8 ms·

I think it's an interesting consequence of accountability, that the people being held accountable tend to vocally dislike being held accountable, but don't want

I think it's an interesting consequence of accountability, that the people being held accountable tend to vocally dislike being held accountable, but don't want to say so for some reason. It'd honestly be pretty refreshing for a leader to come out and say, "I don't think my actions should be held against me like your actions should be held against you because I'm special/different." Insane, but refreshingly honest. For what it's worth, I'm increasingly with you re: leaving the US, for what basically amount to the opposite reason. I'm tired of people not being responsible for themselves, their actions, and the outcomes that happen beyond the first order consequences.

kodah 6y ago
I think people generally mention accountability when it suits them, specifically when it suits their group morals. Accountability to me is that the government teaches them a lesson, some company doesn't need to jump in line to punish them for me to feel satiated -- that job is done by the government. Moral communities are just that though, tiny groups that would like to exercise their power and worldliness on others in pursuit of their utopian society free from democracy and government oversight. Having come from a repressive religion, I have no argument against why this paradigm is flawed, but maybe it takes the eyes of someone who has lived that to see it.
- TameAntelope 6y ago
  So you think companies are acting in a moral interest and not in perceived financial interest?
  - kodah 6y ago
    I think the financial interest is connected to moral interest.
    - TameAntelope 6y ago
      The responsibility starts to fuzz when you try to follow that thread. It's clearly with the company executing the decision to remove someone from their platform, but trying to decipher whether or not what they're doing is a financial or moral decision (despite their claims, that's part of the financial choice) becomes fairly pointless. If you want to rail against a changing society, that seems like a waste of time. If you want to rail against a specific set of companies who have acted in a specific way, I think that's more productive and addressable.
refenestrator 6y ago
Held accountable by whom? We didn't elect twitch. Who decides who needs to be held accountable, and for what? Shouldn't that be the justice system? Twitch mentioned proactively banning people who are arrested, without using the word 'convicted'. Which demographics is that likely to affect?
- CharlesW 6y ago
  Twitch is a private company (Amazon). Simply don't use it if you don't like it's ToS, or otherwise disagree with how it handles relationships with the creators who've agreed to it.
  - refenestrator 6y ago
    If you're going to go corporate libertarian, that's consistent. But when this line comes from people claiming to speak for the downtrodden against the oppressors, I start wondering which of those is the trillion dollar corporation with a monopoly in the space.
    - floatingatoll 6y ago
      The parent comment you're replying to notes, correctly, that the behaviors you label "corporate libertarian" are the choices available today. It's not valid to infer and label the beliefs of the poster of that comment for describing these choices under the current US situation, even if those choices seems unjust and cruel, as it's entirely possible they don't agree, or they have more nuanced beliefs, or maybe they're just bitter today for reasons wholly unrelated to the topic at hand. You could instead indicate that what they describe is precisely the circumstance you wish to change (you do wish to change that, right?), and maybe you could even go into detail how you'd change it (would you pass new laws? what would they say?), and what approach you think would be effective for making that happen. Anything along those lines would be valuable and relevant.
  - floatingatoll 6y ago
    Describing the options available currently today is not a helpful contribution here, and seems intended to silence discussion of something considered unjust by others. Beyond the facts you've cited — as a private company, Amazon owes no duty of 'guaranteed platform' whatsoever — is there anything else you're able to contribute to this discussion? What are your views? Do you agree or disagree with the "simple" circumstances you cite? Do you consider Twitch's actions likely to promote injustice against minorities?
gotoeleven 6y ago
Yeah I get your point. Like those witches in Salem, they really didn't like being held accountable for performing witchcraft.
- krapp 6y ago
  The "witches" in Salem weren't actually witches. Racist and violent assholes on social media trying to drape themselves in the false flag of liberty are still racist, violent assholes.
  - filoleg 6y ago
    I think the parent comment is trying to point out that the people who were deciding who was a "witch" in Salem back then could be the same type of people who are deciding what counts as "racist" or "hate speech" these days when it comes to "canceling" others.
    - krapp 6y ago
      Yes, practically everything every social media platform has done over nearly the last decade which anyone has ever disagreed with has been equated to Nazism, Stalinism, Orwellian dystopia or the Salem Witch trials. The slippery slope fallacy is very popular, especially on Hacker News.
  - insert_coin 6y ago
    There is no false flag of liberty, that is an oxymoron. Liberty is having the right to offend people, that’s what it means.
    - krapp 6y ago
      And if you exercise your right to offend people in my establishment, I have the right to toss you onto the pavement. Liberty is a two-edged sword, which is something a lot of people seem to have forgotten.
rsj_hn 6y ago
Since when has BLM or antifa been held accountable for anything? BLM alone murdered over 30 policemen and several civilians. They pulled a dead body out of one of the burned out buildings in Minneapolis after the violent left-wing riots there. Antifa murdered 9 in Dayton and injured over 20 others, they stormed multiple government buildings and attacked government officials and police. Who is held accountable for promoting violence against ICE, disclosing the home addresses of the police and shooting at their facilities?
- kodah 6y ago
  I'll try to be mature about my response to this too. Blaming BLM for the acts of individuals is tantamount to blaming the right for the acts of people who organized in private groups on a public platform. Both sides will claim that the other has stoked fear, hate, and division to various degrees in a myriad of ways. I tend to agree with both, but I also realize that the people really responsible are likely at the top of a chain that laypeople can't even perceive. If we're to undo the damage that Russia has done to this country I think it starts in that understanding. Then and only then do we have armor to fight a nation hell bent on destroying things like ethos.
lmm 6y ago
"We can ban anyone at will for any reason or none" (which is what this kind of policy amounts to) is corrosive to actual accountability. Twitch are appointing themselves as judge, jury and executioner; there's no evidentiary standard, no right of appeal, no procedural safeguards. It's the same kind of "accountability" as the Star Chamber - a way for the strong to impose their will on the weak.
- nine_k 6y ago
  Twitch is a private company. You are free to not use their services (which may be a good idea).
  - lmm 6y ago
    Limited-liability companies are an unnatural, artificial privilege; perhaps we should tolerate them when they serve some social purpose, but they should be held accountable like any other government-backed entity (since that is in fact what they are). More to the point, pragmatically the likes of twitch are harder to avoid than many national governments.

