Amazon Twitch to discipline people for offline behavior

Quizzical · April 2021

Torval said:

this is beginning to stroll way off topic.

Only beginning? Hahahaha.

Scot · April 2021

Slapshot1188 said:

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 they 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.

Guilty before proven guilty is very concerning, but the media have set the precedence for this. If you make a court case an item for days, you are saying they are guilty without actually saying so. If every time a figure in the entertainment industry is in a news item and you mention the "controversy" about them that is saying they are guilty.

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.

Ungood · April 2021

Torval said:

Ungood said:

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.

Nice rhetoric, but no, sedition is a crime. It's well defined and this is beginning to stroll way off topic. The topic is that some people fear Amazon account reprisal for participating in clearly illegal acts outside of their Twitch service and they feel Amazon doesn't have a right to choose their business partners or customers; that Amazon should be forced to provide services against their will to those they don't want to.

Nice rhetoric, but no. Sedition just means to protest against the government. That means that the charge of Sedition can be applied to anyone that disagrees with the authoritarian regime of their government, regardless of how noble the rebellion or corrupt the government. Keep that in mind as you write away your freedoms.

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:

"If you are not Careful, the News will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people doing the oppressing"

"The media's the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power. Because they control the minds of the masses."

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.

Rungar · April 2021

Censorship is all around you. This is just a more precise way of doing it. Most people self censor in fear of something they refuse to admit even exists.

Cuddleheart · April 2021

I generally lean heavy into erroring on the side of not taking things away from people. I can also see how 'terrorism' is a term that's been used in a nebulous way throughout history.

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.

Slapshot1188 · April 2021

Torval said:

Slapshot1188 said:

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.

It is the topic because, as it has been said many times before in this thread, the conviction or legal judgement status is completely irrelevant as to whether a company does business with an entity. The fact that it is a "megacorporation" or small business is also irrelevant.

You're trying to reframe the narrative by repeating the expectation that the government should force companies to do business with anyone who isn't convicted of a crime. That isn't how US business works.

Amazon, and anyone else can seek public records about criminal indictments. Again, you're twisting the narrative to say that "Amazon expects law enforcement to give something they're not entitled to" and that won't happen. Amazon's third party investigators would need to go through the same legal channels any investigator would. It is possible to petition, especially under court orders, to provide information for an investigation.

Since Amazon isn't a judicial entity they only need enough evidence to satisfy the claim or suspicion that an entity is engaging in objectionable activities.

The legal system has not only failed to hold certain groups accountable, but has covered for their activities. The public, including businesses, are taking their own appropriate action into their own hands and are well within their rights.

I'm perfectly happy with everyone who engage in (or promote) the list of activities listed in the news article to have their accounts banned. Why wouldn't I? I don't think in these instances it's dangerous at all to make public judgements. Many conservatives have bragged about their unethical exploits and how they can get away with them. So again, the legal system has failed and this has left individuals and businesses in the position to make ethics choices which they are entirely within their right to do.

No... you said "The topic is that some people fear Amazon account reprisal for participating in clearly illegal acts outside of their Twitch service "

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).

Ungood · April 2021

Torval said:

Ungood said:

Torval said:

Nice rhetoric, but no, sedition is a crime. It's well defined and this is beginning to stroll way off topic. The topic is that some people fear Amazon account reprisal for participating in clearly illegal acts outside of their Twitch service and they feel Amazon doesn't have a right to choose their business partners or customers; that Amazon should be forced to provide services against their will to those they don't want to.

Nice rhetoric, but no. Sedition just means to protest against the government. That means that the charge of Sedition can be applied to anyone that disagrees with the authoritarian regime of their government, regardless of how noble the rebellion or corrupt the government. Keep that in mind as you write away your freedoms.

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:
"If you are not Careful, the News will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people doing the oppressing"

"The media's the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power. Because they control the minds of the masses."

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.

You're conflating essential services with entertainment. Utilities cannot deny you public services: power, water, and electricity.

Well for starters, at least you realized how hideously bad your original stand was, and now trying at some pitiful play down party lines, and it's being ignored, because it's sad and pitiful and also very wrong.

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:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Ungood · April 2021

Torval said:
The legal system has not only failed to hold certain groups accountable, but has covered for their activities. The public, including businesses, are taking their own appropriate action into their own hands and are well within their rights.

I'm perfectly happy with everyone who engage in (or promote) the list of activities listed in the news article to have their accounts banned. Why wouldn't I? I don't think in these instances it's dangerous at all to make public judgements.

So, let me see if I have this right, you would be fine if you hashtag "Defund the Police" which is technically sedition (Speaking out against the Government), and all your social media accounts get deleted and you get banned from all Amazon accounts, including your purchasing account, and any storefront you may have had.

