9 ms·
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
by newbie789 6y ago
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. at my/the admin team’s discretion.
I can also ban you if I don’t like you. Or if I think it’s funny, or really any other reason.
I was happy, my mods and admins were happy and the users (aside from some banned grumps) were happy.
This is literally how the internet has worked forever. There are users, mods and admins on websites. Twitch is a website.
People getting into deep nuanced discussions about moral good and government over/underreach as an outlet for being angry at the mods never changes.
Note: I am not affiliated with twitch, nor have I ever been a user.
- BitwiseFool 6y ago>medium-large forum That's the key. You were not operating a massive media platform with a significant marketshare that many people use to make a living with.
- ed25519FUUU 6y agoExactly. The difference is a platform that controls 0.001% of the market and a platform which controls 90% of the market.
- z3ncyberpunk 6y agothat is a risk the people using platforms to make money with should have taken into account
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- gentleman11 6y agoIt’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
- hnbad 6y agoYouTube 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.
- maxerickson 6y agoWould it be okay to like segregate the misconduct accounts under a domain like shitbirds.twitch.tv? Then everybody would know that they were only providing them service under threat of government force.
- sthnblllII 6y agoIf they did that all the popular streamers would end up there pretty fast for microagressions. Lets not pretend this isnt political. I dont think billionaires should decide what is socially acceptable and what isnt.
- andybak 6y agoI think that works up to a certain scale but it's insufficient if you're Facebook or Twitter. Now - is Twitch more like those or is it more like "Bob's Forum"?
- ctdonath 6y agoThere is no bright line between Facebook and Bob’s Forum.
- throwaway0a5e 6y agoThere's no bright line between a wheelbarrow and a bulk freighter but even Hellen Keller could tell you they're very different.
- andybak 6y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox
- Retric 6y agoThere are several bright lines like having an engine.
- throwaway0a5e 6y agoThat's not a really bright line https://www.homedepot.com/p/YARDMAX-Powered-Wheelbarrow-YD4103/310622929 https://www.homedepot.com/p/YARDMAX-Powered-Wheelbarrow-YD41... Having a crew isn't a bright line either since two people will often manhandle a single heavy wheelbarrow. The brightest line is probably that a bulk freighter floats. Still it's a series of small incremental changes all the way from wheelbarrow to mining dump truck (then there's some lines you cross before you get to a bulk freighter) though which IMO still illustrates my point. We're kind of nit picking here though.
- Retric 6y ago
- ctdonath 6y agoThe freedom of the press does not include freedom to use another’s press. This is a hard lesson when a private press takes on near-monopoly scale by choice of clientele.
- dolni 6y agoThe problem with this for Twitch, specifically, is that Twitch involves money. Many people make streaming a career, and Twitch actively encourages this sort of behavior. At a normal workplace, while people _can_ simply be fired, they typically aren't. That sort of thing kills morale and may even result in protest resignations.
- originalvichy 6y agoI would say that many (not all) things Twitch has banned users would not be so far fetched as reasons for terminating employment. Aside from obvious non-comparable things that only pertain to online interactions, there is probably a great overlap between ”would I get warned/banned from Twitch” and ”would I get warned/fired at my job”.
- dagw 6y agoThe significant difference is I (assume) no one depended on your forum for earning a significant part of their income. Once you set yourself as a place where you want people come and earn money, then banning them, and thus depriving them of something of real monetary value, takes on and entire different set of nuances.
- otterley 6y agoBuilding your business on someone else's property subjects you to a material risk that the owner may someday kick you out. Being a responsible business owner means you recognize that risk and mitigate it as needed for business continuity, and have contingency plans in the event that it happens.
- ccn0p 6y agokind of agree with this statement in a free market sense, but the problem with these winner-take-most markets is there are often no reasonable alternatives.
- xyzzy_plugh 6y agoSure, but the more important factor in these sorts of relationships is that there is in fact usually a binding contract. Twitch refers to these as "Partners" who they have extended a contract to. While I am sure Twitch has the ability to sever that contract essentially at will, it doesn't mean they are exempt from legal repercussions of doing so.
- beaconstudios 6y agoI believe there's precedent for them severing a massive partner at will, in the case of Dr Disrespect.
- xyzzy_plugh 6y agoYes, but it's always always better to have a policy in place than to make one-off decisions.
