6 ms·

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 ther

by Alupis 6y ago

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 organizations that hunt down individuals and silence them for thoughts expressed on other platforms.

Judgmentality 6y ago
> I can think of fewer things less inline with classical American Constitutional ideals than to cheer on organizations that hunt down individuals and silence them for thoughts expressed on other platforms. The moderation team of twitch is pretty much universally hated by the internet. I don't think anybody is cheering them on.
- Alupis 6y ago
  Twitch is just the latest organization to jump onto the political silence bandwagon.
  - Jonnax 6y ago
    Personally I find it hilarious that American conservatives who have for decades been advocates of silencing people for things like being against wars, sex/violence in music/film/video games, and homosexuality, are now campaigning on being victims of the "cancel culture" they themselves have advocated for.
    - Alupis 6y ago
      I wonder if you're confusing public debate and a vocal minority with actual bans of things? I'm not aware of any actually banned video games in the US, for instance. We should talk about those things in public - and not everyone will agree. That's how it's supposed to be. It's brand new, however, to wield the power to literally cut off your political enemies from more than half of the population with a single click of the mouse.
      - coldpie 6y ago
        > It's brand new, however, to wield the power to literally cut off your political enemies from more than half of the population with a single click of the mouse. Indeed. The remedy here is to enforce anti-trust laws.
      - reaperducer 6y ago
        I'm not aware of any actually banned video games in the US, for instance. There was an Atari 2600 game that involved rape which was banned in some community on Long Island. That's the only one i can think of.
        Alupis 6y ago
        Interesting, however I doubt this community had any mechanism to actually ban the game, other than just saying they disapprove. Kind of like the "banned books" we all read in high school.
      - Jonnax 6y ago
        Some schools banned Harry Potter in America. Also this article states that Twitch that the misconduct is this: "It said examples of this “severe misconduct” include terrorist activities, child sexual exploitation, violent extremism, credible threats of mass violence, carrying out or deliberately acting as an accomplice to sexual assault and threatening Twitch or its staff." Which one of these are just political opinions?
        hallway_monitor 6y ago
        Well, they already call out terrorist activities, which makes me wonder what "violent extremism" refers to. Maybe something as simple as taking a hard line against abortion and peacefully holding a sign outside a clinic could be considered violently extreme?
        Alupis 6y ago
        No public schools banned Harry Potter, because they cannot do so. And a private school "banning" a book isn't an actual ban. You could still purchase and read the book if you desired.
jb775 6y ago
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.
- clairity 6y ago
  i don't buy into the cancel culture meme, but what you're describing is exactly how accumulating power exerts itself to eradicate dissent. it happens with every form of governance throughout time once a tipping point of consolidation is reached (which is why i don't buy into this meme, because it's only a specific and ultimately a distracting manifestation of this larger phenomenon).
- ativzzz 6y ago
  Nah, it's money motivated. The less controversy there is with Twitch streamers, the more easily they can negotiate ad deals and make money.
danShumway 6y ago
> 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 would survive a court challenge. This is like looking at declining church membership and arguing that the only way to preserve Freedom of Religion is to mandate that everyone needs to go to church. And there are ways to attack censorship that don't require throwing out the Constitution. Ways like antitrust, like expanding Internet access and building infrastructure to make self-hosting easier, like providing government-run alternatives to certain services like financial payment networks -- services that would be subject to the 1st Amendment. We could revise copyright so it's easier to build content mirroring sites and migrate people off of social media/streaming sites into other services. We could revise the CFAA so that it's easier to build migration tools without getting sued by Facebook. We could start putting even a tiny bit of effort into not allowing Amazon/Apple/Google to look at new markets that are attractive and just buy the entire space. I don't think you're mad that Twitch is moderating, Twitch has to moderate to some degree. You're mad that there are realistically only 2-3 usable streaming services and that our Internet infrastructure and Internet laws are set up in such a way as to encourage that kind of consolidation, to allow companies like Amazon to buy anyone who competes with them, and to sue anyone who builds compatible wrappers and services in a way that might make it easier to migrate off of Twitch. And sometimes I bring up antitrust and decentralization and people accuse me of not being realistic, but honestly, does anyone really believe that antitrust is harder than passing a Constitutional amendment? Because it's not, antitrust doesn't require 38 states to ratify it. I genuinely do not understand the point of view that looks at mass media consolidation and says that revising the 1st Amendment is a preferable alternative to breaking up Amazon.
- stale2002 6y ago
  > 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.

by Alupis 6y ago

Judgmentality 6y ago

> I can think of fewer things less inline with classical American Constitutional ideals than to cheer on organizations that hunt down individuals and silence them for thoughts expressed on other platforms. The moderation team of twitch is pretty much universally hated by the internet. I don't think anybody is cheering them on.

