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

971–980 of 1001 posts

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

#971

Post by TeeMassive »

CapnTrips wrote: post #789
TeeMassive wrote: post #767

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> within the District of Columbia Nothings in your court case says anything about the Capitol building.

>On or about January 6, 2021, within the District of Columbia, CHRISTOPHER ALBERTS, did carry and have readily accessible, a firearm, that is, a Taurus G2C semi-automatic handgun, on the United States Capitol Grounds and in any of the Capitol Buildings. In the same sentence you quoted

Again, nothing mentions the Capitol Building itself (Capitol Grounds and Buildings cover a lot of spaces) and it's not like it is unusual for weapons to be seized https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/us-capitol-police-s...

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

#972

Post by TameAntelope »

dang wrote: post #954
TameAntelope wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People who don't want free speech are usually the ones complaining about how other people exercise their free speech in ways that counter their own message. Like voting on comments, for example. That's free speech too. That said, HN is definitely not anything even remotely resembling a free speech platform, in concept or execution. It's the recruitment platform for Y Combinator, and all decisions are made here to opt…

That's not what HN is optimized for. I can tell you that for sure because it's my job to (attempt to) optimize it and I've posted about this many times over many years: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor... https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...

Part of the marketing is that you don’t admit to the actual purpose, or at least that you’re not exposed to that reality.

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

#973

Post by LdSGSgvupDV »

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…

It seems like that the companies are trying to avoid the lawsuit. Let say our freedom of speech is X. In tradition, we have X<LAW. Right now, we get X<COMPANY<COMPANY<...<LAW which would definitely narrow down when the company chain increases.

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

#974

Post by dang »

TameAntelope wrote: post #972
dang wrote: post #954

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what HN is optimized for. I can tell you that for sure because it's my job to (attempt to) optimize it and I've posted about this many times over many years: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor... https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...

Part of the marketing is that you don’t admit to the actual purpose, or at least that you’re not exposed to that reality.

It's terrible marketing not to admit to one's actual purpose. People can feel that. Also, it would be soul destroying to work at a job that required it. It's much better when your real purpose is aligned with what you say it is, and also with what you actually do. I find that's possible with HN, and it's one thing I like about the job.

It's totally ok if you don't believe me, but if you want to take the time to read the past explanations at https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so..., I'd be super curious to hear what you think is wrong with them. For me the interesting thing about HN is that keeping the community happy—by gratifying curiosity—is the thing that produces value for YC.

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

#975

Post by TameAntelope »

dang wrote: post #974
TameAntelope wrote: post #972

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of the marketing is that you don’t admit to the actual purpose, or at least that you’re not exposed to that reality.

It's terrible marketing not to admit to one's actual purpose. People can feel that. Also, it would be soul destroying to work at a job that required it. It's much better when your real purpose is aligned with what you say it is, and also with what you actually do. I find that's possible with HN, and it's one thing I like about the job. It's totally ok if you don't believe me, but if you want to take the time to read…

Having read through, I think mostly the only clarification I'd offer is that I don't think it's bad or wrong for HN to provide value to YC by way of interest.

I was meaning to say almost exactly, "the way to maximize HN's value to YC is to maximize how interesting it is to the community"... so that when YC (and its companies) need interesting people to solve interesting problems, they're already here. It seems like you agree with that, though you do call it "cynical" and "hard-nosed business" reasoning.

"Marketing" is sometimes treated like a 4 letter word but that's not how I meant it.

"Interesting" however, seems like a very important word (it's mentioned 24 times in those 15 comments)!

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

#976

Post by listless »

taurath wrote: post #939
listless wrote: post #917

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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_d…

Not claiming its only property damage, sorry if I seemed to imply. I'm sorry you're afraid of what has happened and how its been covered. I think the protests themselves will ultimately lead us to a better place - though of course any violence is not helpful to get to that better place.

I hope that you are right, and despite my pessimistic demeanor, I do believe ultimately good and necessary change will happen. Perhaps we can learn from the negative along the way. Thank you for your positive responses.

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

#977

Post by xupybd »

diob wrote: post #959
xupybd wrote: post #941

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The BLM protests did at times turn to riots. I don't say that to dehumanize anyone but there was violence and destruction. Mainly because the cause was highjacked by groups that love to break out into violence, such as Antifa. If we can't call out such groups and recognize the damage they do, what happens to the next protest?

I'm not sure what you mean, where am I unwilling to call out a group? The comment said BLM riots, which did not happen. In your own words, you are close to realizing why I say it's dehumanizing and meant to impart a meaning that isn't true. You said: "Mainly because the cause was highjacked by groups that love to break out into violence..." In other words, you actually do realize they aren't BLM riots. They were BLM…

I call riots that happened at BLM protests "BLM riots".

They are not the same thing.

The reason they kept happening is the media, not you, were no willing to call out the violence. They were not willing to out of a fear that they would appear to be disagreeing with the cause.

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

#978

Post by PhasmaFelis »

throwawaysea wrote: post #859
PhasmaFelis wrote: post #800

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I never said every single person in the crowd was an insurrectionist.

They don't need to be. Hundreds of people physically stormed the Capitol with the explicit intention of overturning a democratic election. What else would you call that but insurrection?

If they failed, it doesn't mean they weren't insurrectionists. It just means they were incompetent insurrectionists. It's not a good look to downplay crime and violence just because the people doing it voted the same way you did.

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

#980

Post by LudwigNagasena »

ceejayoz wrote: post #916
LudwigNagasena wrote: post #598

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> There are indeed disagreements on the appropriate voting age.

Sure, but my question was about 6 year olds, not 16 year olds.

> We're in specifics territory, though.

Exactly. The first thing to do is to make sure that 6 year olds don’t kill anyone driving recklessly and 30 year olds can vote. The rest is specifics we can argue about. The same thing with the social responsibility of companies.

Post reply on HN