kodah 6y ago

I think people generally mention accountability when it suits them, specifically when it suits their group morals. Accountability to me is that the government teaches them a lesson, some company doesn't need to jump in line to punish them for me to feel satiated -- that job is done by the government. Moral communities are just that though, tiny groups that would like to exercise their power and worldliness on others in pursuit of their utopian society free from democracy and government oversight. Having come from a repressive religion, I have no argument against why this paradigm is flawed, but maybe it takes the eyes of someone who has lived that to see it.

TameAntelope 6y ago
So you think companies are acting in a moral interest and not in perceived financial interest?
- kodah 6y ago
  I think the financial interest is connected to moral interest.
  - TameAntelope 6y ago
    The responsibility starts to fuzz when you try to follow that thread. It's clearly with the company executing the decision to remove someone from their platform, but trying to decipher whether or not what they're doing is a financial or moral decision (despite their claims, that's part of the financial choice) becomes fairly pointless. If you want to rail against a changing society, that seems like a waste of time. If you want to rail against a specific set of companies who have acted in a specific way, I think that's more productive and addressable.

refenestrator 6y ago

Held accountable by whom? We didn't elect twitch. Who decides who needs to be held accountable, and for what? Shouldn't that be the justice system? Twitch mentioned proactively banning people who are arrested, without using the word 'convicted'. Which demographics is that likely to affect?