- nsgi 6y ago> redirect to goatse upon login That's a rather shitty thing to do. I understand it has a warning now or doesn't exist or whatever, but no one should have to see it without their consent
- Rompect 6y agoPussy
- Dma54rhs 6y agoBut it's railroad tycoon discussing these tracks belong to me and rules are simple to a man who built a driveway. Your vbulletin and big megacorp websites don't compare on any level.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- echelon 6y agoThere 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.
- some_furry 6y ago> 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.
- proc0 6y agoI agree, once it's stated clearly, well it's clear and you are free to decide. The problem was the double standards, which should also be stated clearly.
- Causality1 6y agoWe really need a public utility alternative for electronic discussion and multimedia sharing. There's no argument that internet is an essential service so where's the internet post office?
- hallway_monitor 6y agoYou want government-run Internet or a government myspace? No, thank you.
- gh-throw 6y agoThis is what open protocols were for, but those stopped being viable when trapping users to spy on them became more valuable than selling good services and software.
- CBLT 6y agoTo add a little extra context to what other people are giving you: large, million-dollar digital tournaments stream on Twitch because they have no other choice if they want to reach viewers. ESL signed a deal with Facebook streaming that destroyed their viewership numbers because people go to Twitch to watch, not the website for the tournament. Organizers have clearly seen this and will not move their stream to another provider unless a large amount of money changes hands (like Facebook sponsoring ESL). Additionally, Twitch will not allow banned users to appear on other streams including tournament streams. There was a kerfluffle recently where a Twitch-banned player was also banned from a tournament they tried to compete in, solely because the tournament organizer didn't want to jeopardize their streamability. I hope I've impressed upon you that a Twitch ban is effectively a ban on all opportunities that involve money in the esports scene. There are incredibly few esports careers that could survive a Twitch ban, and not a single one would be unaffected.
- rm_-rf_slash 6y agoIn a way you have affirmed parent’s point: it’s the shareholders’ website, and they can mod it as they wish.
- weird-eye-issue 6y agoYou just completely missed the point. Everyone knows who's website it is and that they "can" mod it as they wish. But at a certain scale some moral and ethical questions come into play.
- onethought 6y agoIsn’t this just like other sports, where a star is pilloried for some indiscretion outside of their sport which can result in them being dropped from a team etc?
- weird-eye-issue 6y agoThat is up to the team though. This is closer to a TV station banning somebody so now they can't compete in a sport that will be broadcast on that station, forcing the team to kick them off.
- LudwigNagasena 6y agoAt some point a website stops being just a website and becomes a social institution in itself. And with great power comes great responsibility.
- Goronmon 6y agoThat's a easy statement to make until you actually try to define what "some point" actually means.
- LudwigNagasena 6y agoWe agree that kids become adults at 18 and no one has a big problem with this. I don’t believe demarcating this “some point” is far more complicated.
- edoceo 6y agoPlease do it then. What is this mark? 80% of TAM? Revenue over $250k/yr/employee? 10000 users?
- LudwigNagasena 6y agoWe can start with companies with a market cap over $1bln for example. And tinker the policy based on empirical data.
- esyir 6y agoSure, 1 million users. You're free to quibble with the specifics, but there's your magical mark.
- ceejayoz 6y ago> We agree that kids become adults at 18 and no one has a big problem with this. We don’t, though. Can’t drink until 21. Rental cars and credit cards have extra restrictions until 25. Etc.
- 6y ago
- jcranmer 6y agoFor people who are saying "but losing Twitch kills your career": In the entertainment industry in general, facing repercussions (including being unable to get any gigs whatsoever) for your actions outside of direct involvement in entertainment has long been the norm. There are several recent examples that people attribute to cancel culture, but the problem goes all the way back at least as far as the 1940s (see the Hollywood blacklist during McCarthyism). Why should people who stream on Twitch be immune to pressures that those who work for Hollywood have to endure?
- ImprovedSilence 6y agoYou are using the mcarthy blacklist as precedent for banning peoples ability to participate in a social setting. As far as im concerned, since forever that has been used as a reason to question and challenge censorship.
- dkarras 6y agoI own Twitch. Can't I just shut it down if I wanted? Or should I be forced to stay open after becoming really popular because shutting it down would prevent millions of people's participation in a social setting?
- josephcsible 6y agoIf you shut it down, competitors would immediately spring up and become way more popular. If you "just" ban someone you don't like, that won't happen.
