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

911–920 of 1001 posts

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

#911

Post by concordDance »

smt88 wrote: post #654
concordDance wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is being alterable really the important distinction here though? If I invented a machine that could change physical features between the various ethnicities of the world, would banning Indians from your hotel suddenly be ok?

> Is being alterable really the important distinction here though? Yes. This is literally the entire argument against racism: judging someone for physical traits that have no bearing on their character. > If I invented a machine that could change physical features between the various ethnicities of the world, would banning Indians from your hotel suddenly be ok? No, for many obvious reasons. 1. Looking Indian (or not…

> This is literally the entire argument against racism: judging someone for physical traits that have no bearing on their character

Isn't it the "no bearing on character" thing that's the issue? Rather than the "physical" bit?

> 2. It would cost money and be an identity change, so not everyone could/would do it.

This would also hold for political ideas.

> I can't believe anyone is seriously asking questions like this in 2021. Read a book.

Please consider whether what you are saying is more than empty posturing. If you actually did want to educate people you wouldn't say "read a book", you'd mention a particular book.

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

#912

Post by Shivetya »

SkyPuncher wrote: post #824
clarifier123 wrote: post #362

After reddit started banning people for upvoting the wrong things, this is a logical next step. Contrary to the popular belief, slippery slope isn't a logical fallacy. Anonymity is the only way to combat this. Make sure your online identity isn't connected to your real name. Ideally, you should have separate identities for each website. Using Tor or a VPN is also a good idea.

My perception of Reddit change radically after I had some comments removed from a popular video game subreddit (from which the larger post was removed). I expressed a critical opinion on a video game that I, overall, greatly enjoy, but have been feeling increasing frustration over how the developers have been supporting it. The comment certainly wasn't racist, sexist, political, etc. It was simply critical of an aspe…

you can get shadow banned from subs for posting on other subs and its all automatic as well. this I know first hand as I was a regular poster on an antique related sub only to one day find none of my posts getting noticed and the pictures not showing. came to find out they are part of a group of subs which ban people who post on another sub.

reddit has become a real cess pool and its not the users and what they post but the back door rules and such and pettiness among to moderators of many subs

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

#913

Post by jkhdigital »

rising-sky wrote: post #674
jkhdigital wrote: post #666

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?

Not a single firearm? https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/17/politics/capitol-insurrection... However, I'm not sure where you got the "opinion" that an insurrection must be carried out with a firearm? You can do a quick Google search for the definition of the term. Here's one from the Cambridge dictionary > an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and take control of their country, usually by viol…

I stand corrected: a single Taurus G2C 9mm with 25 rounds was confiscated from a man exiting the Capitol. One firearm, not zero.

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

#914

Post by teachingassist »

michaelmrose wrote: post #557
rootusrootus wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I make a lot more than 100K, I have unlimited vacation, unlimited sick leave. Only 12 weeks of FMLA, so there's that. And healthcare isn't free anywhere in the world, just financed differently. I pay for my insurance from my paycheck, but the paycheck is so much larger that it works out fine. My deductible is zero, out-of-pocket maximum is zero, so it's not effectively much different than 'free' healthcare. I am well…

If a lot more than 100k is 150k you make more than 92% of Americans. At 180k it's more than 95% of Americans. We are all really happy for you but most people aren't in the same boat comparing Europe and America based on how well it works out for the wealthy doesn't seem useful.

Also - if you have the power to demand that much payment, you have the power to negotiate a contract which protects you.

At-will employment doesn't apply here.

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

#915

Post by beaconstudios »

otterley wrote: post #728
xyzzy_plugh wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but it's always always better to have a policy in place than to make one-off decisions.

This isn't always feasible or practical. People can't always foresee the future (otherwise gambling wouldn't be a thing). So we can't assume that a policy can cover every possible scenario that might occur. Things happen that practically nobody thought might happen. This is why "escape hatch" clauses were invented--to give parties a way out in the event that the unforeseen occurs.

I think the idea is what once the unforseen does happen, that you encode the decision you made into the rules.

