Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Amazon Twitch to discipline people for offline behavior
This discussion has been closed.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
So with broadcasters setting that standard it is easy to see how the social media side of gaming (like Twitch) will be able to get away with this. They don't have to say you are guilty they will just have concerns and ditch you.
Malcom X & Martin Luther King Jr who spoke against the status quo and against the government and where protesting in the streets where in fact Seditionist, So too where all the people that made that Autonomous zone in Minneapolis when they burned down police departments and government buildings, and yet.. lo and behold look who the media made a huge deal about, and who the media sided with.
Malcom X:
So again, the only difference between a Patriot and a Terrorist, is who controls the media.
And Just for those people that fell asleep in history class, America was founded and formed by a bunch of Seditionist.
What makes me laugh however, is that this could lead to utility companies like, your phone provider, cable, wi-fi, electrical provider, even things like housing (Apartment, Condo, Hotel), and all other services denying you service simply because you didn't say something that praised Dear Leader in your Facebook profile.
Now, I fully respect different people wanting different things in life, some people like Pineapple, some hate it. Same with Liberty and Freedom, some people find liberty and freedom to not be their vibe, and thankfully there are many other nations, that can provide them all levels of the kind of regime they want to live under, and to that system, America, an entire nation built on the idea of freedom and rebellion against authority, with it's first core right being able to speak out against the government, and it's founding fathers believing that, as need be, overthrow your government, is obviously not the nation for people that feel they should live under more oppressive control.
That said, I've always thought it was weird that people were okay letting there kids hang out in chat rooms with often very eccentric adults. I mean, this was such an issue ten or so years ago that it practically wiped out internet chat rooms as a platform. It's hard for me to support Twitch usage for sex offenders on a platform that is predominantly children, but I also see how it could be misused.
Hmmm...tough one.
The bold part is why it's a wrong characterization. You can say "Amazon believes to be". That is quite a different story though. There are also other troubling factors.
One is that Amazon is stating that they expect law enforcement to share evidence with them. Amazon (as you are quite aware) is a private company and these alleged offline incidents would have ZERO to do with them so WHY would any law enforcement agency give them ANYTHING for a case they have nothing to do with? They should have ZERO as in NO interaction with law enforcement. If something is made public that's great, but no... law enforcement should not even speak with Amazon or their representatives although I guess they can just get the Washington Post (one of the biggest Newspapers in the country) file for whatever they want... and then craft a "news" article about it. Because then they have an "allegation" they can action.
The second is that Amazon quite clearly stated that this is just the first of many rounds of items and there is certainly nothing at all that indicates they will be "clearly illegal". Simply that they will "initially tackle a handful of listed serious offenses"
This has nothing, ZERO to do with conservative vs liberal. This could be applied to people who were accused of rioting over the summer (not convicted... just accused of looting).
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"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
With that said: Keeping on Point:
LOL.. Power, Water, Electricity.. LOL.
In any case, let me clue you in, utilities can not only deny you services, based on a series of factors, most of which often involve where you are located, and can and will require that you provide the hook ups needed to access your property, and they do not do any work to private lands, this of course depending on county and state rules and codes.
They can also cut your existing services off without warning, or refund, if they deem it's necessary. Many Texans found that one out the hard way this last winter, and Californians have been made astutely aware of that almost every summer for many years now by PG&E, LOL. Not only that, your service can rest heavy on ability to provide it, like for example, during a power outage, sewage and water can be also be cut off, and, in case you were wondering, you have no rights to rectify this situation. If they cut off your water for reasons, you are expected to just deal with it.
Not only that, your services can be cut for non-payment, abuse, and other factors they do not like. For example, if you have power, and your neighbors does not, and you sell them power via an extension cord, there is a clause that they can cut your power off for subletting, which they do not allow in most states. Check your local and state laws on that one, but if you think you can't lose your utilities, you thought every wrong.
With that said.
My point was that this could open the door to other services denying people simply because they didn't comply to what the government wants them to say, think and do.
This includes, easy things to deny you, like not selling you goods. IE: Not selling you a gun because you voted for Biden who has a strong platform on increasing Gun laws and restricting sales, so Ammo/Gun shops, opt to deny selling people guns if they voted for him, based on the reasoning that his policies will hurt their business. It's fair and totally just.
To somewhat harder things, like, Housing. I mean, I can almost imagine a Apartment complex, or even Loan Officer, asking people who they voted for, and outright denying them loans or rentals into areas that had conflicting political views. or just denying them, because they didn't want any stinking conservatives in their liberal haven, or vice versa. Which, currently is legal.
Then this could very easy go to Insurance (Car/House/Life/Health), who have been denying people services for all kinds of stupid reasons, and where mandated, imagine playing 3x as much for car insurance based purely on your political view, simply because the company did not agree with your views.
