Amazon Twitch to discipline people for offline behavior

TiamatRoar

Whiners need to culture war everything these days.

All a person has to do is not be a jackass and then businesses won't decide they don't want to deal with that jackassery making them look bad, which by the way is fully within their rights as a privately owned business to choose who they want to deal with as long as it's not a protected case (race, gender, etc).

Or... not "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.”".

If they end up banning an "innocent" person (although I highly doubt the policy is intended to go after ambiguous cases), that's what defamation laws are for (...which is one reason why I doubt the policy is intended to go after ambiguous cases).   I doubt they intend to pursue any crimes that are particularly ambiguous enough that an actual criminal investigation could conceivably fail because in that case they'd believe their "third party investigations" the policy includes are more reliable than criminal investigators.

Admittingly I'm not sure how reliable defamation laws are considering you might be able to accuse with no evidence whatsoever on all patforms up to and including national tv a company of rigging a federal presidential election to the point where thousands of people are willing to sack the capital in the name of stopping this nonexistent election fraud, and still get away with it.  The fact that their policy includes their own third-party investigation first implies they at least are wary of being sued for defamation.

AlBQuirky

I got about halfway through the replies. Too hot of a topic for me to take part in because I am fighter for liberty, NOT censorship.

The problems I have are:

1) If someone does some "offensive", who gets to define that offense? Is it already a law? Then prosecute.

2) An "offense" on one platform may NOT be an "offense" on another. If I have a Parlor (conservative) account, is that ban-able by Twitch (woke)?

3) Face it, the left want to censor EVERYONE that does not "toe the line", by their own moving goalpost standards. What if something said today is ban-able next year?

I see slippery slopes every where, greased by a LOUD minority of "activists" who make a living by fanning the flames.

That's all I ll say. Continue on

TwistedSister77

Parler service, upstart rival to Facebook/Twitter was literally run out of business by big tech... Amazon/Facebook/Google/Apple/Twitter.

They banded together to straight up block them.  And yes, they did have posting rules - no threats, no violence, etc.(dispite media claims).  They just were not fact checker police and wouldn't arbitrary ban or censor your account for stuff like Facebook/twitter does.

So if people get upset by this policy, and try to move or create a new platform... the monopolies will crush it.

Scary times.

Ungood

AlBQuirky said:

 What if something said today is ban-able next year?

This is something I think that the people that support this kind of nonsense really do not grasp. 

What if in 10 years, they get fired from their job because of something they said on twitter last week, that was by todays standards a harmless joke, but has since morphed into something that became offensive.

This total lack of foresight, is what allows those in power to continually expand their control.

TwistedSister77

Ungood said:

AlBQuirky said:

 What if something said today is ban-able next year?

This is something I think that the people that support this kind of nonsense really do not grasp. 

What if in 10 years, they get fired from their job because of something they said on twitter last week, that was by todays standards a harmless joke, but has since morphed into something that became offensive.

This total lack of foresight, is what allows those in power to continually expand their control.

This has already happened many times.  The female Teen Vogue editor (27) was canned for a post she made when she was a teenager (underage) about asians.

And she's actually a minority, woke, a liberal... nobody is safe.

WhiteLantern

TwistedSister77 said:

Ungood said:

AlBQuirky said:

 What if something said today is ban-able next year?

This is something I think that the people that support this kind of nonsense really do not grasp. 

What if in 10 years, they get fired from their job because of something they said on twitter last week, that was by todays standards a harmless joke, but has since morphed into something that became offensive.

This total lack of foresight, is what allows those in power to continually expand their control.

This has already happened many times.  The female Teen Vogue editor (27) was canned for a post she made when she was a teenager (underage) about asians.

See also: James Gunn
Not to mention many of Biden's cabinet picks who had to systematicaly scrub their social media in an attempt to be approved by congress. (Didn't work for all of them)

Ungood

TwistedSister77 said:

Ungood said:

AlBQuirky said:

 What if something said today is ban-able next year?

This is something I think that the people that support this kind of nonsense really do not grasp. 

What if in 10 years, they get fired from their job because of something they said on twitter last week, that was by todays standards a harmless joke, but has since morphed into something that became offensive.

This total lack of foresight, is what allows those in power to continually expand their control.

This has already happened many times.  The female Teen Vogue editor (27) was canned for a post she made when she was a teenager (underage) about asians.

And she's actually a minority, woke, a liberal... nobody is safe.

And yet, people will push to give others, like their government, employers, even providers, and the like.. even MORE control over their lives.

