Twitch Will Ban Users For 'Severe Misconduct' That Occurs Away From Its Site (reuters.com) 320
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: Live-streaming service Twitch will ban users for offenses such as hate-group membership or credible threats of mass violence that occur entirely away from the site, in a new approach to moderating the platform, the company said on Wednesday. The Amazon-owned platform, which is popular among video gamers, said under its new rules it would take enforcement actions against offline offenses that posed a "substantial safety risk" to its community.
It said examples of this "severe misconduct" include terrorist activities, child sexual exploitation, violent extremism, credible threats of mass violence, carrying out or deliberately acting as an accomplice to sexual assault and threatening Twitch or its staff. "Taking action against misconduct that occurs entirely off our service is a novel approach for both Twitch and the industry at large, but it's one we believe -- and hear from you -- is crucial to get right," the company said in a blog post. The company said users will be able to report such behaviors but it may also investigate cases proactively, for instance if there is a verified news report that a user has been arrested. Twitch said it would rely more heavily on law enforcement in "off-service" cases and is partnering with an investigative law firm to support its internal team. It declined to name the firm. The new standards will apply even if the target of the offline behaviors is not a Twitch user or if the perpetrator was not a user when they committed the acts. Perpetrators would also be banned from registering a Twitch account, it said.
Twitch said it would take action only when there was evidence, such as screen shots, videos of off-Twitch behavior or police filings, verified by its internal team or third-party investigators. Users who submit a large amount of frivolous reports will face suspension. The company said in cases where the behavior happened in the distant past, users had gone through rehabilitation such as time in a correctional facility, and they no longer presented a danger to the community, it might not take action or might reinstate users on appeal. It said it would share updates with the involved parties but would not share public updates about actions under this policy.
It said examples of this "severe misconduct" include terrorist activities, child sexual exploitation, violent extremism, credible threats of mass violence, carrying out or deliberately acting as an accomplice to sexual assault and threatening Twitch or its staff. "Taking action against misconduct that occurs entirely off our service is a novel approach for both Twitch and the industry at large, but it's one we believe -- and hear from you -- is crucial to get right," the company said in a blog post. The company said users will be able to report such behaviors but it may also investigate cases proactively, for instance if there is a verified news report that a user has been arrested. Twitch said it would rely more heavily on law enforcement in "off-service" cases and is partnering with an investigative law firm to support its internal team. It declined to name the firm. The new standards will apply even if the target of the offline behaviors is not a Twitch user or if the perpetrator was not a user when they committed the acts. Perpetrators would also be banned from registering a Twitch account, it said.
Twitch said it would take action only when there was evidence, such as screen shots, videos of off-Twitch behavior or police filings, verified by its internal team or third-party investigators. Users who submit a large amount of frivolous reports will face suspension. The company said in cases where the behavior happened in the distant past, users had gone through rehabilitation such as time in a correctional facility, and they no longer presented a danger to the community, it might not take action or might reinstate users on appeal. It said it would share updates with the involved parties but would not share public updates about actions under this policy.
Great (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)
Fail to curate your public image then you fail at PR. And reasonably Twitch has no interest in continuing the business relationship.
I guess if we wanted a public commons that gave us a fair and open platform for free speech, we shouldn't be expecting it from barely regulated social media corporations.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Fail to curate your public image then you fail at PR. And reasonably Twitch has no interest in continuing the business relationship.
I don't know if you intended to parody extreme libertarian views, or actually believe this nonsense, or commenting on a different story. Here we are talking about Twitch and streamers. This is the kind of "business relationship" that Amazon workers pissing into bottles have with Amazon. You are a radical if you think that Twitch dictating terms to powerless streamers could be considered a business relationship.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Seems like an efficient way for a social media company to monitor the public image of contributers. They've farmed out that bit of work to self-appointed volunteers social police.
Re: Great (Score:4, Interesting)
So essentially it is a recreation of Hollywood's old "star system". If you want to be a Twitter star and be carried along and become a wealthy performer within their system, you need to act in a certain way that is defined by the rich owners of the league. Your 'agent' will helpfully advise you on how to cultivate your persona. If you deviate from Twitches defined norms they don't want you and will not make you a star.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: Great (Score:5, Insightful)
The people pushing this nonsense are overwhelmingly among the most privileged in the world and the US. They have faced little to harden them. Reaching their rebellious teenage years, they have nothing to complain about. College helps them out by offering a worldview in which they cast themselves as the oppressed.
They are the spiritual descendants of the church lady who calls the police because she saw a guy in a leather jacket.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The '60's? Back in my day we had to shoot down a B-17 to get one from one of the bodies.
Re: Great (Score:4, Insightful)
You know, in the real world, far away from the American world of plastic people, there is no "image". People are who they are.
Even people who are purely genuine have an image, consisting of an aggregate or perhaps average of representations of them in other people's heads. Those representations may or may not be accurate, hence the potential for confusion even in the least confusing case (someone who says what they does, and doesn't cross-signal.) This is true everywhere in the world.
Very few people are genuine 100% of the time. And many people are deluded about what kind of person they are.
I think you're making something out of nothing. The whole idea that Americans are fundamentally different in this way requires evidence.
TL;DR: [citation needed]
Re: (Score:3)
authenticity. Because for a long time, people got to be who they are on those services, with no media training, just being themselves or a persona they choose themselves.
