Live data from Hacker News

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

reuters.com

121–130 of 1001 posts

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

#121
post #96
post #8

"The company said users will be able to report such behaviors but it may also investigate cases proactively, for instance if there is a verified news report that a user has been arrested." So we've arrived at "innocent until accused" instead of "innocent until proven guilty"? And if proven guilty, they will both be punished under the law, and again by companies like Twitch? If proven innocent will they be restored? W…

We may be arriving at a time and place where we must consider broadening the scope of the First Amendment to not just apply to government. I'm fully aware there's good reason for organizations and companies to limit free speech, but it often (lately) has gone way too far, dabbling in political witch hunting. I can think of few things less inline with classical American Constitutional ideals than to cheer on organizat…

My first thought was that this is likely politically motivated. They are building "cancel culture" into their platform.

They're opening the door to threaten influencers making money using their platform that support the "wrong" political party. If they say the wrong thing on Twitter, they will be banned on twitch/fb/google/etc. Incredible times we live in.

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

#122

It's strange to see a company that once prided itself on active engagement with its users to find product-market fit antagonize its content creators so much. And as a user, it gives me the perception that the platform is just plainly unfair. (Plus the platform is unusable without Adblock). Top streamers have been banned or lost partnerships for playing their own music[0], stating controversial political opinions[1][2…

Your 2nd source links to Hasan saying "America deserved 9/11". Since not everyone will click on your sources, I just want to point out what you consider "political speech" for others to see.

> Your 2nd source links to Hasan saying "America deserved 9/11".

Maybe it did.

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

#123
post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumption of evidence is morally important because the force of the state is ultimate: they can deprive a person of life and liberty as a consequence. The suggestion that it is immoral for a different standard being applied to a private clubhouse is not something that was supported by the influential thinkers who gave us the former idea.

In a capitalistic society where corporations hold as much power or more than governments do in our day to day lives you surely must see how this is a moral principle that must apply to them also. There's life ruining things beyond jail such as being homeless and shunned.

For sure, and we've done that through regulations where appropriate: e.g. landlord/tenant law, utility commissions, etc.

Twitch is hardly in that category, though.

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

#124
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue with this sentiment is that while some things are blatantly racist, there are other things that aren't so black and white. This is one of those slippery slopes where if left unchecked, anything and everything will be considered racist. Also, you don't have to have good morals or even be intelligent to be good at your job. Some people are fantastic at their job, but are pretty damn "stupid" as you put it.

Isn't this slippery slope argument technically a logical fallacy? Wouldn't we just not accept the unacceptable change?

That the slippery slope is an inevitability is the fallacy, not that it exists. See also "Overton window"

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

#125
post #111
post #8

"The company said users will be able to report such behaviors but it may also investigate cases proactively, for instance if there is a verified news report that a user has been arrested." So we've arrived at "innocent until accused" instead of "innocent until proven guilty"? And if proven guilty, they will both be punished under the law, and again by companies like Twitch? If proven innocent will they be restored? W…

So you want the government to force private companies to continue doing business with someone they no longer wish to provide services to? We aren't talking protected class here, we're talking private companies picking and choosing who to do business with via non-discriminatory means. That's called a free market. Will they be restored if they're proven innocent? Maybe. Maybe not. Again, that's called a free market.

I'm getting to the point where yes, I want to force these "private" companies to uphold civil liberties and principles such as innocent until proven guilty. I care way more about citizen freedom and expression than the concept of a "free market" which is a platonic ideal that has never existed and never will.

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

#126
post #111
post #8

"The company said users will be able to report such behaviors but it may also investigate cases proactively, for instance if there is a verified news report that a user has been arrested." So we've arrived at "innocent until accused" instead of "innocent until proven guilty"? And if proven guilty, they will both be punished under the law, and again by companies like Twitch? If proven innocent will they be restored? W…

So you want the government to force private companies to continue doing business with someone they no longer wish to provide services to? We aren't talking protected class here, we're talking private companies picking and choosing who to do business with via non-discriminatory means. That's called a free market. Will they be restored if they're proven innocent? Maybe. Maybe not. Again, that's called a free market.

Where are the calls for government intervention in the comment you're responding to?

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

#127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For a platform like Twitch, this is fine. They have a brand. As someone who does not operate a streaming platform, I don't care whether they have a brand or not - I care about the pragmatic benefits of living in a society where principles like innocent-until-proven-guilty are available and practiced in a way that benefits average people like me. I think the number of people who would consider "they have a brand" to…

Nobody is “innocent until proven guilty”. You are either, as a matter of fact, innocent or guilty. Our constitution prohibits the government from depriving you of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. But Twitch, or I, or you, can make up our own minds about your innocence or guilt, trial or no trial, and proceed according to our rights and inclinations. That right, the freedom of association, is as…

Due process was invented for a reason, and that reason is that innocent people like us do not like being unjustly punished. Any entity powerful enough to deliver an unjust punishment qualifies for the reason that due process was invented.

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

#128
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue with this sentiment is that while some things are blatantly racist, there are other things that aren't so black and white. This is one of those slippery slopes where if left unchecked, anything and everything will be considered racist. Also, you don't have to have good morals or even be intelligent to be good at your job. Some people are fantastic at their job, but are pretty damn "stupid" as you put it.

Isn't this slippery slope argument technically a logical fallacy? Wouldn't we just not accept the unacceptable change?

No, because of group dynamics. Once you start un-personing people, you have the in group and the out group. The in-group repeatedly redefines acceptable behavior to exclude some small margin. Repeat and you end up with absurd extremes.

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

#129
post #87

It's strange to see a company that once prided itself on active engagement with its users to find product-market fit antagonize its content creators so much. And as a user, it gives me the perception that the platform is just plainly unfair. (Plus the platform is unusable without Adblock). Top streamers have been banned or lost partnerships for playing their own music[0], stating controversial political opinions[1][2…

First link: DMCA problems, this is super common but Twitch is reacting to a very poorly written law. Second link: Someone got in trouble for saying "America Deserved 9/11" which is a bit beyond a controversial political opinion. Third link: Person advocated that people start shooting protestors, a literal call for violence once again beyond a controversial political opinion. Fourth Link: Played a game (not a movie) t…

I never said this is a free speech issue; Twitch is a private platform so they can do whatever they please. My concern is that the quality of the platform is going downhill because Twitch's response to everything is the ban button. For repeat offenders, I understand banning, but as far as I know, they don't even have a warning system in place. (Their ban policies are also wildly inconsistent when it comes to ban lengths).

In my view, this just leads to overall lower quality content on the platform. Creators can't risk or innovate because their entire livelihoods at are at the whim of a temperamental moderator.

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

#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 peers.

Consider that Twitch is owned by Amazon. If Amazon were to start doing things like this, suddenly someone so accused can't walk into Whole Foods?

Post reply on HN