And you know, these people never stop to even think of the ramifications of doing so.

Theocritus

It used to be so nice to just go to the electronics store and browse through the games and pick one up.....No twitch, no discord, no Amazon, no Streamers, no influencers, just a game and you. Now there's just so much drama in everything.

cheyane

Ungood said:

TwistedSister77 said:

Ungood said:

AlBQuirky said:

 What if something said today is ban-able next year?

This is something I think that the people that support this kind of nonsense really do not grasp. 

What if in 10 years, they get fired from their job because of something they said on twitter last week, that was by todays standards a harmless joke, but has since morphed into something that became offensive.

This total lack of foresight, is what allows those in power to continually expand their control.

This has already happened many times.  The female Teen Vogue editor (27) was canned for a post she made when she was a teenager (underage) about asians.

And she's actually a minority, woke, a liberal... nobody is safe.

Which is why I have deleted all my social media accounts.

The few I have active, like Twitter, I do not post anything on, I just follow politics and celebrates.. but.. I'll be damned if I am going to say anything in the public eye that can be tracked back to me.

You intend to run is it?

Ungood

cheyane said:

Ungood said:

TwistedSister77 said:

Ungood said:

AlBQuirky said:

 What if something said today is ban-able next year?

This is something I think that the people that support this kind of nonsense really do not grasp. 

What if in 10 years, they get fired from their job because of something they said on twitter last week, that was by todays standards a harmless joke, but has since morphed into something that became offensive.

This total lack of foresight, is what allows those in power to continually expand their control.

This has already happened many times.  The female Teen Vogue editor (27) was canned for a post she made when she was a teenager (underage) about asians.

And she's actually a minority, woke, a liberal... nobody is safe.

Which is why I have deleted all my social media accounts.

The few I have active, like Twitter, I do not post anything on, I just follow politics and celebrates.. but.. I'll be damned if I am going to say anything in the public eye that can be tracked back to me.

You intend to run is it?

Yah.. I was planning on running for president on the "Gimmie Money" platform, where I admit that I am just running for office to get the endless paycheck & health coverage, and then step down after a day, so my VP, who will be a right and proper Cyborg Alien Overlord, can take their place as rightful ruler.

I for one welcome our Cyborg Alien Overloads! 

Quizzical

TwistedSister77 said:

Parler service, upstart rival to Facebook/Twitter was literally run out of business by big tech... Amazon/Facebook/Google/Apple/Twitter.

They banded together to straight up block them.  And yes, they did have posting rules - no threats, no violence, etc.(dispite media claims).  They just were not fact checker police and wouldn't arbitrary ban or censor your account for stuff like Facebook/twitter does.

So if people get upset by this policy, and try to move or create a new platform... the monopolies will crush it.

Scary times.

Parler is not out of business:

https://parler.com/auth/access

They were kicked off of the Internet for a while because Amazon decided that they don't want to be a reliable web hosting service, but they're back now with their own servers.  I'm not sure if they have mobile apps available again or what, but they do still exist.

TwistedSister77

Ungood said:

cheyane said:

Ungood said:

TwistedSister77 said:

Ungood said:

AlBQuirky said:

 What if something said today is ban-able next year?

This is something I think that the people that support this kind of nonsense really do not grasp. 

What if in 10 years, they get fired from their job because of something they said on twitter last week, that was by todays standards a harmless joke, but has since morphed into something that became offensive.

This total lack of foresight, is what allows those in power to continually expand their control.

This has already happened many times.  The female Teen Vogue editor (27) was canned for a post she made when she was a teenager (underage) about asians.

And she's actually a minority, woke, a liberal... nobody is safe.

Which is why I have deleted all my social media accounts.

The few I have active, like Twitter, I do not post anything on, I just follow politics and celebrates.. but.. I'll be damned if I am going to say anything in the public eye that can be tracked back to me.

You intend to run is it?

Yah.. I was planning on running for president on the "Gimmie Money" platform, where I admit that I am just running for office to get the endless paycheck & health coverage, and then step down after a day, so my VP, who will be a right and proper Cyborg Alien Overlord, can take their place as rightful ruler.

I for one welcome our Cyborg Alien Overloads! 

There is no "delete", it helps if an pissed off amateur internet co-worker is trying to find out stuff... but everything is archived online.

The real power of Facebook/Instagram... future generations of powerful people... Zuckerberg has all their teenage dirt... even after they delete it.

botrytis

Once something is on the internet, it can never be taken back period.

TwistedSister77

botrytis said:

Once something is on the internet, it can never be taken back period.