Now anyone that thinks the people in control and power are ever going to be like "This line and no further" have failed history to see all the many previous lines that have already been passed, when they tried to say "this line and no further"
Benjamin Franken:
You would be totally fine with that?
I disagree that my statement is a mischaracterization. The insurrectionists on January 6th participated in clearly illegal acts. Whether they face criminal prosecution or conviction is another story, but it was a clearly illegal act.
You remain singularly focused on an edge case of "insurrectionists". It lists several examples and they EXPLICITLY state that they will expand beyond "the first prioritized categories".
Amazon IS NOT stating that they expect law enforcement to share evidence with them. Amazon expects their investigators to seek information from law enforcement agencies. Those are two different things entirely.
No they aren't. Because they go through a 3rd party does not make it any better. No private company not involved should have ANY "information from law enforcement" shared with it. If information is in the public domain that is not the same as getting information from law enforcement.
Are you saying investigators shouldn't be allowed to seek information from law enforcement? That would be a big change to our legal system. Or are you saying you just think Amazon shouldn't be able to do so? I'm having a hard time finding the line where you want to change established legal guidelines and protocol and where you want special rules that only apply to Amazon drawn.
Nobody should be able to solicit information from law enforcement that is not public domain unless they are a party to the case. This should be true whether it's Amazon, or my neighbor Bob. If Amazon is investigating something that happened on their servers or in their warehouse.. then sure. But to interact with law enforcement for a case they have ZERO involvement in... NO WAY. I think that is an easy and clear line.
What part of "They're a business and can choose their customers and partners as they want" that is confusing? You keep going back to this idea that they need to make decisions based on court judgements but that isn't true and hasn't been true of businesses in the US at all.
I think I have been clear and consistent. IMHO there is a huge difference between "a business" and a megacorporation that is growing exponentially and involved in everything from shopping to web hosting to medicine to shipping to food delivery to... ad nauseum. I know I had stated earlier that if Twitch was a stand alone company I would not have an issue with them refusing service (although I would of course object to their interaction with law enforcement). This is about a company that is larger than 80% of the countries on earth, and I would argue that their power is even higher than that. Size DOES matter and history is replete with instances where larger companies were treated differently than Mom and Pop ones. This needs to be one of those cases.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"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
So this is basically just SWATing by some random person. Which, while very very bad (Remember when it got someone killed after some gamers did it?), is nothing new and doesn't really have much to do with Amazon's policy. Dealing with SWATing is an entirely different can of worms from regulating online service providers.
Either you support the censorship of anything antigovernment, or you don't.
With that little bit put out, as for being informed, allow me to educate you, this is a private company, you don't have any 1st rights with them, 1st only applies to the Government Directly regarding laws being passed, and do not apply at all with a private industry or entity like Amazon, Twitter, or any of the other Social Media platforms for that matter, which, in the case it has not dawned on you, is why they can legally pull this kind of censorship in the first place, and this is something you need to inform yourself of so we can have an educated discussion.
So again:
You would be totally fine with that?
Now at this point, I would just ask again for you to just answer the question, but given your response above, we all can see already that you would not be, and your entire premise to support this action, is that you are under the belief that these rules will only apply and be used against those other people that you disagree with, which makes your entire stand for this exchange "Rules for Ye but not for Me"
Which to be honest, if you did any study into history, would know this is one of the absolute most horrible stands to have as a subject to a nation or ruler. There have been so many enlightened people that have warned against this mindset throughout our human history, across the entire world, during eras far predating America, of all different religious and moral views, and yet, this is one of those beliefs or views that is universally known to be a bad, so much so, that it is not even funny.
History Time:
The Sedition Act of 1918, enacted during World War I, made it a crime to "willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of the Government of the United States" or to "willfully urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of the production" of the things "necessary or essential to the prosecution of the war." The act, along with other similar federal laws, was used to convict at least 877 people in 1919 and 1920, according to a report by the attorney general. In 1919, the Court heard several important free speech cases -- including Debs v. United States and Abrams v. United States -- involving the constitutionality of the law. In both cases, the Court upheld the convictions as well as the law.
Please do Take some time, read that over, take careful note that Sedition, is defined as "utter, print, write, or Publish any Disloyal, profane, Scurrilous, or Abusive Language about the the form of government of the United Sates"
Now, take an extra moment, to make note that there is ZERO requirement to incite hostilities for this to be considered criminal act.
Now.. take a good look at that, when this act was pit against your Precious 1st. The 1st Lost.
So if you thought you had this all figured out.. I hope this is your wakeup call that, You didn't.. and You Don't.
