Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Amazon Twitch to discipline people for offline behavior

2456711

Comments

  • UtinniUtinni Member EpicPosts: 1,998
    Quizzical said:
    Suppose I'm a Twitch Streamer who is accused of being a drug dealer.  Twitch shuts me down.  I lose my livelihood.  6 months later I am exonerated and it turns out I was not involved in any way.   Too bad for me?  Is that the world we want to live in?  Where mere accusations can be treated as findings of truth?
    I just want to get back to that.  People are saying that this is OK?   I'm not even talking about whether Twitch can legally do so.  I am asking if we really want to live in a world where we do not wait for the legal process to play out, assume guilt based on accusation, and can take someone's livelihood away based on that mere accusation.

    And it's not just Twitch.   Twitch is part of Amazon.  Perhaps I am a seller on the Amazon marketplace accused of the same... and lose my business because of a mere accusation.   
    Amazon is a behemoth.  They are not your mom and pop store.  They truly are growing closer to a utility (not quite there yet IMHO but they will get there).  Should the private electric company turn off your power because they don't like something you are rumored to have said to your neighbor?  

     The number of people working for MLB who genuinely believe that a random bill that does a bunch of minor things to clean up election procedures is worse than the Uighur genocide is surely zero.  But trolls pressured them about the former and not the latter, so they caved to the trolls on the former and tried to make money on the latter.
    I wouldn't call giving the state election board the power to invalidate ballots at their own discretion a "minor thing" when it comes to democracy.

    BeansnBreadYashaXFrodoFragins
  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Member LegendaryPosts: 13,181
    olepi said:
    It's an interesting question. Should they wait for actual legal conclusions first?

    The people who invaded the US Capitol and attacked Congress while it was in session are being charged with crimes. Should Twitch ban them? Should Twitch wait for the months it will take to prosecute them, and THEN ban them?

    Should Twitch continue to provide them with a platform while they are waiting?

    Or take the example of Matt Gaetz. He is under investigation for child sex trafficking. Should they ban him now? What if it turns out he is innocent? What if they didn't ban him, but 6 months later he is convicted?
    If they did not ban him, and  6 months later he is convicted... what is the issue?  If he has done nothing wrong or illegal on the platform, is that not the way things should work?

    There was a State Representative in Georgia that was ARRESTED (not rumored to be investigated) and threatened with 2 felony charges for "obstruction of law enforcement, a felony punishable by 1 to 5 years in prison, and preventing or disrupting General Assembly sessions or other meetings of members. "

    Should Twitter, Twitch, the electric company, or anyone else have immediately canceled her accounts?  Well I hope not... as all she was doing was banging on some doors and the charges were later dismissed. 

    If the behavior on the system is not illegal then what is the harm is leaving it while the legal process plays out?  
    Sandmanjw

    "I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

    Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017. 

    Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018

    "Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018

  • olepiolepi Member RarePosts: 1,555
    olepi said:
    It's an interesting question. Should they wait for actual legal conclusions first?

    The people who invaded the US Capitol and attacked Congress while it was in session are being charged with crimes. Should Twitch ban them? Should Twitch wait for the months it will take to prosecute them, and THEN ban them?

    Should Twitch continue to provide them with a platform while they are waiting?

    Or take the example of Matt Gaetz. He is under investigation for child sex trafficking. Should they ban him now? What if it turns out he is innocent? What if they didn't ban him, but 6 months later he is convicted?
    If they did not ban him, and  6 months later he is convicted... what is the issue?  If he has done nothing wrong or illegal on the platform, is that not the way things should work?

    There was a State Representative in Georgia that was ARRESTED (not rumored to be investigated) and threatened with 2 felony charges for "obstruction of law enforcement, a felony punishable by 1 to 5 years in prison, and preventing or disrupting General Assembly sessions or other meetings of members. "

    Should Twitter, Twitch, the electric company, or anyone else have immediately canceled her accounts?  Well I hope not... as all she was doing was banging on some doors and the charges were later dismissed. 

    If the behavior on the system is not illegal then what is the harm is leaving it while the legal process plays out?  
    My personal take is that Twitch, etc, should only ban people for activities on the platform, not for what they might or might not have done somewhere else.


    Fortunately, it has no effect on me because I never use Twitch, FB, Twitter, etc.
    Slapshot1188WhiteLantern

    ------------
    2020: 43 years on the Net.


  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 23,016
    olepi said:
    It's an interesting question. Should they wait for actual legal conclusions first?

    The people who invaded the US Capitol and attacked Congress while it was in session are being charged with crimes. Should Twitch ban them? Should Twitch wait for the months it will take to prosecute them, and THEN ban them?

    Should Twitch continue to provide them with a platform while they are waiting?

    Or take the example of Matt Gaetz. He is under investigation for child sex trafficking. Should they ban him now? What if it turns out he is innocent? What if they didn't ban him, but 6 months later he is convicted?
    If someone is sitting in prison and unable to access a Twitch account from there, does it even matter if he is banned?

