5 ms·

>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. >W

by 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
    I think we will have to agree to disagree on the history of the Pilgrims. I don't think there is a world of difference between the two. You are shunning someone because it is very likely the did something wrong. If that is your close friend and you think they did it, then it's probably a good idea to shun them. The hope is that they will see they did something wrong, own up and change. This makes the world a better place. Some person on the internet that has been accused of doing something wrong could be black listed from online life, but what does that achieve? We don't even know if they did it? Then what happens when someone changes their ways and becomes a better person? Do we keep them blacklisted? This seems to be the way we are operating.
    - slg 6y ago
      There are plenty of sources that agree with me on the Pilgrims.[1][2][3] Almost no one is "cancelled" permanently. Maybe they go away for a few months or years, but they almost always are able to resume some sort of normal life eventually. It is much less severe than a jail sentence. If they truly do reform and become a better person, that usually speeds up the process, but it is rarely an actual requirement. [1] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-the-pilgrims/2013/11/22/9f93e822-52c1-11e3-9e2c-e1d01116fd98_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-the... [2] - https://www.history.com/news/why-pilgrims-came-to-america-mayflower https://www.history.com/news/why-pilgrims-came-to-america-ma... [3] - https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/americas-true-history-of-religious-tolerance-61312684/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/americas-true-history...
    - vvvvgood633 6y ago
      > Then what happens when someone changes their ways and becomes a better person? Do we keep them blacklisted? This seems to be the way we are operating. Right. Twitter hands out lifetime bans. I was very encouraged this week by Justice Thomas’ opinions on monopolistic platforms. https://www.npr.org/2021/04/05/984440891/justice-clarence-thomas-takes-aims-at-tech-and-its-power-to-cut-off-speech https://www.npr.org/2021/04/05/984440891/justice-clarence-th...
  - eschaton 6y ago
refenestrator 6y ago
'Society' by how thick a margin? 80%? 50.1%? Less? What if the decision-makers at twitch represent 'society' less than they think they do?
- slg 6y ago
  There is no set percentage, but if the decision makers at Twitch don't represent society, there is nothing stopping a Twitch competitor from sprouting up that is more in line with society's morals.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - refenestrator 6y ago
    I'd submit for your consideration that there's quite a lot stopping someone from just starting a twitch competitor. Even beyond the tech challenges, there are thousands of posts out there describing the network effect and trend towards winner-takes-all in a given social networking market. I'm honestly curious about the mindset that leads one to just say 'nothing stopping you, make your own twitch, no biggie'. Is it lack of sympathy for those cast out? Idealistic belief in free markets and meritocracy? Genuine belief that it's easy? What's the underlying angle?
    - CyberDildonics 6y ago
      Now you're moving the goal posts from "able to broadcast yourself" to "starting a twitch competitor. Then you're moving the goal posts from "streaming yourself" to "reaching as many people as possible and/or making the most money from it". You can say what you want on the internet, but people don't have to listen and companies don't have to broadcast you, promote you or pay you. Alex Jones still does his show, but if you accuse the victims of a mass shooting of being actors in a conspiracy for gun control, you might not get to have people subscribe to you on youtube.
jlawson 6y ago
No, it's not society. That makes it sound like everyone has a say. It's only a very small minority of people are the ones that decide who gets punished and excluded. It's not society, its the powerful. This is how you have people getting banned for supporting a national politician who won election with ~49% of popular vote. Those 49% clearly didn't get a say in who gets punished and excluded. Only the powerful get that say.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- uvnq 6y ago
  I'm willing to bet there are a significant number of people who didn't vote for him who would be opposed to an individual getting banned for supporting him. This pushes the percentage of individuals who are opposed to this punishing/excluding over 50%. "The powerful" that you are referring to would also be a minority if your numbers are correct.
  - jlawson 6y ago
    Agreed - it is a minority. By this study it's about 8%: https://hiddentribes.us/ https://hiddentribes.us/
ttt0 6y ago
> Society. Don't like it, pick a new society like the two commenters you responded to you are considering. I guess you can move out from the US and that's probably a very good decision to make, however: first of all, those corporations are not local to the US, but global, world-wide. Furthermore they are willing to work with authoritarian governments, like Google working with the Chinese government to spy on their citizens. Second, corporations and Western governments are actively trying to remake the rest of the world in US image, project their problems on us and force everyone to make the same mistakes they did. You can run from the problem, but it's not going to solve anything and it will eventually get you too. As far as I'm considered, America falling apart would be an acceptable outcome for me personally, if it wasn't for the fact that you're trying to drag the rest of the world down with you.
themacguffinman 6y ago
> 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? Long-held traditions of social shunning, ostracization and extrajudicial bullying are widely understood to be terrible and have produced horrific injustices for centuries. What you're calling for is a regression of justice. It's precisely the disgusting consequences of vigilante justice that led us to develop the modern systems of justice that we rely on today. Accountability quickly turns into a witch hunt when people start tearing down standards of proof and judicial restraints as "loopholes". When did we forget that?
- slg 6y ago
  For much of the history you are referencing there was no difference between the whims of society and the whims of the judicial system. We now have the separation of the two which opens the loophole I previously mentioned. Do you have any suggestion for how to address that loophole? For example, imagine a scenario in which a loved one comes to you and says they were sexually assaulted two years ago. It happened long enough ago that there is no hope to recover any corroborating evidence. It will simply be the victim's word against the perpetrator and therefore there is almost zero hope of conviction. Do you tell this person "just trust the judicial system" or would you help them achieve some sort of punishment outside of the judicial system such as getting the perpetrator fired?
  - vvvvgood633 6y ago
    > Do you tell this person "just trust the judicial system" or would you help them achieve some sort of punishment outside of the judicial system such as getting the perpetrator fired? Nope. Neither. I may or may not stop associating with the perpetrator, all things relative to my perception of how bad the thing they’ve been accused of was. I might mention it to mutual acquaintances and let them decide how they want to deal without any judgement on my part. Trying to get someone fired / hurting their livelihood in general seems quite childish. I try to mind my own business. I don’t snitch on anybody if I see them doing something wrong. I don’t join online mobs or rage on anybody.
thatcat 6y ago
>Society. Don't like it, pick a new society like the two commenters you responded to you are considering. Society changes, get over it. These changes are going to ruin platforms and people will dislike it and move to other platforms, yet they will still be in the same society. >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. This is literally what happens all day every day in the justice system which is nothing more than a formalized social shunning process that requires fewer people to ruin your life and profit off of it indirectly.

