Twitch will ban users for 'severe misconduct' that occurs away from its site • Hacker News Board

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

#301

Post by mulmen » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 9:17 PM UTC

tryonenow wrote: post #215

dopamean wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll never understand the argument that Trump was "silenced." As you said, he's a former US president. He has ample resources to get his word out. The only people who think he has been silenced are people who spend too much time on twitter or people who are being disingenuous.

>If Trump really wants to get his thoughts out to the world, he can host his own website and publish them there And what's the recourse when the same forces collude to shut someone or some group out of the hosting platform for wrongthink? Build your own server farm? Build your own cloudflare? Build your own DNS? How far do we go in allowing tyranny by a loud and powerful minority? If we can regulate corporations to p…

> And what's the recourse when the same forces collude to shut someone or some group out of the hosting platform for wrongthink?

I don't believe that "violent overthrow of the democratic process" specifically is a valid political position. I am comfortable discriminating against it. I am also comfortable with private parties exercising their constitutional rights to freedom of expression.

> Build your own server farm? Build your own cloudflare? Build your own DNS?

Yes, or find someone else to do business with. Or... change your behavior so it is less objectionable to those companies.

I consider a free society to be a competitive marketplace for ideas. Some ideas thrive and grow, others wither and die. The first amendment is a mandate for minimal governmental regulation so the forces of competition can evaluate ideas.

> How far do we go in allowing tyranny by a loud and powerful minority?

We don't allow it at all, that's why these companies are able to set these policies and issue bans. Exercising first amendment rights is not tyranny.

> If we can regulate corporations to prevent corporate monopolies, perhaps it's appropriate to implement loose regulations against social monopoly.

It's not and whatever the concept of "social monopoly" is can only make sense if there is one party controlling all social expression, which is obviously not the case. You could also call this "social discrimination" and reuse the ideas of protected classes. But political views are not (and IMHO should not) be protected. This would be the equivalent of picking winners in the free market of ideas.

Regulating social consensus and private beliefs is itself tyranny. The constitution is clearly designed to prevent exactly that outcome.

> Collusion to silence an entire set of viewpoints by unilaterally associating them with a minority of extremists is quite literally oppression.

This is not "literally oppression". There is no evidence that there was any collusion, only that violent overthrow of democratic processes is widely objectionable to many corporations and individuals. That many independent organizations came to the same conclusion is evidence that the system is working and that the idea itself has failed in the marketplace of ideas.

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

#302

Post by ricardoplouis » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 9:17 PM UTC

> Live-streaming service Twitch will ban users for offenses such as hate-group membership or credible threats of mass violence that occur entirely away from the site, in a new approach to moderating the platform, the company said on Wednesday.

Can't be part of a hate group or threaten violence no a mass scale. I believe the only reason that banning these two things are considered an infringement on free speech are because they are core to American ideals. If we viewed hate groups or mass violence with the same contempt we view something like child grooming for example then I don't think we would be having the free speech discussion, but here we are.

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

#303

Post by roenxi » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 9:17 PM UTC

hackersword wrote: post #162

Alupis wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

Twitter made the mistake of publishing their reasoning [0] where they attempt to construct a violent interpretation of two perfectly mundane Trump tweets, including the jaw-dropping "To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.".

After the 2016 election, the left ginned up enough hatred that some bloke attempted to gun down a Republican representative [1]. It passed with comment but not any particular shock. This is a good example of the routine (happened in 2011 against a Democrat) level of violence in US politics. The US famously resorts to action when passions are high. Trump simply wasn't inciting anything violent, especially against that high baseline.

Twitter's actions are unjustified, and it is highly likely that all the big tech companies are thinking like this, they are known to be left-leaning. This is a wake up call to the right that these companies are threats. Any right wing government anywhere in the world that ignores the tech companies is at risk of them becoming powerful and effective politically opponents - that is a much bigger thing than people have cottoned on to. This move was big.

[0] https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_baseball_shootin...

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

#304

Post by lrae » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 9:17 PM UTC

gentleman11 wrote: post #248

thiskeyboard wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The full quote from Destiny—a liberal anti-racist, mind you—is: The rioting needs to fucking stop. 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. Holy shit, this shit needs to stop. It needed to stop a long time ago. To the rest of us, he is expressing exacerbation that law enforcement is allowing chao…

Wait, destiny is banned?