    For that matter, if someone has a Twitch account and doesn't cause any trouble there, and then murders someone in real life, what is gained by banning him?  It's not like banning him from Twitch will bring back the dead or even prevent future crimes.

    If someone is using Twitch to organize crimes, then sure, ban him.  Or better yet, contact the FBI with your evidence immediately, as they can do something more appropriate to a would-be criminal than merely banning him from a social media site.  But do ban him eventually.

    In your example of the capitol riots, the people who organized the riots on YouTube and Facebook absolutely should be banned for it.  But that should be the extent of it.  There's no good reason for social media sites to dig around to determine whether random accounts that made no mention of the riot happen to belong to people who rioted.  Trying to do that is likely to lead to a large proportion of false positives, like the random guy in the CFD hat who got accused a bunch of times of rioting on social media even though he wasn't in Washington DC at the time of the riot.
    Gdemami
  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 15,396
    It's a private company banning use of their services for whatever reason they want. WTF is wrong with that?

    Isn't that the kind of fReEdOm libertarians dream of?

    Is "no shirt, no shoes, no service" a civil rights issue now for libertarian SJWs to whine about?
    BeansnBreadTorvalFrodoFraginsKyleranCryomatrixklash2defGdemami
    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED

    "... the "influencers" which is the tech name we call sell outs now..."
    __ Wizardry, 2020
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 21,129
    edited April 7
    Ungood said:
    Torval said:
    Let me turn this around, do you feel everyone is entitled to corporate services even if a company doesn't want to do business with a person? Should a company be forced to do business with an entity it doesn't want to?
    This is a great question to ask Masterpiece Bakery.

    Should they, or should they not, have a choice in who they serve?

    Sandmanjw said:
    Torval said:
    So if a company wanted to say.. ban you from flying because there is an accusation that you hit your wife.  That would be OK?  Or if I do not want to hire you because someone online claimed you participated in a riot (no conviction or even arrest for such)  would that be OK?  

    We have a legal system that addresses illegal things. 

    You say "For those people who do participate in the destruction of our civilization for their own benefit (those activities listed in the article), promote idiotic conspiracies, lies, violence, insurrection, treason, and/or sedition; then I say, "Mess with the bull, you get the horns." 

    But we are talking about people that have NOT been convicted of such.  People that they just decide may have done that.  And THAT is utterly terrifying to me.


    Yes, if a company doesn't want to do business with me for legal reasons (and all those listed sound reasonable) then that is their prerogative. Unless there are laws requiring airlines to provide service to everyone then a ban due to unruly public behavior is, again, their prerogative. We don't force private businesses to do things they don't want.

    Again, you're trying to conflate business choice with legality. Nothing stops a company from engaging in business with a convict unless it violates the law (e.g. possibly weapons ownership).

    Let me turn this around, do you feel everyone is entitled to corporate services even if a company doesn't want to do business with a person? Should a company be forced to do business with an entity it doesn't want to? And on what grounds would you say so (aside from the list of legal discrimination). This site can ban any user it wants to at its sole discretion for any reason and it doesn't even have to provide one if it doesn't want to. Should that legally change?
    That is so laughably ridiculous, people always seem to forget what they wish to. How many cases of businesses being forced to serve gay/lesbians not that long ago? 

    Religious people/companies catching hell for thinking exactly what you are saying, that they can do business or not with who they choose? But being sued and forced to either close down or accept the rulings?

    Those blinders some folks have on are getting thick....

    What happened to the hate what you say but will defend your right to say it? You know the freedom of speech/religion and so forth we all claim to support?

    Having companies be able to  regulate people in their private lives for thoughts or actions is just as ridiculous as saying that no gays or blacks are allowed here.... 

      

    The Supreme Court sided with the bakers so Capitalism is working as America seems to enjoy it.


    Anyone can sue anyone else in the United States. So those Twitch streamers, in this specific case, would be allowed to bring this to the justice system.

    Until then it is up to each business to decide how to handle their customers. Whether a business partner is legally convicted of a crime or a civil judgement is completely irrelevant.
    Iselinklash2def
    traveller, interloper, anomaly, iteration


  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 23,016
    Utinni said:
    Quizzical said:
    Suppose I'm a Twitch Streamer who is accused of being a drug dealer.  Twitch shuts me down.  I lose my livelihood.  6 months later I am exonerated and it turns out I was not involved in any way.   Too bad for me?  Is that the world we want to live in?  Where mere accusations can be treated as findings of truth?
    I just want to get back to that.  People are saying that this is OK?   I'm not even talking about whether Twitch can legally do so.  I am asking if we really want to live in a world where we do not wait for the legal process to play out, assume guilt based on accusation, and can take someone's livelihood away based on that mere accusation.

    And it's not just Twitch.   Twitch is part of Amazon.  Perhaps I am a seller on the Amazon marketplace accused of the same... and lose my business because of a mere accusation.   
    Amazon is a behemoth.  They are not your mom and pop store.  They truly are growing closer to a utility (not quite there yet IMHO but they will get there).  Should the private electric company turn off your power because they don't like something you are rumored to have said to your neighbor?  

