> I have no idea, but I also have no idea why you would expect me to have answer that. I apologize for being confusing. I wasn't trying to imply that you in pa

> I have no idea, but I also have no idea why you would expect me to have answer that. I apologize for being confusing. I wasn't trying to imply that you in particular should answer that question. I should have written something like, "In the greater context of trying to see if Twitch's tacit reasoning is logically consistent, I'm also curious how they'd deal with ...". > I am not even sure what disqualify the viewpoint is. Sorry again for being unclear. Some background, if you're interested: I'm working on the assumption that there are myriad things in our world that different people find offensive. There's (almost?) no ethical position on which 100% of humans agree. When companies pick which particular issues on which they'll take public positions, they're implying a few things: (1) That of all the issues that people have gripes with in the world, this issue is more important to the company than any of the issues on which they're not taking a position. (2) The people who agree with their position are right, and those who disagree with their position are wrong. To whit, when Twitch disallows showing the Confederate flag, I would say this disqualifies the viewpoint that it's a symbol primarily regarding states' rights. Sorry if "disqualify the viewpoint" isn't the best term. >And I also think that trying to frame all these conflicts solely through lens of "offense at some symbol" is reductive. I didn't mean to be reductive. My larger goal is to understand the implicit reasoning behind companies taking stances like this, and deciding at least for myself if those stances are internally consistent. When I talk about "taking offense at some symbol", it's one of my straw-man theories regarding the company's justification for proscribing a certain kind of speech on their platform. And TBH, what I truly suspect is that companies just try to accommodate whatever public sentiment / outrage is currently in vogue, and make public statements rationalizing that position rather than being honest about the arbitrariness of their posturing.