No, iirc then he didn't get banned/temporary suspended for that comment. Twitch only decided to not do any direct business (partnership) with him anymore, so they unpartnered him. That means people can't subscribe to him anymore for a monthly fee and he can also not be tipped with Twitch's virtual tip currency. He also doesn't get any ad revenue split anymore. (And I think twitch is currently not running any ads on unaffiliated/unpartnered streams, not 100% sure about that.)

He can still be tipped through third party services though. (Like streamlabs and streamelements)

He's still allowed to stream, and now without contract, not exclusive anymore so that he also streams on Youtube and Facebook now I think.

I think that is also something they should do with people who just got arrested. Distance yourself from them, but don't ban them. If it's severe enough then they won't be able to go live anymore anyway.

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

#305

Post by SkyBelow » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 9:18 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #13

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…

> we've arrived at "innocent until accused" instead of "innocent until proven guilty" For a platform like Twitch, this is fine. They have a brand. They’re akin to a modern television channel, and television has always been this ruthless. There are lots of other streaming sites.

This does not scale. Imagine if every grocery store, doctor, and gas station decided to deny someone service because of an unproven criminal charge. Given that innocent people are charged with crimes they did not commit, the morality of denying someone for something they do not have control over is the same in this case as in cases involving protected classes.

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

#306

Post by yeetawayhn » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 9:18 PM UTC

anthonypasq wrote: post #233

BitwiseFool wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

companies have speech rights that you would be infringing on by doing this

"Corporations are people too, my friend."

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

#307

Post by ctdonath » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 9:19 PM UTC

BitwiseFool wrote: post #252

anthonypasq wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

companies have speech rights that you would be infringing on by doing this

But why is a company's right to speech more important than a real person's civil rights? A company is a mere legal fiction and it's rights should not be given equal weight to those of actual human beings, especially for a corporation as large as Amazon. Edit: I know the issue becomes murkier for things like mom and pop shops and sole proprietorships, but I am willing to make distinctions based on scale.

Because a company is a group of real people making decisions together. There is no “legal fiction” deciding to not associate with certain others.

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

#308

Post by SpicyLemonZest » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 9:19 PM UTC

fwip wrote: post #271

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a point where this kind of ostracism becomes worse than jail. For many Twitch users, streaming is a substantial part of their social environment or even their full-time job. If I had to choose between a couple weeks in jail and a lifetime ban from working in my industry, or a couple weeks in jail and being banned from all my friend group chats, I'd take jail in a heartbeat.

Nitpick: The offenses for which Twitch is considering removing users usually result in much more than a few weeks in jail, if convicted. Further, Twitch is not the entire industry, the same way that Microsoft is not the industry.

Many of the offenses are in that category. My concern is the offenses like "violent extremism" and "membership in a known hate group", which are not generally illegal and very easy to abuse for censorious purposes. (I've seen quite a few people identify mainstream organizations as "hate groups" because of some political dispute.)

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

#309

Post by hnbad » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 9:19 PM UTC

gentleman11 wrote: post #265

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…

It’s not just some site when you have no credible alternative because it killed all the competition years ago. The network effects are too strong

YouTube Live exists. DLive exists.

Sure, these don't have anywhere near the same reach when it comes to live streaming but people have been banned from twitch before and maintained an audience on other sites like these. There's also no "right to livestream".

We'll see how liberally twitch applies this new policy. All sites are literally allowed to do these things already, the only difference is they made it explicit. You can have a "common carrier" argument about regulation of private companies, but there's nothing in this announcement itself that makes twitch any different from others.

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

#310

Post by BitwiseFool » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 9:20 PM UTC

tw04 wrote: post #156

Alupis wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>How can we, as a society, claim to value free speech, yet allow social discourse platforms to censor and silence political enemies? Quite easily. Freedom of speech is freedom from government suppression of that speech - it's quite clear in the constitution. Freedom of speech doesn't mean I or anyone else has to give you a platform to speak from.

Who decided that Freedom of Speech only applies to government suppression? Does the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment only apply to the government as well?