You would be totally fine with that?

Slapshot1188 · April 2021

Torval said:

No... you said "The topic is that some people fear Amazon account reprisal for participating in clearly illegal acts outside of their Twitch service "

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).

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.

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.

Investigators can currently seek information from law enforcement agencies. Amazon isn't asking for something new. This is established behavior in the US.

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.

Amazon has every right to close Twitch accounts for anyone; the seditious insurrectionists from Jan 6, the white supremecist rioters over the last summer, or the various people who participated in racial inequality protests over the last summer. Twitch can choose ban people for taking a vaccine position they don't agree with. Why? Because they're a private business and can do what they want so long as they don't violate civil rights or anti-trust.

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 cant use the editor so forgive the cut and paste hack:

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.

Tiamat64 · April 2021

t0nyd said:

Saw scary tweet this morning. This person claims California highway patrol stopped at their house and questioned them about a tweet. I'm skeptical of the claim but did read a tweet from chpd saying that they do do this. There was nothing violent in the tweet. This could be looked at as an intimidation tactic. Pretty scary stuff...

https://twitter.com/queeralamode/status/1380284997785948162

Reading more about this, the police that came over said they did because someone reported him.

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.

Ungood · April 2021

Torval said:

Ungood said:

Torval said:
The legal system has not only failed to hold certain groups accountable, but has covered for their activities. The public, including businesses, are taking their own appropriate action into their own hands and are well within their rights.

I'm perfectly happy with everyone who engage in (or promote) the list of activities listed in the news article to have their accounts banned. Why wouldn't I? I don't think in these instances it's dangerous at all to make public judgements.

So, let me see if I have this right, you would be fine if you hashtag "Defund the Police" which is technically sedition (Speaking out against the Government), and all your social media accounts get deleted and you get banned from all Amazon accounts, including your purchasing account, and any storefront you may have had.

You would be totally fine with that?

You're uninformed, clearly don't understand the definition of sedition, and speak purely from your feelings not facts as if that is reality.

Look up sedition and read about it. Look up First Amendment rights and read about them. Take some time to educate yourself on the subject matter so we can have an informed debate not a "I feel it's this way" argument.

This is why education and critical thinking are important. A lot of people now seem to think their take on something is a fact when in reality it is just uninformed opinion and completely wrong.

To coin a phrase. "You can't have it both ways"

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:

So, let me see if I have this right, you would be fine if you hashtag "Defund the Police" which is technically sedition (Speaking out against the Government), and all your social media accounts get deleted and you get banned from all Amazon accounts, including your purchasing account, and any storefront you may have had.

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.

Ungood · April 2021

t0nyd said:

Ungood said:

Torval said:
The legal system has not only failed to hold certain groups accountable, but has covered for their activities. The public, including businesses, are taking their own appropriate action into their own hands and are well within their rights.

I'm perfectly happy with everyone who engage in (or promote) the list of activities listed in the news article to have their accounts banned. Why wouldn't I? I don't think in these instances it's dangerous at all to make public judgements.

So, let me see if I have this right, you would be fine if you hashtag "Defund the Police" which is technically sedition (Speaking out against the Government), and all your social media accounts get deleted and you get banned from all Amazon accounts, including your purchasing account, and any storefront you may have had.

You would be totally fine with that?

Sedition isn't speaking out against the government. Sedition is inciting a revolt against the government. Sedition and criticizing are not the same thing.

So saying "defund the police" is not sedition. Saying "defund the police or we will gather and overthrow the local government", now that could be argued as being sedition. Intent does matter.

Yah, Sorry, but, you're wrong.

History Time:

DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION
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.

Ungood · April 2021

t0nyd said:

So....
As part of a sweeping repeal of wartime laws, Congress repealed the Sedition Act on December 13, 1920

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384

Hummm.. we have a smart one here.

Well.. hopefully, you will be able to dance the line then

I wish you good luck.

Iselin · April 2021

t0nyd said:

So....
As part of a sweeping repeal of wartime laws, Congress repealed the Sedition Act on December 13, 1920

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384

This:...

"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.

ChildoftheShadows · April 2021

“They are companies so they can do what they want “ becomes a childish argument once the company is large enough that the impact actually affects the users lives.

It’s coercion. Behave the way I want or you don’t get to be involved in modern life.

A social credit score.

Tiamat64 · April 2021

ChildoftheShadows said:

“They are companies so they can do what they want “ becomes a childish argument once the company is large enough that the impact actually affects the users lives.

It’s coercion. Behave the way I want or you don’t get to be involved in modern life.

A social credit score.