CharlesW 6y ago
Twitch is a private company (Amazon). Simply don't use it if you don't like it's ToS, or otherwise disagree with how it handles relationships with the creators who've agreed to it.
- refenestrator 6y ago
  If you're going to go corporate libertarian, that's consistent. But when this line comes from people claiming to speak for the downtrodden against the oppressors, I start wondering which of those is the trillion dollar corporation with a monopoly in the space.
  - floatingatoll 6y ago
    The parent comment you're replying to notes, correctly, that the behaviors you label "corporate libertarian" are the choices available today. It's not valid to infer and label the beliefs of the poster of that comment for describing these choices under the current US situation, even if those choices seems unjust and cruel, as it's entirely possible they don't agree, or they have more nuanced beliefs, or maybe they're just bitter today for reasons wholly unrelated to the topic at hand. You could instead indicate that what they describe is precisely the circumstance you wish to change (you do wish to change that, right?), and maybe you could even go into detail how you'd change it (would you pass new laws? what would they say?), and what approach you think would be effective for making that happen. Anything along those lines would be valuable and relevant.
- floatingatoll 6y ago
  Describing the options available currently today is not a helpful contribution here, and seems intended to silence discussion of something considered unjust by others. Beyond the facts you've cited — as a private company, Amazon owes no duty of 'guaranteed platform' whatsoever — is there anything else you're able to contribute to this discussion? What are your views? Do you agree or disagree with the "simple" circumstances you cite? Do you consider Twitch's actions likely to promote injustice against minorities?

gotoeleven 6y ago

Yeah I get your point. Like those witches in Salem, they really didn't like being held accountable for performing witchcraft.

krapp 6y ago
The "witches" in Salem weren't actually witches. Racist and violent assholes on social media trying to drape themselves in the false flag of liberty are still racist, violent assholes.
- filoleg 6y ago
  I think the parent comment is trying to point out that the people who were deciding who was a "witch" in Salem back then could be the same type of people who are deciding what counts as "racist" or "hate speech" these days when it comes to "canceling" others.
  - krapp 6y ago
    Yes, practically everything every social media platform has done over nearly the last decade which anyone has ever disagreed with has been equated to Nazism, Stalinism, Orwellian dystopia or the Salem Witch trials. The slippery slope fallacy is very popular, especially on Hacker News.
- insert_coin 6y ago
  There is no false flag of liberty, that is an oxymoron. Liberty is having the right to offend people, that’s what it means.
  - krapp 6y ago
    And if you exercise your right to offend people in my establishment, I have the right to toss you onto the pavement. Liberty is a two-edged sword, which is something a lot of people seem to have forgotten.

rsj_hn 6y ago

Since when has BLM or antifa been held accountable for anything? BLM alone murdered over 30 policemen and several civilians. They pulled a dead body out of one of the burned out buildings in Minneapolis after the violent left-wing riots there. Antifa murdered 9 in Dayton and injured over 20 others, they stormed multiple government buildings and attacked government officials and police. Who is held accountable for promoting violence against ICE, disclosing the home addresses of the police and shooting at their facilities?

kodah 6y ago
I'll try to be mature about my response to this too. Blaming BLM for the acts of individuals is tantamount to blaming the right for the acts of people who organized in private groups on a public platform. Both sides will claim that the other has stoked fear, hate, and division to various degrees in a myriad of ways. I tend to agree with both, but I also realize that the people really responsible are likely at the top of a chain that laypeople can't even perceive. If we're to undo the damage that Russia has done to this country I think it starts in that understanding. Then and only then do we have armor to fight a nation hell bent on destroying things like ethos.

lmm 6y ago

"We can ban anyone at will for any reason or none" (which is what this kind of policy amounts to) is corrosive to actual accountability. Twitch are appointing themselves as judge, jury and executioner; there's no evidentiary standard, no right of appeal, no procedural safeguards. It's the same kind of "accountability" as the Star Chamber - a way for the strong to impose their will on the weak.

nine_k 6y ago
Twitch is a private company. You are free to not use their services (which may be a good idea).
- lmm 6y ago
  Limited-liability companies are an unnatural, artificial privilege; perhaps we should tolerate them when they serve some social purpose, but they should be held accountable like any other government-backed entity (since that is in fact what they are). More to the point, pragmatically the likes of twitch are harder to avoid than many national governments.