Now, I wager some of the smarter or informed members of this discussion, will bring up that the Sedition Act 1918 only applies during "War Time" which no doubt is why it was passed and accepted, as that limiter makes it seem less threating and more common sense, you know, when the country is at war, we can't have people speaking ill of it.
I wasn't there, but, no doubt the young people 100 years ago thought that just made sense, just like the young people today supporting big tech censorship just makes sense.
I also believe, just like when the Patriot Act was passed, they no doubt thought that when the war was over, they would go back to their merry life of saying whatever they want fully protected by the 1st Amendment, and the government could go suck it.
I do hope someone thought of that, as that would be when I get say that America has been at active War for the last 20 years, with no end in sight.
So, the Sedition Act of 1918, is currently in effect. Chances are, it is not being enforced, because right now, there is little need to enforce it, when the big tech companies will do that anyway, and thus the government can avoid any exposure to the masses how little rights they really have left.
That is all for this bit of American history. I hope you all enjoyed it.
Well.. hopefully, you will be able to dance the line then
I wish you good luck.
"If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both."
...Is still very much alive and has not been repealed.
https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-procedure/18-usc-sect-2384.html
But thanks for lowering the average IQ of the thread.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
That said, Twitch isn't exactly a monopoly yet. There are still other options if they show you the door.
Also, it's not actually because they WANT people to behave that way. It's because they're worried about getting sued if they are held responsible for the damage those people do. And also (ironically) worried about getting more government regulation and restrictions in how much (...also ironically) free speech they can allow on their platform if that free speech leads to terrorist or seditionist attacks (like say, for example, the capital getting sacked).
These large companies and corporations try to use the argument they don't want to be associated with them, which on some level is understandable, EXCEPT these users have zero affect on their business model. No one stops using YouTube because Tiamat64 pissed them off. They just stop watching THAT channel. When an advertiser says they don't want to be associated with a channel does that channel get removed? Nope. It only gets demonetized. AND, get this! most of the time they still have commercials from different advertisers that are not blacklisting that channel and YOUTUBE STILL MAKES MONEY ON IT. Pretty fucked up if you ask me.
Not only do these "wrong think" people not actually affect their bottom line, the users that cried about them in the first place either never used that product (look at people who cry about Star Wars yet never actually watch it) or would never stop using it regardless.
Bottom line, these are not your mom and pop department stores that will suffer business if they ignore the minute complaints. They just use their power to silence.
This is not Bob’s grocery. And the fact that they have so much power over such a wide swath of American life... should be utterly chilling. And that they now want to wield that power should be terrifying.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"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
Many are confused as hell but damn proud of it because they think they've discovered a higher truth.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Also, laws regarding Sedition are still there, and at their core still designed to silence people who disagree with the way the government handles things. That has not changed.
Keep in mind, even with the new terminology, violence's is still not required, only that you propose to "delay the execution of any law of the United States", and that is a bit of a trick, because doing that does not need to involve violence or hostilities in any manner, which brings us back to my point of DefundthePolice, this action, or movement is designed to reduce the funding of the police force, and thus impede that legal authorly and government entity from being able to do their job effectively.
So.. contingent upon who was pulling the strings, and who the media wanted to burn in effigy at that time, they could claim it was a type of Sedition, which, while maybe not enough to push criminal charges, it would be enough to get people banned from Social Media Platforms given the current stipulations and requirements as they will soon be.
But.. as I said.
You are a smart one.. I hope you can dace the line.
Personally, I would rather the line not be there, but I guess some people have such issues against allowing others to have freedom, so much so, they willingly give up their own just to spite them.
Now, If anyone was under some illusion that the idea that the Media can't be trusted, is some new political thing, because that is what the media has portrayed it as, that should be a wake up call at how accurate Malcom X really was way back in the 1940's, about how the media not only lies to you, but can control all you think you know.
Did any of you really think "The Media is Lying to you" was a new thing?
Of course the media has selectively reported to influence opinion as they did as far back as William Randolph Hearst instigating American involvement against the Spanish, and they have also reported lies as news.
But they are the best we've got to expose lies and corruption and as a whole, they don't generally lie if for no other reason that they are competitive and if they deliberately lie another media outlet will expose them.
What is new is the systematic and deliberate lies by those in public office to portray all the media that they don't like as liars, complete with popular catch phrases like "fake news" and "alternative facts." That is what I'm talking about not about some of the media, but by no means all of it, portraying the civil rights struggles as criminal acts by hoodlums.
That is what Malcom X was talking about in the '60s.
I'll tell you one thing: I believe what I read in The Guardian, the NY Times and the Washington Post or what I see on the CBC news here in Canada one hell of a lot more than anything that comes out of the mouth of a politician or corporate PR department.
They may not be perfect and have some liars in the mix but on the whole they are the more credible source of information.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
And forget the past. The issues are about today.
Once upon a time....