10 ms·

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 m

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?
- gjs278 6y ago
  would you say the same thing if twitch decided to ban black people
viraptor 6y ago
You're thinking of it like a legal process. Think of a private party instead - you're happy to invite lots of people, but everyone heard Adam was a real asshole to someone in public, so you don't want to have him at the party anymore (even though he was never bad at your previous parties specifically). It's a reasonable thing to do and you have about the same level of responsibility for your party as twitch has for their platform. You probably also don't care what the justice system thinks about the invitations to your party.
- refenestrator 6y ago
  I don't have the power to ban Adam from all parties. Twitch effectively does, in this case.
  - fwip 6y ago
    There are many services that let you livestream. Twitch is just one of the most popular.
  - viraptor 6y ago
    You mean they can ban someone from YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and all other services with live streaming option? That's not really the case.
    - refenestrator 6y ago
      There are posts elsewhere indicating that twitch is close to the only game in town for live game streaming. People were denied access to tournaments, not intending to stream or commentate themselves, because the tourney organizers wanted to stream on twitch. Sure, it's just video games, but we have to reckon in general with the consequences of an oligopoly that's 'just exercising control over their private property' when it adds up to most digital communications.
      - TameAntelope 6y ago
        If it’s important enough, the government should run it. Game live-streaming isn’t important enough.
slg 6y ago
>Held accountable by whom? We didn't elect twitch. Society. Don't like it, pick a new society like the two commenters you responded to you are considering. >Who decides who needs to be held accountable, and for what? Once again, society. >Shouldn't that be the justice system? The justice system is purposely setup in a way to make it difficult to punish people. This is good. We don't want the government throwing people in jail with flimsily excuses. However this allows a loophole for people to get away with a wide variety of crime and criminal like behavior which is obviously bad. How would you suggest these people are held accountable if it isn't through "cancel culture" which is basically just the modern equivalent of social shunning that various cultures have been doing for centuries?
- xupybd 6y ago
  Early American culture was designed to prevent this. Early pilgrims were persecuted by other Christian groups in Europe. So they built in ideas like religious freedoms to try to build a society that could accept differences of opinions. I'm not American but have a lot of respect for what they were trying to achieve. By all means have your group of close contacts that you shun when they step out of line but doing that society wide causes too many injustices.
  - slg 6y ago
    The idea that the Pilgrims came to America for religious freedom is mostly a fairy tale. But either way, there is a world a difference between shunning someone for exercising religious freedom and shunning someone who very likely committed sexual assault. EDIT: This is being downvoted. I'm not sure if it is the Pilgrims comments, so I will point people to the Wikipedia article and the second sentence which notes that the Pilgrims "fled religious persecution in England for the tolerance of 17th-century Holland in the Netherlands." They spent over a decade in Holland. They didn't come to America due to persecution because they already had religious freedom in Holland.[1] [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilgrims_(Plymouth_Colony) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilgrims_(Plymouth_Colony)
    - xupybd 6y ago
TameAntelope 6y ago
That’s what freedom is, you don’t get a say in what they do if they don’t want you to.

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?
gjs278 6y ago
would you say the same thing if twitch decided to ban black people

viraptor 6y ago

You're thinking of it like a legal process. Think of a private party instead - you're happy to invite lots of people, but everyone heard Adam was a real asshole to someone in public, so you don't want to have him at the party anymore (even though he was never bad at your previous parties specifically). It's a reasonable thing to do and you have about the same level of responsibility for your party as twitch has for their platform. You probably also don't care what the justice system thinks about the invitations to your party.

refenestrator 6y ago
I don't have the power to ban Adam from all parties. Twitch effectively does, in this case.
- fwip 6y ago
  There are many services that let you livestream. Twitch is just one of the most popular.
- viraptor 6y ago
  You mean they can ban someone from YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and all other services with live streaming option? That's not really the case.
  - refenestrator 6y ago
    There are posts elsewhere indicating that twitch is close to the only game in town for live game streaming. People were denied access to tournaments, not intending to stream or commentate themselves, because the tourney organizers wanted to stream on twitch. Sure, it's just video games, but we have to reckon in general with the consequences of an oligopoly that's 'just exercising control over their private property' when it adds up to most digital communications.
    - TameAntelope 6y ago
      If it’s important enough, the government should run it. Game live-streaming isn’t important enough.

slg 6y ago

>Held accountable by whom? We didn't elect twitch. Society. Don't like it, pick a new society like the two commenters you responded to you are considering. >Who decides who needs to be held accountable, and for what? Once again, society. >Shouldn't that be the justice system? The justice system is purposely setup in a way to make it difficult to punish people. This is good. We don't want the government throwing people in jail with flimsily excuses. However this allows a loophole for people to get away with a wide variety of crime and criminal like behavior which is obviously bad. How would you suggest these people are held accountable if it isn't through "cancel culture" which is basically just the modern equivalent of social shunning that various cultures have been doing for centuries?

xupybd 6y ago
Early American culture was designed to prevent this. Early pilgrims were persecuted by other Christian groups in Europe. So they built in ideas like religious freedoms to try to build a society that could accept differences of opinions. I'm not American but have a lot of respect for what they were trying to achieve. By all means have your group of close contacts that you shun when they step out of line but doing that society wide causes too many injustices.
- slg 6y ago
  The idea that the Pilgrims came to America for religious freedom is mostly a fairy tale. But either way, there is a world a difference between shunning someone for exercising religious freedom and shunning someone who very likely committed sexual assault. EDIT: This is being downvoted. I'm not sure if it is the Pilgrims comments, so I will point people to the Wikipedia article and the second sentence which notes that the Pilgrims "fled religious persecution in England for the tolerance of 17th-century Holland in the Netherlands." They spent over a decade in Holland. They didn't come to America due to persecution because they already had religious freedom in Holland.[1] [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilgrims_(Plymouth_Colony) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilgrims_(Plymouth_Colony)
  - xupybd 6y ago

TameAntelope 6y ago

That’s what freedom is, you don’t get a say in what they do if they don’t want you to.