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

991–1000 of 1001 posts

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

#991

Post by alfiedotwtf »

uvnq wrote: post #984
alfiedotwtf wrote: post #842

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say this as if that list is fixed for all of eternity. If you don't want to call this a slippery slope, then how about the thin end of the wedge.

Wow, that's a really interesting idiom. I've never heard that before and will definitely use it over slippery slope, especially since pointing out a slippery slope is often incorrectly called a fallacy (from my understanding, it is only a fallacy if there is no established trend).

It’s used a lot in political planning i.e here’s our ultimate aim, what’s our thin end of the wedge, and what’s our pretext

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

#992

Post by stonogo »

throwawaysea wrote: post #854
stonogo wrote: post #838

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Insurance policies can't bring people back to life, though.

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

#993

Post by zouhair »

pc86 wrote: post #968
zouhair wrote: post #867

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They don't own Twitch. They didn't take any of the economic risk to start it. They're not on the hook for covering its server bills if revenue craters. And yet with all the money in the World Twitch will close doors if all streamers stop streaming. Twitch is literally nothing without the streamers.

Which they are free to do, but how does that entitle them to an ownership stake?

It entitles them to a say on how things should go and a share of profits.

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

#994

Post by jlawson »

uvnq wrote: post #985
jlawson wrote: post #650

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's not society . That makes it sound like everyone has a say. It's only a very small minority of people are the ones that decide who gets punished and excluded. It's not society, its the powerful . This is how you have people getting banned for supporting a national politician who won election with ~49% of popular vote. Those 49% clearly didn't get a say in who gets punished and excluded. Only the powerful get…

I'm willing to bet there are a significant number of people who didn't vote for him who would be opposed to an individual getting banned for supporting him. This pushes the percentage of individuals who are opposed to this punishing/excluding over 50%. "The powerful" that you are referring to would also be a minority if your numbers are correct.

Agreed - it is a minority.

By this study it's about 8%:

https://hiddentribes.us/

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

#995

Post by jlawson »

chc wrote: post #898
jlawson wrote: post #661

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By the same argument, you'd cheat and steal from literally anyone you could get away with cheating and stealing from. Because not doing it to them doesn't stop them from doing it to you. But this isn't really how it works. Forebearance actually does have value because it changes society as a whole, shifts expectations at a broad scale, and creates moral authority to demand better from others which is persuasive and p…

I think you have drastically misunderstood my argument. To use your analogy, let's say Bob is constantly stealing from you. You urgently need some essentials, and you say, "I know, I can steal them from Bob." But somebody stops you and says, "Wait, you don't want to do that! If you steal from Bob, he'll steal from you!" You would probably not find this persuasive, because you know Bob will steal from you regardless.…

Let's say your spouse is constantly criticizing you. You feel frustrated, so you criticize them as well. Someone stops you and says, "Wait, you should criticize them less. Then they'll feel less frustrated and might also criticize you less." And you can, and do, and with some decent faith on both sides you can de-escalate. This is basically marriage counseling. This is how relationships improve.

You're framing this as a simple prisoner's dilemma problem with sharp-edged binary choices - but it's much more fluid than that in real life.

The fluidity non-binaryness of this is even more apparent given it's millions of people we're talking about, over time lasting generations.

If life really was a prisoner dilemma cooperation would be impossible.

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

#996

Post by insert_coin »

claudiawerner wrote: post #639
insert_coin wrote: post #616

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no false flag of liberty, that is an oxymoron. Liberty is having the right to offend people, that’s what it means.

> There is no false flag of liberty, that is an oxymoron. Several political philosophers critical of liberalism (and even those sympathetic to liberalism) have argued that several free actions we take do indeed disadvantage people in various ways, whether it comes to democritic citizenship or other social interactions. It is entirely possible to act under the flag of liberty while still (knowingly or not) disadvantag…

Liberty is not concerned with disadvantaging people, or advantaging them for that matter.

Liberty is the action itself, irrespective of the result.

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

#997

Post by PhasmaFelis »

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #797
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?

"Many in the crowd attacking the Capitol have said their intent was to stop the vote confirmation and keep Trump in office despite the election results. That’s an insurrection." https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/feb/15/ron-johnso... ) "Unarmed" is definitely false, per the other comments: the FBI confiscated "a baseball bat, a fire extinguisher, a wooden club, a spear, crutches, a flagpole, bear spray, mace,…

One more for future reference: Cleveland Meredith apparently arrived too late for the riot, but was arrested the day after with two unregistered guns after threatening to "put a bullet in [Pelosi's] noggin on live TV.”

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

#998

Post by rhaksw »

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…

> my comment was shadow banned.

Yup, this is so common I made a site showing where it happens [1]. Prior to this there was no easy way to see what had been removed from your account. Even I as a developer had no idea it was happening for years because (1) mods do sometimes send removal messages, leading me to believe they are always sent, and (2) as you wrote above, removed comments do show up in the thread when you are logged in. Everyone else sees [removed].

[1] https://www.reveddit.com

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

#999

Post by happytoexplain »

BitwiseFool wrote: post #198
adzzzz wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was no "red scare". Joe McCarthy was simply holding Communists accountable for their beliefs.

This is such an apt retort that I'm sure people are downvoting you out of pure cognitive dissonance.

Why can't they just disagree with the analogy? After all, analogies are inherently a comparison of two different things. People are prone to reaching for analogies as essentially just an insulting oversimplification, by pointing to something Very Bad (frequently a dramatic historical horror) and simply declaring that it is equivalent to whatever they're criticizing. Part of the allure is the positive feedback back-patting that frequently comes with it, without adding anything else (e.g. your reply, and the "insanely apt" reply from a now-banned account).

Regardless, it's destructive to reasoned discourse to treat people like enemies ("cognitive dissonance" is being used as an insult here) when the only thing you know is that they disagreed with you.

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

#1000

Post by exporectomy »

sneak wrote: post #681
exporectomy wrote: post #636

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you draw a line between religion (protected class) and other ideologies/oragnizations/beliefs that you don't want protection for? Where do, eg Scientologists, Pastafarians, and cult members fit? Is it right to be able to exclude Islamists (political ideology) despite them being Muslims (religion)?

The state has already drawn those lines, and does not recognize KKK membership as a religion. The legal lines for what is or isn't protected are fairly well defined, by people other than me. My own personal opinions and beliefs on the matter don't count for anything.

I'm interested in what you believe, not what the law says. I think you're using appeal to the law as a way of avoiding having to defend your stated beliefs. If you don't understand what you believe or why, then it's a good chance to think about it enough to make a cohesive statement. Maybe your belief is simply "whatever the law says, I agree". That's fine but also the end of any productive attempt to work out what's right and wrong.
Post reply on HN