5 ms·

In 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 ago
You 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 ago
  Isn’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 ago
    That 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.
    - madeofpalk 6y ago
      Shouldn’t a TV station be able to decide whether they want to promote a pedophile?
      - weird-eye-issue 6y ago
        That is sort of the start of a strawman argument because Twitch bans for a lot of things, not just being a convicted pedophile. But even in that case I don't think it is fair to completely disallow somebody from appearing on a TV network. That also isn't what I would consider "promotion".
        madeofpalk 6y ago
        I don’t know if it’s a straw man when the actual policy this article is about mentions it > The company is currently defining “serious offenses” as incidents of violent extremism, credible threats of mass violence, membership in a known hate group, sexual exploitation of children, and nonconsensual sexual activities, among others.
        weird-eye-issue 6y ago
        That is for actions off of Twitch. You can get banned for actions on Twitch that are not bad at all or completely accidental
    - michaelmrose 6y ago
      Which effectively can also happen now. In fact the athlete is likely wealthy and will be ok despite his career crashing. This could in fact happen to the guy who waits on tables down town. If he became internet infamous and the tv station covers it the business he works at might be obliged to fire him.
    - romwell 6y ago
      >This is closer to a TV station banning somebody So the FCC won't let me be, or let me be me, so let me see... Yeah, TV stations (like MTV) have been banning people in the past too.
    - onethought 6y ago
      Like how Lance Armstrong was banned for from professional sport for life for "not a crime"?
      - weird-eye-issue 6y ago
        That was up to the sporting agencies though right? Not some third party network
        onethought 6y ago
        USADA is the definition of a third party is it not? He was banned from ALL sports, not just cycling. So it would be like Twitch banning you from YouTube as well.
        weird-eye-issue 6y ago
        Like I said it is a sporting agency. Not some TV network or something. Sports aren't forced to cooperate with USADA but they do it for the good of the sport. That doesn't apply with Twitch at all.
- rm_-rf_slash 6y ago
  I didn’t miss the point, I just have a different opinion.

You 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 ago
Isn’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 ago
  That 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.
  - madeofpalk 6y ago
    Shouldn’t a TV station be able to decide whether they want to promote a pedophile?
    - weird-eye-issue 6y ago
      That is sort of the start of a strawman argument because Twitch bans for a lot of things, not just being a convicted pedophile. But even in that case I don't think it is fair to completely disallow somebody from appearing on a TV network. That also isn't what I would consider "promotion".
      - madeofpalk 6y ago
        I don’t know if it’s a straw man when the actual policy this article is about mentions it > The company is currently defining “serious offenses” as incidents of violent extremism, credible threats of mass violence, membership in a known hate group, sexual exploitation of children, and nonconsensual sexual activities, among others.
        weird-eye-issue 6y ago
        That is for actions off of Twitch. You can get banned for actions on Twitch that are not bad at all or completely accidental
  - michaelmrose 6y ago
    Which effectively can also happen now. In fact the athlete is likely wealthy and will be ok despite his career crashing. This could in fact happen to the guy who waits on tables down town. If he became internet infamous and the tv station covers it the business he works at might be obliged to fire him.
  - romwell 6y ago
    >This is closer to a TV station banning somebody So the FCC won't let me be, or let me be me, so let me see... Yeah, TV stations (like MTV) have been banning people in the past too.
  - onethought 6y ago
    Like how Lance Armstrong was banned for from professional sport for life for "not a crime"?
    - weird-eye-issue 6y ago
      That was up to the sporting agencies though right? Not some third party network
      - onethought 6y ago
        USADA is the definition of a third party is it not? He was banned from ALL sports, not just cycling. So it would be like Twitch banning you from YouTube as well.
        weird-eye-issue 6y ago
        Like I said it is a sporting agency. Not some TV network or something. Sports aren't forced to cooperate with USADA but they do it for the good of the sport. That doesn't apply with Twitch at all.
rm_-rf_slash 6y ago
I didn’t miss the point, I just have a different opinion.