- jamnik 6y agoOf course you can’t. It is illegal for you to shut down your own business just because you feel like it. It is illegal to make decisions that hurt your own business purposefully. You can get prosecuted fined and/or improsoned for willfully destroying your own business. You can sell it if you dont like it so much. Moreover, one can cłami that social settings should be regarded as utilities. It is illegal for utilities like electric companies to shut down service on their paying customers. Will end up exactly the same with FANG companies. Why? Because people are growing increasingly tired of being regulated by some stupid websites and politicians will eventually notice this.
- ttt0 6y ago> I can also ban you if I don’t like you. Or if I think it’s funny, or really any other reason. Yeah, just like a game server admin that banned you simply because he lost to you in a game. Everyone loved them. Just because you can abuse your powers doesn't mean you should. If social media that are influencing the outcome of the elections (reminder that we're in the middle of Covid lockdowns) are not aware that they shouldn't abuse their powers then it's time for the government to step in.
- YarickR2 6y agoDoes it ("social media influencing elections->government should step in") also apply to traditional media ?
- ttt0 6y agoBoth "social media" and "traditional media" are called "media", but it's not really the same thing. I assume by traditional media you mean something like newspapers or whatever, but social media is more akin to a telephone company, as it's a mean of communication between people. If a telephone company was just censoring anything they don't like then my answer would be yes. But to take your question literally, no, I don't think it's necessary.
- valparaiso 6y agoSame with Apple and its policies regarding closed platform (walled garden). But with such analogy people will go mad. Hypocrisy at its best.
- api 6y agoIt's becoming a big issue because there are people trying to actually make a living being superstars and/or trolls on these platforms, and because they've become a vehicle for large scale political propaganda. There's money and power involved now, and that changes everything. That being said I agree that the argument is disingenuous. Freedom of speech is a human right. The use of someone else's platform on which to speak is not.
- bryanrasmussen 6y ago>medium-large forum back in the vBulletin heyday of the early 2000 how many people were on such a forum, and how many of such forums were there out there to get on?
- fsociety 6y agoGetting banned from Twitch can have serious career consequences for streamers and potential streamers. I think the real issue is being banned and not having a reliable appeals process to go through. The appeals process takes long enough that it can tank your viewership.
- babesh 6y agoWhy stop at websites? Why shouldn't airlines, hotels, banks, apartments, stores, and private universities ban whoever they like? How about creating a rule banning people who dye their hair blue?
- germinalphrase 6y agoThere is - of course - rules around this. Certain qualities like race and sex are protected classes against which you cannot discriminate. To your example - a nightclub very well might discriminate against someone with blue hair.
- babesh 6y agoPolitical speech is not a protected class.
- germinalphrase 6y agoThis is correct.
- yifanl 6y agoI have to ask, what is the point you are trying to argue? That it shouldn't ever be possible to enforce rules on internet communities?
- babesh 6y agoYou should not have rules for behavior outside your community. Second, your rules should be restricted to actions that have an effect on your community.
- commandlinefan 6y ago> Here are some clear rules That will change arbitrarily and become more and more vague over time as the people you ideologically disagree with become better at obeying the "letter of the law". But you're right, it's your website, and (at least for now) somebody else is free to start up a competing website that picks up the users you're throwing away.
- cosmodisk 6y agoBeing an administrator/moderator is a big responsibly. Sure, if it's a small time forum, maybe nothing really bad would happen if someone gets banned,well you know, because you wanted that way. However, different platforms can have a detrimental impact on ones life, including employment, status in the society and so on. The worst part? You don't start measuring the throne of power immediately, you gradually descend into it. You start normalizing things you couldn't just a few months ago. I know from my own work that ultimate access and control of everything can poison most. You get these little challenges every now and then and you get tested, and eventually, depending on one's nature, you either say 'screw this,I'm not doing it' or you become a despot.
- rodgerd 6y agoIt's funny how many people here suddenly want to control the means of production when the boss wants to ban Nazis or pedos instead of unions. (If you think I'm exaggerating, Twitch has had a huge run of prominent streamers outed for raping minors, grooming, and the like, and much of the terrible behavior has happened via Discord. Which will be why Twitch are keen to make it clear that you can't say "oh I was grooming on Discord, none of your business.)
- dang 6y agoPlease stop posting ideological flamewar comments to HN. You've been doing it repeatedly and it's not what this site is for, regardless of what ideology you favor. We've warned you about this repeatedly. We ban accounts that ignore such requests. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and fix this, we'd appreciate it.
- wnevets 6y agoEveryone feels entitled to host their content on others platforms for free.
- asah 6y agomedium-large is not the same as dominant, where users don't have a choice but to engage, e.g. to be competitive in their industry.