If a company is truly that powerful (and in many ways, Amazon/Twitch possibly is), then what we need is either stronger anti-monopoly laws or, depending on just how deeply engrained the service is to the livelihood of the people (example: The Post Office), government ownership, not the government suddenly getting the right to say a privately owned business is no longer allowed to refuse service to people it doesn't like. It's only the government that's supposed to be forced to do that.

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).

ChildoftheShadows · April 2021

Tiamat64 said:

ChildoftheShadows said:

“They are companies so they can do what they want “ becomes a childish argument once the company is large enough that the impact actually affects the users lives.

It’s coercion. Behave the way I want or you don’t get to be involved in modern life.

A social credit score.

If a company is truly that powerful (and in many ways, Amazon/Twitch possibly is), then what we need is either stronger anti-monopoly laws or, depending on just how deeply engrained the service is to the livelihood of the people (example: The Post Office), government ownership, not the government suddenly getting the right to say a privately owned business is no longer allowed to refuse service to people it doesn't like. It's only the government that's supposed to be forced to do that.

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).

People make a living on twitch, youtube, subscribstar, patreon, substack, etc, etc so yes they already do affect users lives. Like it or not social media is driving a lot of politics. The 'squeaky wheel' if you will. So even they have an enormous impact on those that both use it and those that don't.

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.

Slapshot1188 · April 2021

Food for thought. Amazon is so huge and integrated in so much... what would happen to the US if it suddenly shut down? Amazon web servers, Amazon marketplace with all the companies on both. If Amazon shut down suddenly what would happen to the USA?

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.

YashaX · April 2021

Torval said:

Ungood said:

Torval said:
The legal system has not only failed to hold certain groups accountable, but has covered for their activities. The public, including businesses, are taking their own appropriate action into their own hands and are well within their rights.

I'm perfectly happy with everyone who engage in (or promote) the list of activities listed in the news article to have their accounts banned. Why wouldn't I? I don't think in these instances it's dangerous at all to make public judgements.

So, let me see if I have this right, you would be fine if you hashtag "Defund the Police" which is technically sedition (Speaking out against the Government), and all your social media accounts get deleted and you get banned from all Amazon accounts, including your purchasing account, and any storefront you may have had.

You would be totally fine with that?

You're uninformed, clearly don't understand the definition of sedition, and speak purely from your feelings not facts as if that is reality.

Look up sedition and read about it. Look up First Amendment rights and read about them. Take some time to educate yourself on the subject matter so we can have an informed debate not a "I feel it's this way" argument.

This is why education and critical thinking are important. A lot of people now seem to think their take on something is a fact when in reality it is just uninformed opinion and completely wrong.

I don't think you are going to make much headway when talking to someone who thinks terrorists are soley defined by whoever "controls" the media, thinks truth is completely subjective, bases their arguments on words they clearly do not understand the meaning of, and puts the efforts of black Americans fighting against segregation on the same level as protests against a company deciding they don't want to give dangerous aholes a platform to spew their opinions from.

Ungood · April 2021

YashaX said:

Torval said:

Ungood said:

Torval said:
The legal system has not only failed to hold certain groups accountable, but has covered for their activities. The public, including businesses, are taking their own appropriate action into their own hands and are well within their rights.

I'm perfectly happy with everyone who engage in (or promote) the list of activities listed in the news article to have their accounts banned. Why wouldn't I? I don't think in these instances it's dangerous at all to make public judgements.

So, let me see if I have this right, you would be fine if you hashtag "Defund the Police" which is technically sedition (Speaking out against the Government), and all your social media accounts get deleted and you get banned from all Amazon accounts, including your purchasing account, and any storefront you may have had.

You would be totally fine with that?

You're uninformed, clearly don't understand the definition of sedition, and speak purely from your feelings not facts as if that is reality.

Look up sedition and read about it. Look up First Amendment rights and read about them. Take some time to educate yourself on the subject matter so we can have an informed debate not a "I feel it's this way" argument.

This is why education and critical thinking are important. A lot of people now seem to think their take on something is a fact when in reality it is just uninformed opinion and completely wrong.

I don't think you are going to make much headway when talking to someone who thinks terrorists are soley defined by whoever "controls" the media, thinks truth is completely subjective, bases their arguments on words they clearly do not understand the meaning of, and puts the efforts of black Americans fighting against segregation on the same level as protests against a company deciding they don't want to give dangerous aholes a platform to spew their opinions from.

Well, on the same token, I don't think anyone is going to make much headway when talking to someone who does not understand the effects and power controlling the media, especially in a discussion, about the media controlling what information. or someone that thinks they posses any greater truth than what is spoon fed them by the media, while again, not realizing the power and influence of the media. Bases their arguments on words they clearly do not understand the meaning of, and does not understand that defending liberty has nothing to do with your race, religion, or sexuality, and wholly supports censorship regarding anyone they disagree with.