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

#916

Post by ceejayoz »

LudwigNagasena wrote: post #598
ceejayoz wrote: post #523

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We agree that kids become adults at 18 and no one has a big problem with this. We don’t, though. Can’t drink until 21. Rental cars and credit cards have extra restrictions until 25. Etc.

We don’t what? Do you see many people who say that 6 year old kids should vote? Do you see many people who advocate that driving should be banned until 40? Do you think that credit card restrictions undermine the concept of the age of majority? No. We can put an arbitrary delimiter at first and argue about specifics later.

> Do you see many people who say that 6 year old kids should vote?

There are indeed disagreements on the appropriate voting age.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/takoma-park-grants-16-y...

https://lieu.house.gov/media-center/in-the-news/125-democrat...

> We can put an arbitrary delimiter at first and argue about specifics later.

We're in specifics territory, though.

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

#917

Post by listless »

taurath wrote: post #850
listless wrote: post #786

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.

They accomplished the goal of getting people to maybe think about police violence. It’s clear that lighter protests didn’t get any action or attention. If violence is so intolerable, I would like to see some calls for justice from those who seem more concerned about the protection of buildings than people’s lives. Stop pretending the violence came from nothing. I have friends with burns on their legs from getting hit…

I do believe that. Certainly violence begets more violence and the police are certainly not blameless.

All of that said, lets be careful not to boil this down to property damage so we can justify it. 19 people died in those summer riots. The property destruction affected mostly poor areas and minority business owners.

The duplicity is stunning and terrifying.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_and_controversies_dur....

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

#918

Post by mahogany »

esyir wrote: post #772
mahogany wrote: post #749

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

I think this issue is more nuanced than you (and many other people every time these threads comes up) make it out to be, which is why I brought up this point. Saying "certain scale duh" is just as an empty idea as "just build your own lol".

Can you explicitly tell me how you would codify that scale in law? And whatever you make the cap, what then is the incentive for a website to allow more users over the cap?

> Of course there have to be provisions for explicit content scope and spam

"Of course" they can moderate spam. Can you tell me how to objectively identify spam?

If I have a religious forum, and it passes the user cap, suddenly we have ourselves a public town square. Then someone comes in and starts saying "God isn't real!" several times in literally every thread. Is that spam? Because to me, it looks like an exercise of free speech, so you can't erase those messages. Certainly if someone was repeating that in a public space, we wouldn't silence them. By exceeding the user cap, that site would become a worse experience because you've severely limited moderation abilities by your proposed law.

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

#919

Post by tenebrisalietum »

cblconfederate wrote: post #714
tenebrisalietum wrote: post #10

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…

Then we need public services for communication to save the world from private dystopia, the same way we have public roads. Every country should set up a free mastodon account and email for every citizen. Plus i m not sure the principle of Free speech is that limited, speech doesnt count as speech if it cant reach anyone. And giving to a handful of employees the power to shape the messaging of millions is directly aff…

We need public infrastructure for communication that doesn't create conditions where all we do is try to emulate older broadcast media models such as TVs, radio, or newspaper.

This means 25Mbps uncapped IPv6 (no NAT) symmetric bandwidth for everyone and safe harbor laws for individuals and not just corporations. I think at that point centralized services for Internet-based communication become unnecessary, though centralized storage for things like long video posts may still be needed.

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

#920

Post by cblconfederate »

tenebrisalietum wrote: post #919
cblconfederate wrote: post #714

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then we need public services for communication to save the world from private dystopia, the same way we have public roads. Every country should set up a free mastodon account and email for every citizen. Plus i m not sure the principle of Free speech is that limited, speech doesnt count as speech if it cant reach anyone. And giving to a handful of employees the power to shape the messaging of millions is directly aff…

We need public infrastructure for communication that doesn't create conditions where all we do is try to emulate older broadcast media models such as TVs, radio, or newspaper. This means 25Mbps uncapped IPv6 (no NAT) symmetric bandwidth for everyone and safe harbor laws for individuals and not just corporations. I think at that point centralized services for Internet-based communication become unnecessary, though cen…

We have public radio though, not just public antennas.
Post reply on HN