     The number of people working for MLB who genuinely believe that a random bill that does a bunch of minor things to clean up election procedures is worse than the Uighur genocide is surely zero.  But trolls pressured them about the former and not the latter, so they caved to the trolls on the former and tried to make money on the latter.
    I wouldn't call giving the state election board the power to invalidate ballots at their own discretion a "minor thing" when it comes to democracy.

    Here's the text of the bill in question:

    https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/legislation/document/20212022/201498

    Either the offending provision that you're referring to exists somewhere in particular in that bill, or else it doesn't exist at all.  The bill is marked with line numbers for easy reference.

    The reason no one has pointed out this is exactly the offending provision to you is that it doesn't exist.  As I said, it's a lunatic conspiracy theory.  But feel free to try to find it yourself if you want.

    Sections 6 and 7 (starting on line 267) is probably what you're referring to, but it doesn't say what you seem to think it does.  Feel free to read it yourself, or anything else in the bill, for that matter.  If there actually is something egregiously bad in the bill, I'd like to know about it.  But while lots of people assert that it must be there somewhere, no one seems to be able to actually find it.
    WhiteLanternMendel
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 23,016
    Torval said:

    Yes, if a company doesn't want to do business with me for legal reasons (and all those listed sound reasonable) then that is their prerogative. Unless there are laws requiring airlines to provide service to everyone then a ban due to unruly public behavior is, again, their prerogative. We don't force private businesses to do things they don't want.

    Again, you're trying to conflate business choice with legality. Nothing stops a company from engaging in business with a convict unless it violates the law (e.g. possibly weapons ownership).

    Let me turn this around, do you feel everyone is entitled to corporate services even if a company doesn't want to do business with a person? Should a company be forced to do business with an entity it doesn't want to? And on what grounds would you say so (aside from the list of legal discrimination). This site can ban any user it wants to at its sole discretion for any reason and it doesn't even have to provide one if it doesn't want to. Should that legally change?
    The case for Twitch being able to ban people arbitrarily is certainly no stronger than the case for Masterpiece Cakeshop being able to refuse to decorate cakes in ways that they find offensive.  After all, there are a lot of other cake shops that someone could go to, and but not so many viable competitors to Twitch.  And Masterpiece Cakeshop didn't completely refuse service to a customer, but only refused to make particular customizations that they found offensive.  Yet the Colorado Civil Rights Commission prosecuted Masterpiece Cakeshop for that anyway, and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court.

    I don't want to put words in your mouth here.  Maybe you think that the CCRC's harassment of Masterpiece Cakeshop was appalling for the same reasons that you believe that Twitch should be able to ban people for any reason or no reason at all.  But I do think anyone pushing for the cake shop to be prosecuted has no room to claim that Twitch ought to be able to ban people for whatever reason they want.
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 21,129
    olepi said:
    It's an interesting question. Should they wait for actual legal conclusions first?

    The people who invaded the US Capitol and attacked Congress while it was in session are being charged with crimes. Should Twitch ban them? Should Twitch wait for the months it will take to prosecute them, and THEN ban them?

    Should Twitch continue to provide them with a platform while they are waiting?

    Or take the example of Matt Gaetz. He is under investigation for child sex trafficking. Should they ban him now? What if it turns out he is innocent? What if they didn't ban him, but 6 months later he is convicted?
    If they did not ban him, and  6 months later he is convicted... what is the issue?  If he has done nothing wrong or illegal on the platform, is that not the way things should work?

    There was a State Representative in Georgia that was ARRESTED (not rumored to be investigated) and threatened with 2 felony charges for "obstruction of law enforcement, a felony punishable by 1 to 5 years in prison, and preventing or disrupting General Assembly sessions or other meetings of members. "

    Should Twitter, Twitch, the electric company, or anyone else have immediately canceled her accounts?  Well I hope not... as all she was doing was banging on some doors and the charges were later dismissed. 

    If the behavior on the system is not illegal then what is the harm is leaving it while the legal process plays out?  

    It's their business so they should be able to ban them if they want. If that business association is deemed harmful, or just undesirable, to their business then by all means, ban them. Those users don't have an inherent right to use the businesses' private platforms.

    Now, if businesses anger enough customers then they will lose that business and revenue. An upstart company could swoop in an fill the void. This is how capitalism and supply and demand works. They cut off the supply then customers might move elsewhere.

    This stuff is Libertarian 101. I don't even understand why there is a question why a private business in an unregulated capitalist society even needs to answer or justify their reasons.

    I have no sympathy, to be honest, because the demographic outraged by this are the very ones that supported gutting Net Neutrality in the name of anti-regulation and free capitalism. Now they're eating the dogfood consequences they created. I'm fine with that. Change isn't likely to come until we have to feel the discomfort of some bad choices.