Iselin · April 2021

YashaX said:

Torval said:

Ungood said:

Torval said:
The legal system has not only failed to hold certain groups accountable, but has covered for their activities. The public, including businesses, are taking their own appropriate action into their own hands and are well within their rights.

I'm perfectly happy with everyone who engage in (or promote) the list of activities listed in the news article to have their accounts banned. Why wouldn't I? I don't think in these instances it's dangerous at all to make public judgements.

So, let me see if I have this right, you would be fine if you hashtag "Defund the Police" which is technically sedition (Speaking out against the Government), and all your social media accounts get deleted and you get banned from all Amazon accounts, including your purchasing account, and any storefront you may have had.

You would be totally fine with that?

You're uninformed, clearly don't understand the definition of sedition, and speak purely from your feelings not facts as if that is reality.

Look up sedition and read about it. Look up First Amendment rights and read about them. Take some time to educate yourself on the subject matter so we can have an informed debate not a "I feel it's this way" argument.

This is why education and critical thinking are important. A lot of people now seem to think their take on something is a fact when in reality it is just uninformed opinion and completely wrong.

I don't think you are going to make much headway when talking to someone who thinks terrorists are soley defined by whoever "controls" the media, thinks truth is completely subjective, bases their arguments on words they clearly do not understand the meaning of, and puts the efforts of black Americans fighting against segregation on the same level as protests against a company deciding they don't want to give dangerous aholes a platform to spew their opinions from.

It's amazing to me how many have bought into "It's all lies. They all lie" rhetoric that was deliberately started by liars to confuse everyone since it's so fucking obvious that it's only the liars who benefit from that piece of brainwashing.

Many are confused as hell but damn proud of it because they think they've discovered a higher truth.

Ungood · April 2021

t0nyd said:
I lowered the average IQ? At the bottom of my tweet literally has a link to seditious conspiracy. You didn't even need to post. What he was talking about is the sedition act of 1918. Those two are not the same thing so don't conflate them.

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". This is why it was appealed. You will notice that this is different than seditious conspiracy.

It was repealed in 1920, by congress with no reason given.

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.

Ungood · April 2021

Iselin said:
It's amazing to me how many have bought into "It's all lies. They all lie" rhetoric that was deliberately started by liars to confuse everyone since it's so fucking obvious that it's only the liars who benefit from that piece of brainwashing.

Many are confused as hell but damn proud of it because they think they've discovered a higher truth.

Ok, this is getting a little mean now, while Malcom Little had a criminal record, I don't think he started his criticism of the media, and the lies they portray, simply to confuse people. I sincerely believed he wanted to enlighten his people that they can't just trust what they are told, that the media will lie to them, and everyone else, to push an agenda. And they need to be very mindful of that.

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?

Iselin · April 2021

Ungood said:

Iselin said:
It's amazing to me how many have bought into "It's all lies. They all lie" rhetoric that was deliberately started by liars to confuse everyone since it's so fucking obvious that it's only the liars who benefit from that piece of brainwashing.

Many are confused as hell but damn proud of it because they think they've discovered a higher truth.

Ok, this is getting a little mean now, while Malcom Little had a criminal record, I don't think he started his criticism of the media, and the lies they portray, simply to confuse people. I sincerely believed he wanted to enlighten his people that they can't just trust what they are told, that the media will lie to them, and everyone else, to push an agenda. And they need to be very mindful of that.

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?

The media wasn't lying about Watergate nor about pedophilia in the Catholic church and the systematic attempts by the church hierarchy to hide it.

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.

Amaranthar · April 2021

Iselin said:

Ungood said:

Iselin said:
It's amazing to me how many have bought into "It's all lies. They all lie" rhetoric that was deliberately started by liars to confuse everyone since it's so fucking obvious that it's only the liars who benefit from that piece of brainwashing.

Many are confused as hell but damn proud of it because they think they've discovered a higher truth.

Ok, this is getting a little mean now, while Malcom Little had a criminal record, I don't think he started his criticism of the media, and the lies they portray, simply to confuse people. I sincerely believed he wanted to enlighten his people that they can't just trust what they are told, that the media will lie to them, and everyone else, to push an agenda. And they need to be very mindful of that.

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?

The media wasn't lying about Watergate nor about pedophilia in the Catholic church and the systematic attempts by the church hierarchy to hide it.

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.

Wow. I see credible reports (backed up by documented facts) of those sources' lies quite often.
And forget the past. The issues are about today.

Howdy, Stranger!

Amazon Twitch to discipline people for offline behavior

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Amazon Twitch to discipline people for offline behavior

Comments