by slg 6y ago

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
  I think we will have to agree to disagree on the history of the Pilgrims. I don't think there is a world of difference between the two. You are shunning someone because it is very likely the did something wrong. If that is your close friend and you think they did it, then it's probably a good idea to shun them. The hope is that they will see they did something wrong, own up and change. This makes the world a better place. Some person on the internet that has been accused of doing something wrong could be black listed from online life, but what does that achieve? We don't even know if they did it? Then what happens when someone changes their ways and becomes a better person? Do we keep them blacklisted? This seems to be the way we are operating.
  - slg 6y ago
    There are plenty of sources that agree with me on the Pilgrims.[1][2][3] Almost no one is "cancelled" permanently. Maybe they go away for a few months or years, but they almost always are able to resume some sort of normal life eventually. It is much less severe than a jail sentence. If they truly do reform and become a better person, that usually speeds up the process, but it is rarely an actual requirement. [1] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-the-pilgrims/2013/11/22/9f93e822-52c1-11e3-9e2c-e1d01116fd98_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-the... [2] - https://www.history.com/news/why-pilgrims-came-to-america-mayflower https://www.history.com/news/why-pilgrims-came-to-america-ma... [3] - https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/americas-true-history-of-religious-tolerance-61312684/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/americas-true-history...
  - vvvvgood633 6y ago
    > Then what happens when someone changes their ways and becomes a better person? Do we keep them blacklisted? This seems to be the way we are operating. Right. Twitter hands out lifetime bans. I was very encouraged this week by Justice Thomas’ opinions on monopolistic platforms. https://www.npr.org/2021/04/05/984440891/justice-clarence-thomas-takes-aims-at-tech-and-its-power-to-cut-off-speech https://www.npr.org/2021/04/05/984440891/justice-clarence-th...
- eschaton 6y ago

refenestrator 6y ago

'Society' by how thick a margin? 80%? 50.1%? Less? What if the decision-makers at twitch represent 'society' less than they think they do?

