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

#881

Post by DarkByte8 » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 5:50 AM UTC

viraptor wrote: post #617

akira2501 wrote: post #596

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Think of a private party instead The extent to which corporations should be considered private entities does not seem like a settled question to me. Your corporation has no natural right to exist, and therefore does not have the natural right to do business solely as it pleases. > and you have about the same level of responsibility for your party as twitch has for their platform. What responsibility are they exerci…

> If the behavior on their platform is not disruptive to it, then what precisely are they defending their users _from_? From being surrounded by Adams. Either you act in cases like that, or you become known as "that place that likes to invite Adam (and others)". And it's completely up to the host which side they want to be on. Twitch chose to end the invitation. > Invite someone on the most wanted list. That's not ev…

The problem is who judges the Adams and decide that they are assholes. People are worried that the judge will not be fair and it will be biased in favor of some ideology.

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

#882

Post by thephyber » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 5:50 AM UTC

esyir wrote: post #766

Spartan-S63 wrote: post #45

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).

Strong disagree here. Network effects are king here, and social media is a natural mono/oligopoly. Overcoming this requires the construction of a superior and more addictive product, and the incentives just aren't there for such platforms. 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…

> Overcoming this requires the construction of a superior and more addictive product, and the incentives just aren't there for such platforms.

Nope. You can have a smaller, simpler substitute if you have comparative advantage in some other niche.

DuckDuckGo is making a decent showing against Google, despite arriving on the scene almost 2 decades later. A handful of righty / unPC social media properties (Gab, Parler, whatever Lindell’s app is called this week, etc) are slowly eating into Facebook/Twitter market share because they promise less moderation.

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

#883

Post by lotsofpulp » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 5:54 AM UTC

JoshuaDavid wrote: post #871

lotsofpulp wrote: post #839

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 soc…

#4 is a problem. ICANN should be like a utility (and as far as I know, it sort of is for now).

#5 is also a problem, although I believe this should also be a utility. Although, as I understand the Fed is coming out with their own thing soon, but I don’t know if it will be treated as a utility.

#6 is, of course, way far gone.

#1 to #3 are the domain of private enterprises, but at #4 it becomes infrastructure like roads, water, gas, etc and you can’t feasibly have more than one so it should be treated as a utility.

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

#884

Post by kansface » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 5:54 AM UTC

Bud wrote: post #448

falcolas wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

History tells us quite clearly that extra-legal justice systems as a response to even some of the worst justice systems creates more problems, not fewer. So no we shouldn't, to use your phrasing, react as we see fit. That's how humanity has historically justified lynching.

Except this isn't a justice system, and doesn't have consequences remotely similar to a justice system. I've taken a -30 karma hit for this particular opinion already, despite very polite language. May as well go for -35.

How is losing your livelihood, potentially being blacklisted from the industry entirely, not commensurate to judicial punishment? That’s exactly the sort of punishment we impose on computer hackers.

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

#885

Post by redis_mlc » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 5:59 AM UTC

lurgburg wrote: post #865

darepublic wrote: post #740

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Cursory googling: CHAZ/CHOP: 2 deaths Capital Hill Riot: 5 deaths

> Capital Hill Riot: 5 deaths

No, at least one death appears to be of natural causes (the cop), and the woman shot dead was climbing through a window and appears to have been shot by Capitol police.

The govt. has been slow to release autopsies, so they're covering up something as long as possible, but there are lawsuits that will reveal those.

What HN keeps ignoring is that:

- Pelosi was responsible for approving Capitol Hill security expenses, and didn't for a rally of 500,000 people. The DNC is ashamed that Trump got that much attendance, while Biden got less than 15 for his last two appearances.

- Capitol Hill security let the protestors inside.

Why is this so difficult for HN to accept? Are these "hate facts" to the leftists here?

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

#886

Post by baobabKoodaa » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 6:00 AM UTC

sneak wrote: post #561

baobabKoodaa wrote: post #490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're fine with preventing KKK members from buying food? You would literally have them starve to death? And you're fine with private corporations making decisions on who has the right to live and who doesn't? Personally, I value human rights. I think even KKK members have the right to live.

No, I'm fine with any individual who sells food (or any other thing) being able to opt to not do business with anyone they like. That's a big difference from what you claimed. That's actually already true now (outside of protected classes). Any restaurant can ask KKK members to leave if they so desire. Same with any supermarket. Any individual proprietor having freedom of association is a long long way from "specific…

> No, I'm fine with any individual who sells food (or any other thing) being able to opt to not do business with anyone they like ... That's actually already true now (outside of protected classes).

