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

561–570 of 1001 posts

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

#561

Post by sneak »

baobabKoodaa wrote: post #490
sneak wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We would (should) not accept that someone with “wrong” views be denied a bank account or to shop at a grocery store. Why? I am fine with banks and grocery stores having freedom of association, just as any other business or person should. Being a KKK member is not a protected class, and discriminating against KKK members in hiring and in the provision of goods or services is entirely in-bounds.

You're fine with preventing KKK members from buying food? You would literally have them starve to death? And you're fine with private corporations making decisions on who has the right to live and who doesn't? Personally, I value human rights. I think even KKK members have the right to live.

No, I'm fine with any individual who sells food (or any other thing) being able to opt to not do business with anyone they like. That's a big difference from what you claimed.

That's actually already true now (outside of protected classes). Any restaurant can ask KKK members to leave if they so desire. Same with any supermarket.

Any individual proprietor having freedom of association is a long long way from "specific types of customers should be barred from buying food from anyone and should literally starve to death". That's a strawman position that you invented.

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

#562

Post by Ekaros »

rodgerd wrote: post #440
fX0rObfoMN4 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone who stream on Twitch does something bad off of Twitch, would people blame Twitch for that? I know I wouldn't.

The context is that the last six months or so have been a shitstorm of prominent streamers caught in various forms of grooming, sexual assault, and so on. Much of this has happened off-Twitch, but it's certainly affected the reputation of Twitch to be associate with such. It's no different to the owners of M:TG banning people for serious misconduct, for example.

To me it sounds very similar to M:TG banning people for bringing up and reporting that kind of misconduct in their community...

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

#563

Post by cosmodisk »

rootusrootus wrote: post #495
cosmodisk wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a few bubbles in the US,where people make way more than in Europe: SV, Some finance jobs on the Wall Street, maybe the oil industry. That's about it. Outside of those, it's more or less the same like in Europe, minus safety net and holiday. There are pros and cons on each side of the pond,no doubt, but in my opinion, the US is probably better suited for those with a very high income,while an average person…

My company employs people in Europe, and across the US. The highest paid Europeans still make less than any of our associates in the midwest. And we have unlimited vacation & sick time, so I'm not sure what advantage the 28 holiday thing is. I completely agree that the U.S. is better suited for high income earners.

As always,it depends. I guess by mentioning midwest,you go with a notion that it's not a hcol area. The unlimited vacation & sick time probably also means a pretty decent white collar job.

It's difficult to compare with Europe,as one unit, as it's as varied as the US is. There are quite a few countries in Europe, where I'd happily take whatever your the associates are making at your firm and I'd have amazing,high quality life with very little to worry about. Alternatively, if I go to London,or Zurich, most salaries would feel like pocket change.

The other aspect,what in my opinion keeps tab on salaries in Europe, is the sheer volume of available quality candidates for jobs. There are tons of people with exceptional education. Not so long time ago, we used to have a running joke back home that why would anyone hire a cleaner without a masters degree?It also used to be a default option to only hire secretaries that only had double masters.

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

#564

Post by [deleted] »

koluna wrote: post #556

What’s being missed in this thread is that nobody (streamers) is an employee of Twitch - Twitch graciously offers them their platform, but that’s like your local fruit stand offering you a place to juggle next to it. They can take that away at any point because you are not their employee. If you had some legally enforceable contract, maybe there was a leg to stand on. Otherwise, twitch is under no obligation to give…

[deleted]

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

#565

Post by dudul »

omgwtfbbq wrote: post #459
tesmar2 wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, it’s not just money. By lowering the taxes and regulatory environment, you increase individual freedoms. That’s worth a lot to Americans.

Sure, the freedom to be murdered in a mass shooting or go bankrupt due to a basic medical issue. I think much of the world thinks that the American "System" is rather disturbing and callous.

And that's why nobody in the world wants to immigrate to the US.