<fart>      Excuse me, pardon my manners

Iselin

Horusra said:

Iselin said:

Cryomatrix said:

Iselin said:

t0nyd said:

I don't understand why people protect corporations.

Big pharma is a good example of socializing this cost while capitalizing the product. I take humira for autoimmune issues that I got from what the gov says is a part genetic part problem with the anthrax vaccination. Humira was developed mostly through subsidies from the tax payer. Humira would cost me 3200$ a month but luckily the VA pays it. The VA paying it means that the tax payers are paying for it again. Why so called libertarians and conservatives are ok with this is beyond me.

I think this graph tells the story pretty well, don't you?

https://www.statista.com/statistics/312014/average-price-of-humira-by-country/

Makes sense, in a capitalist country, the price of an item is what people will pay, the insurances will pay, so that is the price.

Last time I looked the UK, Germany and Switzerland are also capitalist countries. So why 10X the cost in the US?

If that makes sense to you, I have a bridge I want to unload at a bargain price.

With socialist health care systems.

Oooh... the classic red-baiting. McCarthy would be proud of you. LMAO.

Iselin

Cryomatrix said:

Iselin said:

Cryomatrix said:

Iselin said:

t0nyd said:

I don't understand why people protect corporations.

Big pharma is a good example of socializing this cost while capitalizing the product. I take humira for autoimmune issues that I got from what the gov says is a part genetic part problem with the anthrax vaccination. Humira was developed mostly through subsidies from the tax payer. Humira would cost me 3200$ a month but luckily the VA pays it. The VA paying it means that the tax payers are paying for it again. Why so called libertarians and conservatives are ok with this is beyond me.

I think this graph tells the story pretty well, don't you?

https://www.statista.com/statistics/312014/average-price-of-humira-by-country/

Makes sense, in a capitalist country, the price of an item is what people will pay, the insurances will pay, so that is the price.

Last time I looked the UK, Germany and Switzerland are also capitalist countries. So why 10X the cost in the US?

If that makes sense to you, I have a bridge I want to unload at a bargain price.

Yes, not every capitalist country is the same. My point is that in a free market with capitalism, what (whoever) someone pays, is what it will cost. Every country is different and every country has different parameters though they may both be capitalistic. 

Also, have you seen the prices of any hospital or clinic visit in the US, health insurance or government pays the bulk of it and not the people. Pharma can get health insurance to pay X, then that is what they will charge. 

If you think of it, once you've made your product, where the bulk of the cost is probably R&D and FDA approval and such. I am assuming the manufacturing is a small amount. So then the pharma companies probably go to each country and say, "hey, i have this drug, what will you pay". They negotiate it and sell the drug. If you're already making 20,000% markup on the manufactured drug per unit, it's fine to do 10,000% markup per unit to another country rather then just making it and not selling it. It probably all has to do with bargaining power and leverage a country has vs the pharma company. For example, with single payer entities, the government of the country has a ton of leverage over the pharma where america is broken up into many different health insurances which each negotiate their price along with the government. 

At some point what a country will pay for a drug and what pharma will sell it for is agreed upon and it is sold. Hence, the price that is 10x more in the US. 

Im' not justifying it, just saying that, yeah in the world we live in, it makes sense. Also, given that medicare/medicaid pays a fraction of a dollar, a lot of bills are overinflated to reach a level of revenue for the clinic and/or hospital. It ain't right, but it is reality. 

I only brought up big pharma as an example of other giant megacorps that need to be regulated, not just Amazon since the whole point of this thread, even though Slapshot can't bring himself to actually say it, is to regulate Amazon so they can't ban you on twitch.

And the point is that most if not all other capitalist countries see the need to regulate big pharma more than the US does with the end result of a stark difference in prices between different capitalist countries as the end result.

The US sticks out like sore thumb as being the one country that doesn't give enough of a shit about pharmaceutical companies price gouging the sick.

Some will use the ever present red menace scare and the sacred US freedom to justify it and dismiss countries that get it and give enough of a shit as socialists... except apparently when Amazon wants to keep domestic terrorists off Twitch because those there are fighting words!

Slapshot1188

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.

Iselin

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.

Slapshot1188

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.  

Iselin

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?

Ungood

TwistedSister77 said:

Ungood said:

cheyane said:

Ungood said:

TwistedSister77 said:

Ungood said:

AlBQuirky said:

 What if something said today is ban-able next year?

This is something I think that the people that support this kind of nonsense really do not grasp. 

What if in 10 years, they get fired from their job because of something they said on twitter last week, that was by todays standards a harmless joke, but has since morphed into something that became offensive.