Man, the U.S. is a weird place. In Finland, for example, banks are forced to provide basic banking services to everyone, because access to basic banking services is considered to be more important than freedom of association. (I tried to look up if we have a similar law that prevents grocery stores from blacklisting customers, but I didn't find anything.)

> Any individual proprietor having freedom of association is a long long way from "specific types of customers should be barred from buying food from anyone and should literally starve to death". That's a strawman position that you invented.

In Finland there are 3 large grocery chains. If you were banned from all three, it would be difficult for you to access food. Could you still ask a friend to buy food for you? Sure. Could you still access food by stealing it? Sure. But on a spectrum between "buy food from the supermarket" and "starve to death", this position is closer to the "starve" end of the spectrum.

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

#887

Post by kansface » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 6:04 AM UTC

ohazi wrote: post #574

CBLT wrote: post #534

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretend Harvey Weinstein is talking to you. And that he's reading the top-most comment (by newbie789) on this story: that he owns the company, so he can ban you at his discretion. Or gaslight you. Or show you shock porn. That this is fine, because it's how its always worked here. I'll tentatively assume you got some of the same visceral recoil I got from that mental image. And that we agree that following everything…

FWIW, I agree with you about the visceral recoil, thoughts about Hollywood practices not being ideal, etc. I'm not trying to claim that this state of affairs is good , just that it's basically identical to what we've had previously, and that the relevant laws don't appear to be affected by unprecedented scale or automation. Passing laws to address this might work, but I think it would be difficult, and I would expect…

I wholeheartedly disagree about the current state of affairs. Our relationship to the internet has profoundly changed. It’s deeply entwined in our daily life, inescapably so, in exactly the same way that forums were not.

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

#888

Post by JoshuaDavid » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 6:14 AM UTC

lotsofpulp wrote: post #883

JoshuaDavid wrote: post #871

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 soc…

#4 is a problem. ICANN should be like a utility (and as far as I know, it sort of is for now). #5 is also a problem, although I believe this should also be a utility. Although, as I understand the Fed is coming out with their own thing soon, but I don’t know if it will be treated as a utility. #6 is, of course, way far gone. #1 to #3 are the domain of private enterprises, but at #4 it becomes infrastructure like road…

Alright, fair enough. AWS pitches itself as basically a utility, and so treating it as a utility when it's convenient for Amazon and as a fully private service when it's not strikes me as sketchy, but yeah that's more a complaint about Amazon's deceptive advertising than anything else.

If it really stops at 3 that's probably fine -- we'll see some new IAAS providers that accept money in exchange for not taking down content that is legal but some people don't like, the would-be censors will get mad but not be able to do anything about it, and that will be that. However, I expect that what will actually happen is the next social media site that is considered problematic and can't be cut off at the IAAS level because it self-hosts will be blocked off at either the DNS level or the payment processor level. Hopefully I'm wrong. Time will tell.

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

#889

Post by DarkByte8 » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 6:15 AM UTC

mustbedreaming wrote: post #157

mondoshawan wrote: post #130

> "Twitch said it would rely more heavily on law enforcement in “off-service” cases and is partnering with an investigative law firm to support its internal team." So if a user becomes noteworthy, expect to have investigative checks periodically done by the agency? What an insane concept -- this is how we end up with corporate governance and unjust punishment without societal review by fiat , without review by our pe…

Your point about corporate governance being a generally bad thing is valid, but I don’t think this case is anywhere near that. A “user” and a “streamer” are two different things. Anyone can create an account and be a viewer who consumes content on Twitch. That’s not the same as being a content creator who draws viewers to the platform and implicitly represents the brand. You can go scream racist nonsense in the town…

It is similar enough that they don't get any benefits for being employee just the responsibility of being employee. What a shit deal.

The idea that any employee is representing the company is dumb in my opinion. The person that cleans Whole Foods toilets should not be considered a representing of the company. The only people that represent the company should be C-suits, VPs and other upper managers, not a mindless drone.

And the concern is not about the guy who is screaming racist nonsense in the town square, it is about who judges what is racist nonsense and what is not.

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

#890

Post by dec0dedab0de » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 6:16 AM UTC

Thorrez wrote: post #857

dec0dedab0de wrote: post #785

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I might be wrong about the initial intention, but it's been the norm as long as I can remember, here is a comment from pg in 2008.

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171