Amazon Twitch to discipline people for offline behavior

Sylvinstar · April 2021

"Twitch said it will work with "an experienced investigations law firm" to determine the validity of claims, which will rely at times on accessing evidence from law enforcement. The company said it would not take action on a user's account until it concludes its investigation and confirms evidence of wrongdoing."

Sooo Twitch is finding that they'd like to get even more information about you than they already have. Yep, don't find anything concerning about that at all.

Slapshot1188 · April 2021

Sylvinstar said:

"Twitch said it will work with "an experienced investigations law firm" to determine the validity of claims, which will rely at times on accessing evidence from law enforcement. The company said it would not take action on a user's account until it concludes its investigation and confirms evidence of wrongdoing."

Sooo Twitch is finding that they'd like to get even more information about you than they already have. Yep, don't find anything concerning about that at all.

But its only for "domestic terrorists" if you aren't a terrorist why would you be concerned?

We should ditch the judicial system and let Amazon just determine guilt. They can save us billions!

Iselin · April 2021

Slapshot1188 said:

We should ditch the judicial system and let Amazon just determine guilt. They can save us billions!

Obligatory statement about gross oversimplifications.

Amazon can't send you to jail. They can just deny you service for no shirt and no shoes.

TwistedSister77 · April 2021

On the animal farm-

"All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others"

George Orwell from his famous book The Animal Farm

Slapshot1188 · April 2021

Iselin said:

Slapshot1188 said:

We should ditch the judicial system and let Amazon just determine guilt. They can save us billions!

Obligatory statement about gross oversimplifications.

Amazon can't send you to jail. They can just deny you service for no shirt and no shoes.

It was related to the idea that somehow... according to Amazon.. they were going to get access to evidence from law enforcement. Now.. Amazon has nothing to do with the potential offense. Why would law enforcement share anything with them? THAT is what I am referring to.

Quizzical · April 2021

It's hard to believe that this thread hasn't been locked yet. It surely does make a difference that the discussion has been civil. So good job, even if I think you're wrong.

Mendel · April 2021

Politics. It makes me rather happy that I wasn't feeling good enough to come downstairs and sit at the computer for 2 days.

Democrats. Republicans. I just want to be a Whig, so that when they call me a Whig In Name Only, I can laugh and consider their comment as a suggestion.

Isn't politics one of the topics not allowed on this forum, or did all the moderators take yesterday off in celebration of Jackie Chan's birthday?

TiamatRoar · April 2021

Iselin said:

Slapshot1188 said:

Iselin said:

Slapshot1188 said:

Iselin said:

except apparently when Amazon wants to keep domestic terrorists off Twitch because those there are fighting words!

I think you know that is a gross oversimplification and that's the kind of bullshit that makes us never able to move forward. By all means though lets just retreat back to our tribes and keep on the current path.

Definitely... for emphasis. But I'm not the one cherry picking who to regulate and who to give a free ride to.

If 2 people look at 3 items. Both agree on 1 and disagree on the other 2. Should we move forward with the 1 while discussing differences on the others? Or should we just sit as we do today and insist that we do nothing unless we do everything we want?

That's what's wrong with our politics today. Each side (and I'm not a member of EITHER to be clear) wants 100% of their wish list and will try to sabotage the other side even if that means not moving forward with stuff they agree with.

The way reasonable people would do it is through compromise. I spent most of my adult life negotiating contracts and negotiations are nothing if not compromise.

Here's a deal for you: you come out in full support of regulating gambling (i.e. loot boxes) in games and I'll support regulating Amazon... deal?

That's actually not compromise. That's equivalent exchange.

A compromise would be:

Person A wants to regulate Amazon 100%

Person B wants to regulate Amazon 0%

Person A & B compromise and agree to regulate Amazon 50%

Unfortunately, it gets a lot more complicated when Persons C, D, E, and Z get involved and one wants to regulate 20% while the other wants to regulate 66% etc etc. Even worse when you consider that the amount of regulation is not restricted to a singular linear plane and thus one person might want to regulate it 33% at a 50 degree angle while the other wants to regulate it 77% at a 20 degree angle.

As an aside, I want Amazon AND Loot Boxes to be regulated, anyways. Although I mean that more about Amazon's corporate policies and monopolization than anything to do with their right to refuse service to whoever they want to as long as it's not a protected case (again, gender, race, etc).