    Now, if you're arguing we should move and progress towards a much more socialistic or a highly regulated social-capitalist society and system where companies can't run roughshod over consumers then I'm all for that. But that isn't really what is being asked for in my opinion. We have the typical "I want my cake and eat it too with no accountability for the privileged" request and I can't and won't support that.
    YashaXklash2defGdemami
    traveller, interloper, anomaly, iteration


  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Member LegendaryPosts: 13,181
    Quizzical said:
    Torval said:

    Yes, if a company doesn't want to do business with me for legal reasons (and all those listed sound reasonable) then that is their prerogative. Unless there are laws requiring airlines to provide service to everyone then a ban due to unruly public behavior is, again, their prerogative. We don't force private businesses to do things they don't want.

    Again, you're trying to conflate business choice with legality. Nothing stops a company from engaging in business with a convict unless it violates the law (e.g. possibly weapons ownership).

    Let me turn this around, do you feel everyone is entitled to corporate services even if a company doesn't want to do business with a person? Should a company be forced to do business with an entity it doesn't want to? And on what grounds would you say so (aside from the list of legal discrimination). This site can ban any user it wants to at its sole discretion for any reason and it doesn't even have to provide one if it doesn't want to. Should that legally change?
    The case for Twitch being able to ban people arbitrarily is certainly no stronger than the case for Masterpiece Cakeshop being able to refuse to decorate cakes in ways that they find offensive.  After all, there are a lot of other cake shops that someone could go to, and but not so many viable competitors to Twitch.  And Masterpiece Cakeshop didn't completely refuse service to a customer, but only refused to make particular customizations that they found offensive.  Yet the Colorado Civil Rights Commission prosecuted Masterpiece Cakeshop for that anyway, and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court.

    I don't want to put words in your mouth here.  Maybe you think that the CCRC's harassment of Masterpiece Cakeshop was appalling for the same reasons that you believe that Twitch should be able to ban people for any reason or no reason at all.  But I do think anyone pushing for the cake shop to be prosecuted has no room to claim that Twitch ought to be able to ban people for whatever reason they want.
    Also... Masterpiece ruled that their actions were covered by the First Amendment and that the State showed anti-religious bias in it's prosecution.  And as you pointed out, they did not "ban the customer" but refused to make a particular cake which conflicted with their religious views.

    While I can see some parallels on the surface.  That case really has little do do with this one.  Unless Amazon is arguing that they are banning these people due to some deeply held religious belief that is covered by the first amendment.  


    "I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

    Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017. 

    Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018

    "Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018

  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 23,016
    Torval said:

    I have no sympathy, to be honest, because the demographic outraged by this are the very ones that supported gutting Net Neutrality in the name of anti-regulation and free capitalism. Now they're eating the dogfood consequences they created. I'm fine with that. Change isn't likely to come until we have to feel the discomfort of some bad choices.

    Now, if you're arguing we should move and progress towards a much more socialistic or a highly regulated social-capitalist society and system where companies can't run roughshod over consumers then I'm all for that. But that isn't really what is being asked for in my opinion. We have the typical "I want my cake and eat it too with no accountability for the privileged" request and I can't and won't support that.
    Net neutrality was about regulating ISPs, not social media companies.  ISPs aren't what is in dispute here.
    SandmanjwGdemami
  • BeansnBreadBeansnBread Member EpicPosts: 7,249
    Quizzical said:
    Torval said:

    Yes, if a company doesn't want to do business with me for legal reasons (and all those listed sound reasonable) then that is their prerogative. Unless there are laws requiring airlines to provide service to everyone then a ban due to unruly public behavior is, again, their prerogative. We don't force private businesses to do things they don't want.

    Again, you're trying to conflate business choice with legality. Nothing stops a company from engaging in business with a convict unless it violates the law (e.g. possibly weapons ownership).

    Let me turn this around, do you feel everyone is entitled to corporate services even if a company doesn't want to do business with a person? Should a company be forced to do business with an entity it doesn't want to? And on what grounds would you say so (aside from the list of legal discrimination). This site can ban any user it wants to at its sole discretion for any reason and it doesn't even have to provide one if it doesn't want to. Should that legally change?
    The case for Twitch being able to ban people arbitrarily is certainly no stronger than the case for Masterpiece Cakeshop being able to refuse to decorate cakes in ways that they find offensive.  After all, there are a lot of other cake shops that someone could go to, and but not so many viable competitors to Twitch.  And Masterpiece Cakeshop didn't completely refuse service to a customer, but only refused to make particular customizations that they found offensive.  Yet the Colorado Civil Rights Commission prosecuted Masterpiece Cakeshop for that anyway, and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court.

    I don't want to put words in your mouth here.  Maybe you think that the CCRC's harassment of Masterpiece Cakeshop was appalling for the same reasons that you believe that Twitch should be able to ban people for any reason or no reason at all.  But I do think anyone pushing for the cake shop to be prosecuted has no room to claim that Twitch ought to be able to ban people for whatever reason they want.
    Also... Masterpiece ruled that their actions were covered by the First Amendment and that the State showed anti-religious bias in it's prosecution.  And as you pointed out, they did not "ban the customer" but refused to make a particular cake which conflicted with their religious views.

    While I can see some parallels on the surface.  That case really has little do do with this one.  Unless Amazon is arguing that they are banning these people due to some deeply held religious belief that is covered by the first amendment.  