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

#566

Post by madeofpalk »

tonfreed wrote: post #447

I don't have an issue with this in theory, but the problem with this kind of policy is that they never actually release a full set of rules to follow. I see a ton of breadtubers advocating for pedophilia and bestiality on Twitch itself sites, can guarantee those won't run afoul of the hidden rules. However, calling someone a simp is a bannable offense on Twitch now. Any company implementing this kind of rule now ulti…

Twitch has a reasonably thorough "community guidelines", a few pages https://www.twitch.tv/p/en/legal/community-guidelines/

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

#567

Post by wongarsu »

Pfhreak wrote: post #235
handoflixue wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm old enough to remember when "gay people are all pedophiles" was the mainstream position given by the New York Times. It was utterly unacceptable to endorse such perverts. I'm not so old to remember the arguments about how women are too emotional to be allowed to vote, or the ones about black people, but it was pretty unacceptable to come out in defense of either of those groups either. Why in the world would I be…

I think you are correct in that these tools will undoubtedly be used against progressive folks and minorities, as that's historically where they've been used. I believe that Twitch has too much power/authority, but also I believe that it's reasonable to moderate speech in communities and platforms. That said, I believe there's a material difference between examples and what was shared in the parent comment. I don't t…

Both "I think gay folks should have equal rights" and "America deserved 9/11" are fundamentally statements about ethics, and neither is calling for violence.

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

#568

Post by stale2002 »

danShumway wrote: post #165
Alupis wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. It would be a violation of the 1st Amendment to require Twitch to host objectionable content against their will. Freedom of association and freedom not to speak is part of the 1st Amendment. I am very doubtful a proposal that mandated that Twitch had to host certain streamers wo…

> It would be a violation of the 1st Amendment to require Twitch to host objectionable content against their will.

There are already communication companies that are basically forced to host content that they object to right?

Those are called common carrier laws, and they apply to things like the phone company, which are communication companies.

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

#569

Post by reificator »

koluna wrote: post #556

What’s being missed in this thread is that nobody (streamers) is an employee of Twitch - Twitch graciously offers them their platform, but that’s like your local fruit stand offering you a place to juggle next to it. They can take that away at any point because you are not their employee. If you had some legally enforceable contract, maybe there was a leg to stand on. Otherwise, twitch is under no obligation to give…

> If you had some legally enforceable contract, maybe there was a leg to stand on. Otherwise, twitch is under no obligation to give anyone a platform.

Twitch partners (I.E. most of the people who make a living on the platform) absolutely have a contract with Twitch. Twitch affiliates don't as far as I know, but those are (mostly) the people in the awkward stage between hobby and profession, and most of them are trying to achieve "partner" status.

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

#570

Post by eindiran »

tw04 wrote: post #240
chrisco255 wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And antitrust laws are designed precisely to prevent corporations from monopolizing and abusing market position. Freedom of speech means I have the right to hear from people I choose to assemble with. Monopolies dominating the market for speech and then dictating the terms of speech is an antitrust situation. Not least of which because by the same mechanisms they can use to silence political opponents they can use to…

That's apples and bananas. A more apt comparison would be: does your local newspaper HAVE to print anything you want on the front page? No? Then why should a social media site be forced to? Facebook doesn't control whether you pick up the phone and call your friend to voice your opinion. Twitter can't prevent you from driving to your local bar and telling your drinking buddies what you think of the president. Then ag…

> [Y]our freedom of speech doesn't mean [that] a business has to host you.

We are truly in uncharted waters at this point: historically, your newspaper comparison would have made sense, but it simply isn't applicable anymore.

At what point do we need to acknowledge that these platforms are the public square? When they control 99+% of online speech? When there is a worldwide quarantine meaning that people head to the internet to speak to each other, and meeting up isn't even an option? When being banned from one implies being banned from all of them?

Increasingly, there are difficult questions that we need to answer around this: Does this argument imply that even if all speech was transmitted through Facebook's servers, that wouldn't change the calculus around what "freedom of speech" means? How does this interface with laws worldwide? How does this interface with morals worldwide (the morality of the coastal US is not as universal as many people would like)? Is it morally acceptable for all businesses of a particular kind to collude wrt refusing to serve a particular person? Would it be morally acceptable for every business of every kind to collude wrt refusing to serve a particular person, whatever the reason?

Arguing from this place of finality by appealing to the way things currently work means that people get to ignore these questions. Not to mention that failing to look at changing circumstances is usually a bad idea: omnis conventio intelligitur rebus sic stantibus. This sort of argument generally reads a bit like rules lawyering to me: even if this is how the law works in letter today, it seems to be against the spirit of the law and broadly self-interested ('as long as the people getting banned are people I think deserve it, I'm all for letting the social media companies decide').

Post reply on HN