The moment the government gets the ability to force a business to serve others even if that business doesn't want to is where the real Orwellian crap comes in. (again, protected cases being the exception).

And it'd kinda be a moot point if the monopolization got regulated anyways because then it'd be easier to just move to other platforms if they banned you. That's how capitalism is supposed to work.

Iselin · April 2021

Torval said:

I live in rural Oregon and it's much easier for me to switch e-tailers that piss me off than it is to deal with the whims of local small businesses that seemingly fly way under the legal radar.

You now that "no shirt..." bit I've brought up several times in this thread? That wasn't just restaurants in small beach resorts that had those signs in the late '60s and early '70s.

It was also small hardware and general good stores in many inland small towns that put those up to keep hippies out. Bunch of Merle Haggard Okie From Muskogee fans, the lot of them.

Ungood · April 2021

Mendel said:

Politics. It makes me rather happy that I wasn't feeling good enough to come downstairs and sit at the computer for 2 days.

Democrats. Republicans. I just want to be a Whig, so that when they call me a Whig In Name Only, I can laugh and consider their comment as a suggestion.

Isn't politics one of the topics not allowed on this forum, or did all the moderators take yesterday off in celebration of Jackie Chan's birthday?

The only person being actually political here, is mainly you. The rest of us are in fact talking about the ramifications of this kind of overreach.

Unless you are the kind of person that likes the idea that if you rip a fart in the grocery store, someone calls your job and you can get fired for that, because "rippling farts in the grocery store sets a bad example for the company"

Think that is a joke?

How about if you did something totally legal?

Or lets say.. you make a post about your second job and your other employer simply does not like it.

This is not politics, this is your future Employment, or.. in some cases, lack thereof.

I mean, really, people have been fired for all kinds of stupid social media reasons, like having fun at work for example, or better yet, imagine if you made a single mistake, 40+ years ago, and suddenly were banned from all platforms, because you were a convicted criminal.

I wish I was joking about the insanity of this kind of thing, and how it boggles my mind that anyone would actually want or support this, this, But some people.. Obviously do, and think this is the right and correct way things should be.\

"We Asked for this"

Slapshot1188 · April 2021

Torval said:

Hahaha, I was thinking about this when I read those posts. I thought, what about me who wants all business regulated from big corps (not just big tech, Amazon, or FAANG) down to the "mom and pop" corner store. I live in rural Oregon and it's much easier for me to switch e-tailers that piss me off than it is to deal with the whims of local small businesses that seemingly fly way under the legal radar.

So if you agree about Amazon why not start there while we talk about the rest?

Slapshot1188 · April 2021

Torval said:

Slapshot1188 said:

Torval said:

Hahaha, I was thinking about this when I read those posts. I thought, what about me who wants all business regulated from big corps (not just big tech, Amazon, or FAANG) down to the "mom and pop" corner store. I live in rural Oregon and it's much easier for me to switch e-tailers that piss me off than it is to deal with the whims of local small businesses that seemingly fly way under the legal radar.

So if you agree about Amazon why not start there while we talk about the rest?

No thanks. That doesn't work for me. Let's start with everyone at once. There is no reason not to.

And that is exactly why we go nowhere.

Quizzical · April 2021

TiamatRoar said:

Iselin said:

Slapshot1188 said:

Iselin said:

Slapshot1188 said:

Iselin said:
except apparently when Amazon wants to keep domestic terrorists off Twitch because those there are fighting words!

I think you know that is a gross oversimplification and that's the kind of bullshit that makes us never able to move forward. By all means though lets just retreat back to our tribes and keep on the current path.

Definitely... for emphasis. But I'm not the one cherry picking who to regulate and who to give a free ride to.

If 2 people look at 3 items. Both agree on 1 and disagree on the other 2. Should we move forward with the 1 while discussing differences on the others? Or should we just sit as we do today and insist that we do nothing unless we do everything we want?

That's what's wrong with our politics today. Each side (and I'm not a member of EITHER to be clear) wants 100% of their wish list and will try to sabotage the other side even if that means not moving forward with stuff they agree with.

The way reasonable people would do it is through compromise. I spent most of my adult life negotiating contracts and negotiations are nothing if not compromise.