    The reason the Cake thing went to court and there was a big case about it is because it was about freedom of religion vs a protected class of citizens. In the US, you can't refuse someone service because of their skin color or sexual preference. 

    In the end they decided in favor of the religion argument.

    Amazon doesn't need any reason at all to ban people. They just can't do it on the basis of their religion or because they are part of one of the protected classes.


    YashaXCryomatrix
  • olepiolepi Member RarePosts: 1,555
    Let's say I have been convicted of bank robbery. I want to go on a platform and post a recipe for tuna casserole.

    Is it fair for them to prevent me from posting the recipe?

    I'm certainly not violating any TOS, and obviously tuna casserole isn't dangerous to anybody. Under what grounds are they banning it?
    Gdemami

    ------------
    2020: 43 years on the Net.


  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 21,129
    Quizzical said:
    Torval said:

    Yes, if a company doesn't want to do business with me for legal reasons (and all those listed sound reasonable) then that is their prerogative. Unless there are laws requiring airlines to provide service to everyone then a ban due to unruly public behavior is, again, their prerogative. We don't force private businesses to do things they don't want.

    Again, you're trying to conflate business choice with legality. Nothing stops a company from engaging in business with a convict unless it violates the law (e.g. possibly weapons ownership).

    Let me turn this around, do you feel everyone is entitled to corporate services even if a company doesn't want to do business with a person? Should a company be forced to do business with an entity it doesn't want to? And on what grounds would you say so (aside from the list of legal discrimination). This site can ban any user it wants to at its sole discretion for any reason and it doesn't even have to provide one if it doesn't want to. Should that legally change?
    The case for Twitch being able to ban people arbitrarily is certainly no stronger than the case for Masterpiece Cakeshop being able to refuse to decorate cakes in ways that they find offensive.  After all, there are a lot of other cake shops that someone could go to, and but not so many viable competitors to Twitch.  And Masterpiece Cakeshop didn't completely refuse service to a customer, but only refused to make particular customizations that they found offensive.  Yet the Colorado Civil Rights Commission prosecuted Masterpiece Cakeshop for that anyway, and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court.

    I don't want to put words in your mouth here.  Maybe you think that the CCRC's harassment of Masterpiece Cakeshop was appalling for the same reasons that you believe that Twitch should be able to ban people for any reason or no reason at all.  But I do think anyone pushing for the cake shop to be prosecuted has no room to claim that Twitch ought to be able to ban people for whatever reason they want.

    You are putting words in my mouth. That isn't my position at all. Someone pointed out that a cake shop was persecuted. I'm pointing out 2 things; 1) the Supreme Court sided with the cake shop owners so their argument about targeted persecution is moot and 2) anyone is free to sue another entity in the US if they feel they've been wronged and damaged. That is all.

    My personal position is that in our unregulated system that "business freedom" should work both ways.

    There are other very large alternatives to Twitch, including Discord, YouTube, and Facebook and then there are several much smaller alternatives. Twitch by no means has a monopoly on the market. Whether they have a dominant market manipulating control over the market is probably open for debate, but that is something for the courts to decide if someone were to sue Twitch like people have Valve.
    klash2def
    traveller, interloper, anomaly, iteration


  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 15,396
    olepi said:
    Let's say I have been convicted of bank robbery. I want to go on a platform and post a recipe for tuna casserole.

    Is it fair for them to prevent me from posting the recipe?

    I'm certainly not violating any TOS, and obviously tuna casserole isn't dangerous to anybody. Under what grounds are they banning it?
    On the grounds that it's their business and they can do whatever they want as long as it is legal.

    This is pretty well the same topic people went around and around with in the thread where someone got banned from Gloria Victis or whatever the game was.

    The bottom line is that the mods might have been wrong and may be a bunch of cliquey asshats but it's their house and their rules.

    Unless you're being refused service for one of the protected cases (race, sex, etc.) they can do as they wish. I didn't see any protected reasons on the list... well some people think domestic terrorist should be but that's a different discussion :)
    SovrathTorvalBeansnBreadKyleranCryomatrixklash2def
    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED

    "... the "influencers" which is the tech name we call sell outs now..."
    __ Wizardry, 2020
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 21,129
    olepi said:
    Let's say I have been convicted of bank robbery. I want to go on a platform and post a recipe for tuna casserole.

    Is it fair for them to prevent me from posting the recipe?

    I'm certainly not violating any TOS, and obviously tuna casserole isn't dangerous to anybody. Under what grounds are they banning it?

    They don't have to give you a reason or even have a reason. They can do it because they don't like you or ex-convicts or ginger haired people or your shoe brand. Welcome to capitalism in America where ex-convicts and the homeless are often screwed in this very manner by many businesses.

    Businesses don't often do this to anyone but disenfranchised groups and those with little economic muscle or they'll go out of business.

    Let's say an ex-convict wants to post a recipe and a bunch of other users complain, users with money and pay for support. Do you the site owner ban one convict, who has virtually no financial muscle, or do you risk losing dozens of paying customers? Does the site really need to give a reason?

