your accusers, trial by jury, presumption of innocence etc, etc. These things are still not a reality in many places in the world.

To throw that out and say "Nah let's nuke this guy's life because an anonymous person sent us a screenshot that they claim is him doing something racist" is not an improvement. This is moving in the wrong direction.

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

#874

Post by esyir » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 5:39 AM UTC

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…

With the way that things go, I won't go as far as to nationalise them, but I'd rather regulate them in ways that maintain said "public squares"

Somewhere in between, communication is far too critical for private monopolies to have a stranglehold over.

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

#875

Post by bopbeepboop » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 5:40 AM UTC

Pfhreak wrote: post #860

bopbeepboop wrote: post #833

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> We don't shoot criminals, dude.

Sure we do — when society breaks down and the police can no longer maintain peace. As happened in a number of US cities this past year, when police were helpless in the face of Democrat-endorsed arsonists. Apparently, the speaker was from one of these cities that suffered from frequent, organized arson.

Regardless, we’re clearly having an ethical argument: there’s no call to violence.

> "mowing down dipshit protesters"

Your example is clearly not a call to action, it’s an example of an act the speaker would approve of if it happened — which is an ethical statement.

The speaker is not saying people should or asking people to mow down protestors: just that they’re okay with militias shooting arson gangs if that’s what’s required to stop their serial arson attacks.

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

#876

Post by nradov » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 5:43 AM UTC

wslack wrote: post #804

JamesBarney wrote: post #795

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they actually committed any of those crimes you don't need to cancel them because prison doesn't let you stream.

Not if the evidence for such things isn't admissible. (like certain types of recordings)

Anything posted on social media would generally be admissible as evidence in a US criminal trial, assuming that it isn't shown to be fake or irrelevant. That applies even if the recording was created illegally by a private individual.

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

#877

Post by TameAntelope » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 5:43 AM UTC

refenestrator wrote: post #559

TameAntelope wrote: post #339

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…

Held accountable by whom? We didn't elect twitch. Who decides who needs to be held accountable, and for what? Shouldn't that be the justice system? Twitch mentioned proactively banning people who are arrested, without using the word 'convicted'. Which demographics is that likely to affect?

That’s what freedom is, you don’t get a say in what they do if they don’t want you to.

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

#878

Post by epinephrinios » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 5:45 AM UTC

OptionX wrote: post #820

Regardless if you think this is good or bad one things I think bears pointing out. Twitch banning process has no accountability. They can ban you for however slight or even perceived and for a lot of people it means a loss of their livelihood and they don't have to justify to anyone. And it not very hard to frame it on breaking some deliberately vague rule. Now I don't think that is much of leap to understand the chi…

I could never put more eloquently. Chilling effect and slippery slope.

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

#879

Post by bopbeepboop » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 5:46 AM UTC

sudosysgen wrote: post #858

bopbeepboop wrote: post #833

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cate…

The 9/11 attack was a mass murder event.

Saying “America deserved 9/11” and “I’m okay with arsonists being killed by militias when the police can no longer maintain the peace” are both moral statements about mass casualty events — but neither is a call to commit a violent act.

> “if it takes someone committing mass murder to stop [serial arsonist gangs, when the police fail to stop them], it is justified”

This is clearly a statement of personal ethics — it’s discussing the cases in which the speaker believes violence is just, not calling for specific acts of violence.

I think you know that.

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

#880

Post by kansface » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 5:49 AM UTC

Bud wrote: post #74

falcolas wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about we do something silly like letting the police and justice system handle things like "credible threats of mass violence" and "hate crimes", since both are fairly illegal, at least in the US.

How about we also defend the rights of people and companies to react in the way they see fit, to such actions, as well. As an aside, our police, to put it rather mildly, have historically sucked, in regard to such issues. And they suck right now, too. Badly. For hints on this, tune in to the Derek Chauvin trial, now in progress. Our "justice system" doesn't have a great record, either.

What is the record of our corporations? When did our multinationals become paragons of moral virtue and arbiters of righteousness? Do you think companies will only do things you like with this new found power?