Alupis 6y ago
Twitch is just the latest organization to jump onto the political silence bandwagon.
- Jonnax 6y ago
  Personally I find it hilarious that American conservatives who have for decades been advocates of silencing people for things like being against wars, sex/violence in music/film/video games, and homosexuality, are now campaigning on being victims of the "cancel culture" they themselves have advocated for.
  - Alupis 6y ago
    I wonder if you're confusing public debate and a vocal minority with actual bans of things? I'm not aware of any actually banned video games in the US, for instance. We should talk about those things in public - and not everyone will agree. That's how it's supposed to be. It's brand new, however, to wield the power to literally cut off your political enemies from more than half of the population with a single click of the mouse.
    - coldpie 6y ago
      > It's brand new, however, to wield the power to literally cut off your political enemies from more than half of the population with a single click of the mouse. Indeed. The remedy here is to enforce anti-trust laws.
    - reaperducer 6y ago
      I'm not aware of any actually banned video games in the US, for instance. There was an Atari 2600 game that involved rape which was banned in some community on Long Island. That's the only one i can think of.
      - Alupis 6y ago
        Interesting, however I doubt this community had any mechanism to actually ban the game, other than just saying they disapprove. Kind of like the "banned books" we all read in high school.
    - Jonnax 6y ago
      Some schools banned Harry Potter in America. Also this article states that Twitch that the misconduct is this: "It said examples of this “severe misconduct” include terrorist activities, child sexual exploitation, violent extremism, credible threats of mass violence, carrying out or deliberately acting as an accomplice to sexual assault and threatening Twitch or its staff." Which one of these are just political opinions?
      - hallway_monitor 6y ago
        Well, they already call out terrorist activities, which makes me wonder what "violent extremism" refers to. Maybe something as simple as taking a hard line against abortion and peacefully holding a sign outside a clinic could be considered violently extreme?
      - Alupis 6y ago
        No public schools banned Harry Potter, because they cannot do so. And a private school "banning" a book isn't an actual ban. You could still purchase and read the book if you desired.

jb775 6y ago

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.

clairity 6y ago
i don't buy into the cancel culture meme, but what you're describing is exactly how accumulating power exerts itself to eradicate dissent. it happens with every form of governance throughout time once a tipping point of consolidation is reached (which is why i don't buy into this meme, because it's only a specific and ultimately a distracting manifestation of this larger phenomenon).
ativzzz 6y ago
Nah, it's money motivated. The less controversy there is with Twitch streamers, the more easily they can negotiate ad deals and make money.

danShumway 6y ago

> 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 would survive a court challenge. This is like looking at declining church membership and arguing that the only way to preserve Freedom of Religion is to mandate that everyone needs to go to church. And there are ways to attack censorship that don't require throwing out the Constitution. Ways like antitrust, like expanding Internet access and building infrastructure to make self-hosting easier, like providing government-run alternatives to certain services like financial payment networks -- services that would be subject to the 1st Amendment. We could revise copyright so it's easier to build content mirroring sites and migrate people off of social media/streaming sites into other services. We could revise the CFAA so that it's easier to build migration tools without getting sued by Facebook. We could start putting even a tiny bit of effort into not allowing Amazon/Apple/Google to look at new markets that are attractive and just buy the entire space. I don't think you're mad that Twitch is moderating, Twitch has to moderate to some degree. You're mad that there are realistically only 2-3 usable streaming services and that our Internet infrastructure and Internet laws are set up in such a way as to encourage that kind of consolidation, to allow companies like Amazon to buy anyone who competes with them, and to sue anyone who builds compatible wrappers and services in a way that might make it easier to migrate off of Twitch. And sometimes I bring up antitrust and decentralization and people accuse me of not being realistic, but honestly, does anyone really believe that antitrust is harder than passing a Constitutional amendment? Because it's not, antitrust doesn't require 38 states to ratify it. I genuinely do not understand the point of view that looks at mass media consolidation and says that revising the 1st Amendment is a preferable alternative to breaking up Amazon.

stale2002 6y ago
> 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.