    Lots of underprivileged groups face this hurdle all the time, but this is how business works in the U.S. The only reason this Twitch thing is even a stink is because entitled privileged groups aren't used to facing this sort thing and now it's unfair. It's always been unfair for some. Now it's unfair for all.

    Remember this is because some political group has threatened a removal of protections (it's detailed in the OP article link) for big tech companies. Big tech didn't care until their money was threatened.
    YashaXKyleranklash2def
    traveller, interloper, anomaly, iteration


  • rojoArcueidrojoArcueid Member EpicPosts: 10,535
    So Twitch is another facebook now, that must know the entire lives of everyone so they can manipulate them accordingly, but this one goes even further with their "private investigators".

    Nice... not.
    Gdemami




  • BeansnBreadBeansnBread Member EpicPosts: 7,249
    So Twitch is another facebook now, that must know the entire lives of everyone so they can manipulate them accordingly, but this one goes even further with their "private investigators".

    Nice... not.
    The private investigator thing is pretty nuts.
  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 15,396
    So Twitch is another facebook now, that must know the entire lives of everyone so they can manipulate them accordingly, but this one goes even further with their "private investigators".

    Nice... not.
    Hmm... Didn't Blizzard recently hire the ex COO of the CIA? 

    Food for thought...
    rojoArcueidTorvalGdemami
    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED

    "... the "influencers" which is the tech name we call sell outs now..."
    __ Wizardry, 2020
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 23,016
    Quizzical said:
    Torval said:

    Yes, if a company doesn't want to do business with me for legal reasons (and all those listed sound reasonable) then that is their prerogative. Unless there are laws requiring airlines to provide service to everyone then a ban due to unruly public behavior is, again, their prerogative. We don't force private businesses to do things they don't want.

    Again, you're trying to conflate business choice with legality. Nothing stops a company from engaging in business with a convict unless it violates the law (e.g. possibly weapons ownership).

    Let me turn this around, do you feel everyone is entitled to corporate services even if a company doesn't want to do business with a person? Should a company be forced to do business with an entity it doesn't want to? And on what grounds would you say so (aside from the list of legal discrimination). This site can ban any user it wants to at its sole discretion for any reason and it doesn't even have to provide one if it doesn't want to. Should that legally change?
    The case for Twitch being able to ban people arbitrarily is certainly no stronger than the case for Masterpiece Cakeshop being able to refuse to decorate cakes in ways that they find offensive.  After all, there are a lot of other cake shops that someone could go to, and but not so many viable competitors to Twitch.  And Masterpiece Cakeshop didn't completely refuse service to a customer, but only refused to make particular customizations that they found offensive.  Yet the Colorado Civil Rights Commission prosecuted Masterpiece Cakeshop for that anyway, and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court.

    I don't want to put words in your mouth here.  Maybe you think that the CCRC's harassment of Masterpiece Cakeshop was appalling for the same reasons that you believe that Twitch should be able to ban people for any reason or no reason at all.  But I do think anyone pushing for the cake shop to be prosecuted has no room to claim that Twitch ought to be able to ban people for whatever reason they want.
    Also... Masterpiece ruled that their actions were covered by the First Amendment and that the State showed anti-religious bias in it's prosecution.  And as you pointed out, they did not "ban the customer" but refused to make a particular cake which conflicted with their religious views.

    While I can see some parallels on the surface.  That case really has little do do with this one.  Unless Amazon is arguing that they are banning these people due to some deeply held religious belief that is covered by the first amendment.  


    The reason the Cake thing went to court and there was a big case about it is because it was about freedom of religion vs a protected class of citizens. In the US, you can't refuse someone service because of their skin color or sexual preference. 

    In the end they decided in favor of the religion argument.

    Amazon doesn't need any reason at all to ban people. They just can't do it on the basis of their religion or because they are part of one of the protected classes.
    That is an egregiously awful misstatement of both what was in dispute in the case and how the Supreme Court ruled.

    Masterpiece Cakeshop has no problem with selling cakes to absolutely anyone who wants to buy them, without regard to skin color, sexual preference, or any other characteristics beyond ability to pay.  The dispute was about whether they could be compelled to customize those cakes in ways that they find offensive.  They offered to sell a generic cake to the customer in question and let the customer further decorate it himself however he wanted.  So they weren't denying service to people entirely.

    After left-wing trolls tried to have Masterpiece Cakeshop prosecuted for this, some right-wing trolls went to other cake shops around town and asked to buy cakes that were decorated in ways that were gratuitously offensive.  The other cake shops refused, so the trolls appealed to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission to prosecute them, too.  The CCRC refused.

    The Supreme Court ruling actually did not involve religion at all, and did not care whether Masterpiece Cakeshop's reasons for refusing to decorate cakes in particular ways were religious in nature.  It was a 7-2 ruling, not a 5-4 ruling mostly along a common left-right split.  The issue at hand was freedom of speech (or more to the point, freedom to refrain from speech that you disagree with), not freedom of religion.