This total lack of foresight, is what allows those in power to continually expand their control.

This has already happened many times.  The female Teen Vogue editor (27) was canned for a post she made when she was a teenager (underage) about asians.

And she's actually a minority, woke, a liberal... nobody is safe.

Which is why I have deleted all my social media accounts.

The few I have active, like Twitter, I do not post anything on, I just follow politics and celebrates.. but.. I'll be damned if I am going to say anything in the public eye that can be tracked back to me.

You intend to run is it?

Yah.. I was planning on running for president on the "Gimmie Money" platform, where I admit that I am just running for office to get the endless paycheck & health coverage, and then step down after a day, so my VP, who will be a right and proper Cyborg Alien Overlord, can take their place as rightful ruler.

I for one welcome our Cyborg Alien Overloads! 

There is no "delete", it helps if an pissed off amateur internet co-worker is trying to find out stuff... but everything is archived online.

The real power of Facebook/Instagram... future generations of powerful people... Zuckerberg has all their teenage dirt... even after they delete it.

Zuck, or the major players having dirt on me, is less a worry for someone like me, I am so far below them, I could be dead for a week before they would even bother to update the info they have on me to include that I was dead and no longer want to hear about my cars extended warranty.

I mean, I get that if I ever rise to power (I am have long since accepted that I will die blue collar, so this will never happen) that they will be able to ensure I play ball with them, on their terms, or they will cut me down. Which, lets be honest, if I ever got to that level of public importance, It would have already been in my best interest to work with them anyway I could, so.. that is more a no-duh thing for some old grayed out buzzard like me.

It will be far more a problem for the younger people, those getting into the rat race now, those between 18 - 40, who, still have that open world before them, to rise to greatness in their fields, they have the most to lose from all this massive overreach by big tech companies, and other larger industries being able to enforce their cooperate ideologies upon their daily life, and in short controlling every aspect of their life, while only paying them the bare minimum possible for such open door welcoming to impose upon them in such a manner. It's really a shit deal, and why anyone would be like "Fuck Yah, that is the way it should be" is far beyond me.. but here we are, with people actually presenting that kind of mindset. I legit hope they are like old retired Trolls, just looking to screw the next generation like that.

All that aside, The real issue, to be honest, are the small fries bottom feeders going at each other, and the legions of shallow people looking for the next big something to be angry/offended about, and I get turned down for a job, or let go, because of something I said 20 years ago on my FB page, and just now someone decided to get upset about it.

If I was ever going to go into the big game, sure I would scrub my accounts for the plebeians, but I would do so, knowing full well that big Tech already has everything I have said and done achieved right down to what porn I watch and the brand of monkey butt powder I use to deal with the rash on my left asscheck, (we have far surpassed the posint of those recording us knowing us better then we know ourselves) and anything that paints me in a bad light or can hurt my reputation, will magically make the rounds if at any point I suddenly opt to not play nice.

But, the big fish do not worry me, The people that get to me are menial nobody self proclaimed defender of the people looking to make peoples lives miserable, and just dumping shit on anyone that don't like, and sadly some of these life losers, end up in HR, and management positions, and while, I may not ever work with them directly, they can be the people that run personal checks on me, simply because I applied for a job, or happen to be employed by the same company, and they figured they would scour my social media looking for some reason to make my life suck.

If anyone thinks people are not in fact that petty.. that's so cute.

Slapshot1188

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?

I actually support (unswervingly... go look) classifying lootboxes as gambling and restricting sales to minors.  I also believe the odds must be posted.

So I guess we have a deal...

edit:  By the way there was no negotiation there. No compromise.  You said you supported both.  In this case I did too...  That’s my point.  We shouldn’t hold something hostage that we both agree on as leverage to get something.  

Iselin

Slapshot1188 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?

I actually support (unswervingly... go look) classifying lootboxes as gambling and restricting sales to minors.  I also believe the odds must be posted.

So I guess we have a deal...

OK then let's regulate the shit out of lootboxes and Amazon. I feel like having a smoke now

WhiteLantern

Iselin said:

Slapshot1188 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?

I actually support (unswervingly... go look) classifying lootboxes as gambling and restricting sales to minors.  I also believe the odds must be posted.

So I guess we have a deal...

OK then let's regulate the shit out of lootboxes and Amazon. I feel like having a smoke now

Tobbaco is taboo. You'll get kicked out of....somewhere for that.

klash2def

Torval said:

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.

please say it again for the people in the back of the class Professor. please: