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

291–300 of 1001 posts

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

#291

Post by [deleted] »

weego wrote: post #20
redm wrote: 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…

Presumption of innocence is a legal principle and does not and will never apply to a corporation providing you services at their own discretion.

[deleted]

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

#292

Post by mlindner »

voldacar wrote: post #28

The infantile hyper-moralization of online discourse, on social media but also elsewhere, is starting to get really, really tiring. Is there any solution other than total anonymity, keeping one's online and IRL personae hermetically sealed off from one another? What do you all think? Is this atmosphere here to stay or do you expect the winds of culture to shift anytime soon?

> Is there any solution other than total anonymity, keeping one's online and IRL personae hermetically sealed off from one another?

In my mind there really isn't. Or at least having a single platform that you are the "real you" that is completely whitewashed of anything other than harmless platitudes (see how most CEOs present themselves online for an example of this). (Oh and make it impossible to use that account from your cell phone so you're unable to use it when drunk or otherwise inebriated.)

Then you can have a bunch of different accounts online that use other names.

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

#293

Post by some_furry »

echelon wrote: post #282
newbie789 wrote: post #250

Coming from the perspective of someone that was an admin of a medium-large forum back in the vBulletin heyday of the early 2000s, I’m somewhat amused by people getting angry at moderation decisions. The rules were pretty clear: This is my website. I pay the bills and maintain it. Here are some clear rules that if you break them, you will be punished with a ban/suspension/shadow an/redirect to goatse upon login/etc. a…

There is only one Twitch.tv. There were thousands of fourms. I ran one. Ezboard and other platforms made it easy to host one without even paying server bills. But there's only one Twitch, and when they ban you, you're gone. Your audience is too. This is what we get with platform monopolies.

> They're essentially a public utility.

No, they're a website owned by a private company.

If you want there to be a public utility that provides the same service Twitch does, write to your representatives.

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

#294

Post by BitwiseFool »

TameAntelope wrote: post #257
BitwiseFool wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Slippery Slope is not necessarily a fallacy because it's a very real phenomenon. My test is examining the "slippery slope" by asking if it instead "establishes a precedent". And then I see how easy it might be to justify going further down such a path based on past justifications.

Fair, I just don't see how my acquiescence to one thing is an endorsement of a distinct, if similar, thing. I guess I reject the idea that policy (a well considered and debated, long lasting decision) would actually fall for something like a slippery slope. The proverbial boiled frog just jumps out of the pot when the water gets too hot, in reality.

I appreciate that, and for what it's worth I agree you that slippery slope/establishing a precedent is countered with concrete and well thought out criteria that need to be met.

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

#295

Post by wvenable »

Alupis wrote: post #142
tw04 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

At a certain point, these platforms have such enormous, unprecedented influence and control over public discourse, that they aught to be thought of differently than, say a restaurant refusing service to a guy without a shirt or shoes on. We're clearly in uncharted territory, when it comes to the control and release of information. Just using Twitter and Facebook for example - they've silenced the second-most voted fo…

> Regardless what you think or feel about the guy, he is a former US President - we aught to know what he thinks, even if we disagree or think it's outlandish - no?

So he aught to be able to grab a soap box and stand on your lawn every day and preach? He is a former US president so you are proposing he can go onto private property and say whatever he wants at any time.

> How can we, as a society, claim to value free speech, yet allow social discourse platforms to censor and silence political enemies?

Because you misunderstand free speech. Is the government going to arrest you for posting on twitter? No. However no one is required, not even the government, to provide you with a platform to speak on.

You want free beer speech. Speech without paying for it. Speech without restriction of any kind by anyone at any time. Why should we care about that?

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

#296

Post by coldpie »

adzzzz wrote: post #81
PeterisP wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumption of innocence and proven beyond all reasonable doubt is the bar that has to be met in order to put someone in prison. However, people are completely entitled to decide to shun someone or not do business with them based on mere suspicion or some arbitrary subjective standards (with certain narrow exceptions e.g. discrimination of protected classes) - "freedom of association" is the default condition and a k…

Yes they are entitled and we are allowed to disagree with it. That's the point everyone is trying to make. These legalistic arguments are silly and distracting.

Apparently Twitch's employees like these policies for ethical reasons, and/or their businesspeople and advertisers think these policies will bring in more money. Personally, I like these policies and I'd like to see more of this kind of proactive action. I like Twitch more knowing that they have this policy. It shows that they understand their role in shaping public discourse and are taking responsibility for it. It's a difficult balancing act, and there's plenty of ways it could be done badly, but pretending that platforms and their algorithms don't play a role in public discourse is silly.

I do feel most of this whole issue could be sidestepped with some long overdue antitrust enforcement.

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

#297

Post by Pfhreak »

nitrogen wrote: post #261
Pfhreak wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be clear, the controversial political opinions you believe should be platformed by Twitch are: "If that means white redneck militia dudes mowing down dipshit protesters that think they can torch buildings at 10 PM, at this point they have my fucking blessing." and "America Deserved 9/11"? Because those are the literal quotes from things that got people pulled from Twitch and you've labelled "controversial politica…

Your second quote should be no more or less controversial than saying that any of the countries the US invaded afterward also deserved those invasions. 9/11 was, in part, blowback from previous American foreign policy. Interpreting that as saying that people deserve to be killed by terrorists is 1. confusing a country as a whole with its citizens as individuals and 2. an unrealistically literal interpretation of clea…

I think discussions about invasions and attacks, even if they are uncomfortable, is totally reasonable. I'll happily talk with you about why American Imperialism is bad until I'm blue in the face.

I will say, when someone says we should attack civilians because of their government's foreign policy, I will say that crosses a line. It's unacceptable in my view. There's a huge gap between, "We should have uncomfortable discussions" and "those civilians deserved to die".

And on the internet, it's really challenging to say what is hyperbole. Even if it was intended to be hyperbole, which is plausible, maybe it's a charged enough topic that one should choose a different (or more obviously) hyperbolic take.

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

#298

Post by nitrogen »

justapassenger wrote: post #213
fX0rObfoMN4 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are talking about the 1st amendment. Free speech is a principle whereas the 1st amendment restricts the government from violating that principle in its relations with the populace.

Free speech as a principle you’re after (aka truly free speech without any consequences whatsoever) never existed. You’re free to say whatever you want, and I’m free to take actions based on that. You cannot give free speech benefits only to one side of the argument.

without any consequences

This is a pretty big distraction that is often used in these types of discussions. It's a distortion of what people actually want. The "consequences" being advocated are often just the whims of today's favored group. Giving free speech benefits to only one side of the argument is exactly what people are asking for when they ask for "consequences" -- freedom for A, consequences for B.

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

#299

Post by kvia »

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #200
hackersword wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They didn't "silence" him because his brand of politics. Their stated reason for banning him from their platform was literally " due to the risk of further incitement of violence." Their TOS have specific "Glorification of Violence policy", which aims to prevent the glorification of violence that could inspire others to replicate violent acts and determined that they were highly likely to encourage and inspire people…

Everyone and their cat understands that it is hypocritical bullshit. They'd let his incitements slide easily if he was their political ally and not an opponent. I don't have a horse in that race, but it is disgusting how people defend this blatant and obvious bias as perfectly normal thing.

Twitter is a company, not a court of law. Trump tarnished their reputation like nobody else, so they ceased doing business with him when it was convenient. This was facilitated by him flagrantly violating their rules for years, culminating in the riot he incited via their platform. It's as simple as that.
Post reply on HN