Here's a deal for you: you come out in full support of regulating gambling (i.e. loot boxes) in games and I'll support regulating Amazon... deal?

That's actually not compromise. That's equivalent exchange.

A compromise would be:

Person A wants to regulate Amazon 100%

Person B wants to regulate Amazon 0%

Person A & B compromise and agree to regulate Amazon 50%

Unfortunately, it gets a lot more complicated when Persons C, D, E, and Z get involved and one wants to regulate 20% while the other wants to regulate 66% etc etc. Even worse when you consider that the amount of regulation is not restricted to a singular linear plane and thus one person might want to regulate it 33% at a 50 degree angle while the other wants to regulate it 77% at a 20 degree angle.

As an aside, I want Amazon AND Loot Boxes to be regulated, anyways. Although I mean that more about Amazon's corporate policies and monopolization than anything to do with their right to refuse service to whoever they want to as long as it's not a protected case (again, gender, race, etc).

The moment the government gets the ability to force a business to serve others even if that business doesn't want to is where the real Orwellian crap comes in. (again, protected cases being the exception).

And it'd kinda be a moot point if the monopolization got regulated anyways because then it'd be easier to just move to other platforms if they banned you. That's how capitalism is supposed to work.

The problem is that the way politics usually goes is that people on the right want to move policy to the right. People on the left want to move policy to the left. If someone on the left proposes moving policy to the left, but not as far as they really want, that's not really a compromise, any more than moving policy to the right would be a compromise instead.

Often the reason why nothing gets done is that there isn't any way to modify existing policy that most people think would be an improvement. If some people think that a proposed change makes things better and others think it makes things worse, then the latter will and should oppose the proposed change. There is as much merit to killing a bad bill as passing a good one. Maybe more, as wild swings of policy are bad in their own right.

Ungood · April 2021

This discussion reminded me of this video.

Slapshot1188 · April 2021

What you want is 100% agreement on a wide issue instead of taking small victories where we agree. If we agree on 1 of 3 items then moving on that item is not meeting halfway. It’s moving forward together. Meeting halfway is what we can do on issues 2 and 3 where there is disagreement. You give me 2 and I’ll give you 3. That’s compromise. But that shouldn’t even come into play when we agree on issues.

This is exactly why we are so polarized. Doesn’t matter if it’s this issue, immigration, coronavirus stimulus, infrastructure. Let’s find out what we AGREE on... execute that... and then actually negotiate the rest. That means each side gives.

Far too much Us vs Them today. We keep it up and we won’t exist as a country in a decade.

Shaigh · April 2021

During the iraqi and syrian civil wars isis used youtube to recruit westerners to join their forces. Terrorist acts and shootings have been broadcasted live on platforms. Grooming of children is a constant problem on the platforms.

This isn't about removing your freedom, its about negating an actual problem. That's why politicians on both sides put legislation that makes tech giant liable and that's why amazon is doing this.

its not about attacking your internet freedom, unless you happen to be a paedophile or a terrorist.

Ungood · April 2021

Shaigh said:

During the iraqi and syrian civil wars isis used youtube to recruit westerners to join their forces. Terrorist acts and shootings have been broadcasted live on platforms. Grooming of children is a constant problem on the platforms.

This isn't about removing your freedom, its about negating an actual problem. That's why politicians on both sides put legislation that makes tech giant liable and that's why amazon is doing this.

its not about attacking your internet freedom, unless you happen to be a paedophile or a terrorist.

Thank you for the 2 cents, this was already addressed back on page 2.

Quizzical · April 2021

Shaigh said:

During the iraqi and syrian civil wars isis used youtube to recruit westerners to join their forces. Terrorist acts and shootings have been broadcasted live on platforms. Grooming of children is a constant problem on the platforms.

This isn't about removing your freedom, its about negating an actual problem. That's why politicians on both sides put legislation that makes tech giant liable and that's why amazon is doing this.

its not about attacking your internet freedom, unless you happen to be a paedophile or a terrorist.

Horrible censorship nearly always starts by censoring egregiously bad things that nearly everyone agrees should be censored. The problem is that sometimes it expands and expands and expands from there until it ends up becoming a horrible problem.

And sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes life is lived on a slippery slope and you manage not to slide down to the bottom. The question is how to prevent "we're going to ban terrorists" from turning into "we're going to ban anyone that a bunch of trolls happen to hate". So far, a lot of social media companies seem to be failing at figuring out how to do the former without also doing the latter.