slg 6y ago
There is no set percentage, but if the decision makers at Twitch don't represent society, there is nothing stopping a Twitch competitor from sprouting up that is more in line with society's morals.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- refenestrator 6y ago
  I'd submit for your consideration that there's quite a lot stopping someone from just starting a twitch competitor. Even beyond the tech challenges, there are thousands of posts out there describing the network effect and trend towards winner-takes-all in a given social networking market. I'm honestly curious about the mindset that leads one to just say 'nothing stopping you, make your own twitch, no biggie'. Is it lack of sympathy for those cast out? Idealistic belief in free markets and meritocracy? Genuine belief that it's easy? What's the underlying angle?
  - CyberDildonics 6y ago
    Now you're moving the goal posts from "able to broadcast yourself" to "starting a twitch competitor. Then you're moving the goal posts from "streaming yourself" to "reaching as many people as possible and/or making the most money from it". You can say what you want on the internet, but people don't have to listen and companies don't have to broadcast you, promote you or pay you. Alex Jones still does his show, but if you accuse the victims of a mass shooting of being actors in a conspiracy for gun control, you might not get to have people subscribe to you on youtube.

jlawson 6y ago

No, it's not society. That makes it sound like everyone has a say. It's only a very small minority of people are the ones that decide who gets punished and excluded. It's not society, its the powerful. This is how you have people getting banned for supporting a national politician who won election with ~49% of popular vote. Those 49% clearly didn't get a say in who gets punished and excluded. Only the powerful get that say.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
uvnq 6y ago
I'm willing to bet there are a significant number of people who didn't vote for him who would be opposed to an individual getting banned for supporting him. This pushes the percentage of individuals who are opposed to this punishing/excluding over 50%. "The powerful" that you are referring to would also be a minority if your numbers are correct.
- jlawson 6y ago
  Agreed - it is a minority. By this study it's about 8%: https://hiddentribes.us/ https://hiddentribes.us/

ttt0 6y ago

> Society. Don't like it, pick a new society like the two commenters you responded to you are considering. I guess you can move out from the US and that's probably a very good decision to make, however: first of all, those corporations are not local to the US, but global, world-wide. Furthermore they are willing to work with authoritarian governments, like Google working with the Chinese government to spy on their citizens. Second, corporations and Western governments are actively trying to remake the rest of the world in US image, project their problems on us and force everyone to make the same mistakes they did. You can run from the problem, but it's not going to solve anything and it will eventually get you too. As far as I'm considered, America falling apart would be an acceptable outcome for me personally, if it wasn't for the fact that you're trying to drag the rest of the world down with you.

themacguffinman 6y ago

> 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? Long-held traditions of social shunning, ostracization and extrajudicial bullying are widely understood to be terrible and have produced horrific injustices for centuries. What you're calling for is a regression of justice. It's precisely the disgusting consequences of vigilante justice that led us to develop the modern systems of justice that we rely on today. Accountability quickly turns into a witch hunt when people start tearing down standards of proof and judicial restraints as "loopholes". When did we forget that?

slg 6y ago
For much of the history you are referencing there was no difference between the whims of society and the whims of the judicial system. We now have the separation of the two which opens the loophole I previously mentioned. Do you have any suggestion for how to address that loophole? For example, imagine a scenario in which a loved one comes to you and says they were sexually assaulted two years ago. It happened long enough ago that there is no hope to recover any corroborating evidence. It will simply be the victim's word against the perpetrator and therefore there is almost zero hope of conviction. Do you tell this person "just trust the judicial system" or would you help them achieve some sort of punishment outside of the judicial system such as getting the perpetrator fired?
- vvvvgood633 6y ago
  > Do you tell this person "just trust the judicial system" or would you help them achieve some sort of punishment outside of the judicial system such as getting the perpetrator fired? Nope. Neither. I may or may not stop associating with the perpetrator, all things relative to my perception of how bad the thing they’ve been accused of was. I might mention it to mutual acquaintances and let them decide how they want to deal without any judgement on my part. Trying to get someone fired / hurting their livelihood in general seems quite childish. I try to mind my own business. I don’t snitch on anybody if I see them doing something wrong. I don’t join online mobs or rage on anybody.

thatcat 6y ago

>Society. Don't like it, pick a new society like the two commenters you responded to you are considering. Society changes, get over it. These changes are going to ruin platforms and people will dislike it and move to other platforms, yet they will still be in the same society. >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. This is literally what happens all day every day in the justice system which is nothing more than a formalized social shunning process that requires fewer people to ruin your life and profit off of it indirectly.