    The Supreme Court's ruling was that the government doesn't get to decide what is offensive and what is not.  The state of Colorado cannot say that bakers are obligated to whatever their customers request, but carve out an exception for things that the state of Colorado officially regards as offensive.  Rather, they must either allow the bakers to decide for themselves what is offensive, or else mandate that all bakers must bake whatever their customers request whether it is offensive or not.  The state is prohibited from cherry-picking cases to enforce rules only against people that those in charge personally dislike, while declining to enforce the same rules against the allies of those in charge.
    Gdemami
  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 37,498
    edited April 7
    Torval said:
    These actions include engaging in deadly violence, terrorist activities, grooming children for sexual exploitation, committing sexual assault or even “acting as an accomplice to non-consensual sexual activities.” It will also continue to consider offline harassment in cases where a user alleges abuse online.

    I guess don't do those things?

    Lawmakers have threatened to strip tech giants of their liability under the communications protection act. So, blame the party that gutted Net Neutrality. Since we can't get political here, even though our very civil fabric is under assault, I'll leave you to guess which group installed and championed Ajit Pai. Even though he's now gone, thankfully, the damage he did to online Civil Liberties, among other things, is huge.

    Can you imagine the outrage if Twitch didn't censure people who engage in those activities? Worse, can you imagine the lawsuits and revenge by that one political party that hates the big tech sector? This is the consequence the rest of us pay for abandoning civil democracy for hostile partisan political tribalism. When capitalism is politically weaponized this is how mega-corporations respond.

    Nobody is condoning any of that, but there is a LEGAL SYSTEM to address it.  If people are found guilty of that stuff then I suppose they would not be on Twitch right?  They would be in jail.

    So you are comfortable with a company superseding the legal system?  For behavior that did not occur on their service?   That is downright scary to me.
    Actually yes, because it's their platform, their world if you will, so they get to rule it the way they wish.

    Or are you going to argue people have a "right" to access social media platforms?

    Their house, their rules, especially for services I don't pay for and can easily opt out of.

    In fact I have very few accounts on any major social media platforms prefering to stay more under the radar, bet many others here do the same.

    Also, since I'm basically not one to skirt the law or get involved in huge political fights I'm not worried about being labeled a terrorist.




    TorvalYashaXGdemami

    "See normal people, I'm not one of them" | G-Easy & Big Sean

    "I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant

    Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing FO76 at the moment.

    Fools find no pleasure in understanding, but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

    Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™

    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon






  • WizardryWizardry Member LegendaryPosts: 18,779
    It might sound wrong but it isn't.
    Think about it,you don't have to be online to be charged with crimes and no business wants people representing their business with bad people.

    The law is never perfect and doesn't take into consideration things some of us might deem criminal.At worst some offences might be a slap on the wrist, a small fine but to some they might want to see that person jailed.

    I don't like to talk about it because i am an animal lover but the laws that surround and protect animals are often garbage.If you knew someone was abusing animals offline would you want to pay them money to represent your business?
    .
    I can use another  factual example.The UFC once contracted a fighter from Russia without doing any homework on the guys background.This dude was used as an assassin to torture and kill people for unjust reasons.We used to have a co worker that we all knew was psychotic,on heavy drugs.We were always worried this dude who simply lost it every single day might seriously harm or even kill someone so my boss had to finally fire him.

    My point is that you don't have to SEE IT up front live in your face to know when something is VERY wrong and SHOULD be dealt with.So in this case i have to side with Amazon even though i am 99% certain they are simply covering their ass from possible lawsuits.
    Kyleran

    Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.

  • BeansnBreadBeansnBread Member EpicPosts: 7,249
    edited April 7
    Quizzical said:
    That is an egregiously awful misstatement of both what was in dispute in the case and how the Supreme Court ruled.

    Masterpiece Cakeshop has no problem with selling cakes to absolutely anyone who wants to buy them, without regard to skin color, sexual preference, or any other characteristics beyond ability to pay.  The dispute was about whether they could be compelled to customize those cakes in ways that they find offensive.  They offered to sell a generic cake to the customer in question and let the customer further decorate it himself however he wanted.  So they weren't denying service to people entirely.

    After left-wing trolls tried to have Masterpiece Cakeshop prosecuted for this, some right-wing trolls went to other cake shops around town and asked to buy cakes that were decorated in ways that were gratuitously offensive.  The other cake shops refused, so the trolls appealed to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission to prosecute them, too.  The CCRC refused.

    The Supreme Court ruling actually did not involve religion at all, and did not care whether Masterpiece Cakeshop's reasons for refusing to decorate cakes in particular ways were religious in nature.  It was a 7-2 ruling, not a 5-4 ruling mostly along a common left-right split.  The issue at hand was freedom of speech (or more to the point, freedom to refrain from speech that you disagree with), not freedom of religion.