YashaX · April 2021

Shaigh said:

During the iraqi and syrian civil wars isis used youtube to recruit westerners to join their forces. Terrorist acts and shootings have been broadcasted live on platforms. Grooming of children is a constant problem on the platforms.

This isn't about removing your freedom, its about negating an actual problem. That's why politicians on both sides put legislation that makes tech giant liable and that's why amazon is doing this.

its not about attacking your internet freedom, unless you happen to be a paedophile or a terrorist.

Yeah that's a good point, the devil will be in the details of exactly how it goes about self-regulating, but it seems to me to be the bare minimum needed to start unwinding the leverage these platforms have given to some very unsavory people and ideas up till now.

Ungood · April 2021

YashaX said:

Shaigh said:

During the iraqi and syrian civil wars isis used youtube to recruit westerners to join their forces. Terrorist acts and shootings have been broadcasted live on platforms. Grooming of children is a constant problem on the platforms.

This isn't about removing your freedom, its about negating an actual problem. That's why politicians on both sides put legislation that makes tech giant liable and that's why amazon is doing this.

its not about attacking your internet freedom, unless you happen to be a paedophile or a terrorist.

Yeah that's a good point, the devil will be in the details of exactly how it goes about self-regulating, but it seems to me to be the bare minimum needed to start unwinding the leverage these platforms have given to some very unsavory people and ideas up till now.

You realize that the only difference between a Patriot and a Terrorist, is who controls the media, right?

Malcom X, said this very thing:

The media can make a criminal and victim and a victim a criminal.

Cryomatrix · April 2021

Honestly, i think this removing from amazon platform is geared to the outliers and not to your average joe.

Companies have always been able to do this, it is just with social media you have a record of everything.

Scot · April 2021

I assume this is going to be after they are found guilty, if this is instead that the media is mentioning you in an article about murder or such, that would be a huge abuse. Therefore this action will be taken once a verdict in court has been reached, in which case you should be headed to jail not your tablet to play on Twitch. If this is only for former sentencing, the door is opened to what constitutes a crime?

So I am not quite sure how it will even be implemented, but no doubt "offence creep" will happen and before you know it having too many parking tickets will warrant investigation.

Scot · April 2021

I have to say considering how political this all is posters seem (OK I admit I skimmed) to have kept their calm and should be applauded for doing so.

Slapshot1188 · April 2021

Torval said:

The topic is that some people fear Amazon account reprisal for participating in clearly illegal acts outside of their Twitch service

That's actually NOT the topic. The topic is actually about a MEGACORPORATION using it's power to ban people from it's service BEFORE (and that is the key word here) they have been proven to have committed whatever act is in question. And Amazon clearly states that they expect the law enforcement agencies to give "evidence" to the company. This alone should scare the shit out of every single person hearing it. Also of note is this quote: “ Though Twitch will initially tackle a handful of listed serious offenses, the platform said it aims for the guidelines to be iterative”. So yeah, they are literally saying that once they get you to agree they are going to expand.

You want to lump them in with Mom and Pop stores, well that's your right, but I and others see a clear and distinct difference between a company who's revenue makes it greater than 80% of all COUNTRIES and the corner grocer.

Again, we have a legal process that addresses "clearly illegal acts". By this point we should know how dangerous it is to pre-judge.

Slapshot1188 · April 2021

Scot said:

I assume this is going to be after they are found guilty, if this is instead that the media is mentioning you in an article about murder or such, that would be a huge abuse. Therefore this action will be taken once a verdict in court has been reached, in which case you should be headed to jail not your tablet to play on Twitch. If this is only for former sentencing, the door is opened to what constitutes a crime?

So I am not quite sure how it will even be implemented, but no doubt "offence creep" will happen and before you know it having too many parking tickets will warrant investigation.

Actually it is NOT only after they are found guilty. That is what is so concerning!
The article says that they will investigate, expect the law enforcement authorities to share evidence with them (a private company) and will take action separate and prior to the legal process playing out.

And the company flat out admitted that the list of allegations they investigate is just the start and they will grow it after the first wave of PR blows over.

Howdy, Stranger!

Amazon Twitch to discipline people for offline behavior

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Amazon Twitch to discipline people for offline behavior

Comments