- tenaciousDaniel 6y agoWhile that’s true, you’re speaking to an earlier time in the internet. Today, the internet has evolved into a two layered system, where a centralized “social” layer (for lack of a better term) sits on top of the underlying decentralized layer. Today, anything of consequence happens on the top layer. You can still run a forum on your own, just like you did in the 90’s. Barely anyone will join. Yes, Twitch is a private company and can do what it wants. Of course they can. But it only takes a few platforms to completely erase a person from any significant social digital interaction. It’s not a good thing.
- Thorentis 6y agoOh look, another "but it's a private company" defence of this behaviour. Imagine a town with a single supermarket. The closest next town is a 10 hour drive away. A certain individual commits a crime, and is punished for it by the local authorities. The supermarket then decides that they are going to ban this individual from their store because of "severe misconduct" in the community. Is this fair? Obviously, Twitch is not the "only" platform online for streaming, but in the past few years we've seen rapid siloing of content and serviced around a few platforms. Defending the actions of these platforms simply further entrenches their roles as the de facto platform for their particular service, making competition even harder.
- wpietri 6y agoThat's not an argument against moderation. That's an argument against monopolies and oligopolies. Banning a guy from the store isn't even in the top 10 worst things that will be going wrong in that scenario.
- josephcsible 6y agoOkay, that's another way to fix the problem then: break Twitch up into 100 baby Twitches, and don't let anyone have ownership/stake/control of more than one of them. If all 100 decide to ban someone, they probably deserve to be banned, and if they don't, then the person can keep streaming on one that didn't.
- exporectomy 6y agoNo because the same social and economic pressures may apply to all of them. That's exactly what used to happen to black tenants when all of the "100 baby landlords" decided to ban them. It doesn't mean they probably deserved to be banned, it's that there was a systemic problem that couldn't be fixed simply by having competition. We already see this with politically unpopular people being banned from all popular social media sites, despite them being separate companies with different owners.
- 6y ago
- Rompect 6y ago> redirect to goatse upon login Okay, that is actually a great idea
- nostromo 6y agoThis isn’t comparable. You weren’t one of five or so corporations that control the majority of communication on the entire web. Oligopoly changes the equation and requires more oversight, just as your backyard garden might not require regulation like an industrial food producer would.
- coffeemug 6y agoThis attitude doesn't translate to market conditions governed by power law winner-takes-all dynamics.
- zouhair 6y ago> This is literally how the internet has worked forever. I don't know what specific fallacy is this, but stating that how it always worked does not mean it should have worked that way or that it should never change. Twitch would not exists without content creators. Neither would exist without the other. In that relationship Twitch has the last word on everything. I would argue that it shouldn't be this way or at least not this one sided. Content creators should have a say on Twitch's decisions.
- pc86 6y agoWhy though? They don't own Twitch. They didn't take any of the economic risk to start it. They're not on the hook for covering its server bills if revenue craters. If they wanted to put their money where their mouth is and buy a piece of the company proper, the current owners might be open to that, who knows. But you don't typically get to run a company you didn't start, haven't invested a dime in, and can walk away from at any moment, unless you're willing to take on some of the risk. Risk is what gets you the rewards.
- zouhair 6y ago> They don't own Twitch. They didn't take any of the economic risk to start it. They're not on the hook for covering its server bills if revenue craters. And yet with all the money in the World Twitch will close doors if all streamers stop streaming. Twitch is literally nothing without the streamers.
- Mandatum 6y agoIf companies policies and media bites were as clear as a forum moderators, we wouldn't see the same backlash. But because they all subscribe to the corporate koolaid, they make claims about being inclusive and a bastion of free speech - they're shooting themselves in the foot. If Twitch came out and said "I pay the bills, I facilitate your ad revenue - if I don't want you on the platform it's my decision to kick you off and I'll do it whenever I want" .. People would be up in arms and they'd be attacked, but they also wouldn't have to keep up this charade. People getting banned wouldn't have an avenue to complain. But I guess being a US company there's also litigious reasons they have to worry about that some rinky dink forum wouldn't need to..
- coryrc 6y agoQuantity has a quality all its own. You had, what, 0.01% of the market? It's a lot different when you have >50% (or, well, used to be).
- wang_li 6y agoIf, instead of being a streaming platform, twitch instead baked cakes. Would you still say they can exclude anyone they want for any reason? Or would you say that you’re limited in the choices you can make once you engage in public commerce like most every other type of business.