    The Supreme Court's ruling was that the government doesn't get to decide what is offensive and what is not.  The state of Colorado cannot say that bakers are obligated to whatever their customers request, but carve out an exception for things that the state of Colorado officially regards as offensive.  Rather, they must either allow the bakers to decide for themselves what is offensive, or else mandate that all bakers must bake whatever their customers request whether it is offensive or not.  The state is prohibited from cherry-picking cases to enforce rules only against people that those in charge personally dislike, while declining to enforce the same rules against the allies of those in charge.
    I was summarizing it, and it started exactly how I said it did and it got big exactly for the reasons I said it did. You are correct that I missed the part where the court actually ruled on the fact that the Commision did not employ religious neutrality instead of ruling directly on freedom of religion. Here it is from wikipedia:


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission#:~:text=The case dealt with Masterpiece,on the owner's religious beliefs.&text=Following appeals within the state,to the U.S. Supreme Court.

    The case dealt with Masterpiece Cakeshop, a bakery in LakewoodColorado, which refused to provide a wedding cake to a gay couple based on the owner's religious beliefs. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission, evaluating the case under the state's anti-discrimination law, the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, found that the bakery had discriminated against the couple and issued specific orders for the bakery. Following appeals within the state that affirmed the Commission's decision, the bakery took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

    In a 7–2 decision, the Court ruled on narrow grounds that the Commission did not employ religious neutrality, violating Masterpiece owner Jack Phillips' rights to free exercise, and reversed the Commission's decision. The Court did not rule on the broader intersection of anti-discrimination laws, free exercise of religion, and freedom of speech, due to the complications of the Commission's lack of religious neutrality.


  • BeansnBreadBeansnBread Member EpicPosts: 7,249
    Wait, I'm reading your post again, and that was an egregiously awful misstatement of both what was in dispute in the case and how the Supreme Court ruled.
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 23,016
    Quizzical said:
    That is an egregiously awful misstatement of both what was in dispute in the case and how the Supreme Court ruled.

    Masterpiece Cakeshop has no problem with selling cakes to absolutely anyone who wants to buy them, without regard to skin color, sexual preference, or any other characteristics beyond ability to pay.  The dispute was about whether they could be compelled to customize those cakes in ways that they find offensive.  They offered to sell a generic cake to the customer in question and let the customer further decorate it himself however he wanted.  So they weren't denying service to people entirely.

    After left-wing trolls tried to have Masterpiece Cakeshop prosecuted for this, some right-wing trolls went to other cake shops around town and asked to buy cakes that were decorated in ways that were gratuitously offensive.  The other cake shops refused, so the trolls appealed to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission to prosecute them, too.  The CCRC refused.

    The Supreme Court ruling actually did not involve religion at all, and did not care whether Masterpiece Cakeshop's reasons for refusing to decorate cakes in particular ways were religious in nature.  It was a 7-2 ruling, not a 5-4 ruling mostly along a common left-right split.  The issue at hand was freedom of speech (or more to the point, freedom to refrain from speech that you disagree with), not freedom of religion.

    The Supreme Court's ruling was that the government doesn't get to decide what is offensive and what is not.  The state of Colorado cannot say that bakers are obligated to whatever their customers request, but carve out an exception for things that the state of Colorado officially regards as offensive.  Rather, they must either allow the bakers to decide for themselves what is offensive, or else mandate that all bakers must bake whatever their customers request whether it is offensive or not.  The state is prohibited from cherry-picking cases to enforce rules only against people that those in charge personally dislike, while declining to enforce the same rules against the allies of those in charge.
    I was summarizing it, and it started exactly how I said it did and it got big exactly for the reasons I said it did. You are correct that I missed the part where the court actually ruled on the fact that the Commision did not employ religious neutrality instead of ruling directly on freedom of religion. Here it is from wikipedia:


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission#:~:text=The case dealt with Masterpiece,on the owner's religious beliefs.&text=Following appeals within the state,to the U.S. Supreme Court.

    The case dealt with Masterpiece Cakeshop, a bakery in LakewoodColorado, which refused to provide a wedding cake to a gay couple based on the owner's religious beliefs. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission, evaluating the case under the state's anti-discrimination law, the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, found that the bakery had discriminated against the couple and issued specific orders for the bakery. Following appeals within the state that affirmed the Commission's decision, the bakery took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

    In a 7–2 decision, the Court ruled on narrow grounds that the Commission did not employ religious neutrality, violating Masterpiece owner Jack Phillips' rights to free exercise, and reversed the Commission's decision. The Court did not rule on the broader intersection of anti-discrimination laws, free exercise of religion, and freedom of speech, due to the complications of the Commission's lack of religious neutrality.

    On the free speech angle, I was going from memory and got the main ruling mixed up with one of the concurrences.  My mistake.  The main ruling did indeed base the grounds on freedom of religion.

    But the dispute was not about whether the cake shop would sell a cake to the couple in question.  It was about whether the cake shop could be required to customize that cake in ways that the shop owner found offensive.  The actual ruling makes that clear in the summary:

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf

    The cake shop owner specifically offered to sell them any premade cake that he had already made.  The issue wasn't about the people buying the cake, but about how they wanted it customized.
    Gdemami
This discussion has been closed.