You seem to be confused about the meaning of authenticity. Hint: Deliberately choosing a persona does not qualify.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The only time these policies are acceptable is if the ban reason is a link to the public record that details your conviction.
Re: Great (Score:4, Insightful)
If you're convicted you already were penalized, if government thinks you should not use computers for parole they can handle that themselves.
It's just vigilantism either way.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Great (Score:2)
You are saying that there are not anonymous people on the internet who will gleefully take public figures and/or wannabe celebrities down?
It's easier and less risky than trolling, and at least as rewarding.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeh im sure that system works well. How did tht work in the communist world ?
Re: (Score:3)
I think you're missing the point here. What do you think this new regulation is to achieve? Business revenue for Twitch?
Twitch is currently managed by people who are best buddies with the most rabid cancel culture representatives.
To use your communist world metaphor, It's not a noble, idealistic proletarian turning to fellow comrades to stay vigilant and report reactionary element. It's a sadistic comissar who just loves torturing people, giving out suggestions of what kind of common behaviors are e
and after false arrest? or found not guilty? (Score:3, Insightful)
and after false arrest? or found not guilty?
Re: and after false arrest? or found not guilty? (Score:3)
I assume false arrest would be fine but found not guilty would depend on the specifics.
For example, if you're tried for a crime, but innocent, but are found to be a Neo Nazi that advocates for the extermination of the disabled in the course of the investigation you'll probably still be banned (this is an extreme case example trying to illustrate that guilt of a crime is definitely not the bar they are going for).
Re: (Score:2)
and after false arrest? or found not guilty?
Affluent white people are highly unlikely to be arrested, and this is who they're catering to. If you're arrested, it means you're not one of them.
Who care if you're guilty?
I guess it's still ok (Score:4, Interesting)
to support union organization for various Amazon employee groups.
Slippery slope is slippery and slopey
They took a page from a school rule book (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the kind of crap I've heard about grade schools pulling. That includes creepy stalking of students through social media sites, without any justification (such as a shooting threat) for doing so.
I wonder if these companies are now trying to implement a "social credit" system, like China.
Cappie or Commie, the end result's more or less the same.
First Amendment (Score:2, Interesting)
So, do you people still think extending first amendment rights to cover social media is still outrageous?
Re:First Amendment (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a common misconception regarding the granting of rights in the amendments of the US Constitution.
Namely, the "rights" granted (or in the case of the First Amendment, rescinded) are the rights of government not a granting of rights to the People. The Constitution is quite specific that any rights not granted to government by the document are reserved by the People as endowed by their Creator (whoever that may be).
So, as a Person, the First Amendment does not "grant" any rights to you that you didn't have before--rather, it specifically forbids the government from making "any law abridging freedom of speech" yadda yadda yadda. Ditto for the 2nd Amendment, and the following eight amendments.
Please get this right. It is important.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, first, if you want to pedant, get it right.
No, it's not. I'd like to see that line, because other than using the words "rights" and "the people", I don't see anything familiar. In fact, that general point isn't made at all.
Now that we see how strangely you missed GP's point when he talked about extending the first amendment rights, did you somehow think th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's the 9th Amendment.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Where those rights come from is in the Declaration of Independence:
“they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”
So, what happens when you have AI? Which creator are we talking about then? :)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It does cover social media and if the USG tries to close down someone on social media then we'll see what happens.
What could go wrong? (Score:2)
It's a social credit system managed by gamers, and Twitch staff will only have to intervene in cases of egregious abuse.
Corporate police state / private China ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Good thing Twitch is one of the most unnecessary things in all of human history forever.
Actually, banning people from their is doing them a favor. Like being banned from Facebook.
But yeah, no way you'll ever get common carrier status that way.
Re: Corporate police state / private China ... (Score:2)
They don't want common carrier status. They want to be a platform that makes a good faith effort to enforce the community standards they want on their platform.
AWS may want to be a common carrier (not need to worry about content at all for legal protections and make that money, but Twitch has a vested interest in not being a common carrier.
Catholic high school (Score:2)
I remember the principal at my high school always reminded us that students must adhere to code of the school conduct not only on the school premises but also outside of school or school's activities.
Don't use Twitch (Score:5, Insightful)
Twitch can ban people for IRL conduct and IRL people can dump Twitch for its online conduct.
This seems like common sense for every business on earth. If you're famously an asshole, people won't want to be associated with you. People shunned by the larger forums will form their own. It isn't like you can rent out Burger King to hold your Klavern.
Re: (Score:2)
Yet just a few days ago they banned the Revision demo party stream with no warning/explanation. People were speculating that the automated banhammer may have detected a pixelated nipple in a piece of artwork...
Re: (Score:2)
Since soft porn by definition, doesn't show pussy or swollen penis, all nudity can be mislabeled "soft porn". It's called "porn" because the fucking is very real or, at least, indistinguishable from real fucking. Re-branding everything as porn demands everyone be horrified by the smallest bit of reality.
We can't let those teens with nipples and hairy sexual organs actually see a nipple.
So real nipple bad; stylized, censored nipple good: Got it. I understand that Twitter and others don't want to be accus
Re: (Score:2)
When in doubt, follow FCC public broadcast guidelines.
Re: (Score:2)
Sooo moral police? (Score:2)
Been in pro sports for years (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Been in pro sports for years (Score:3)
It makes some sense with a sports team on account of a player being a public figure, employed by the team. For Twitch there wouldn't be the expectation that they endorse the personal lives of their users. What Twitch is proposing is akin to the relationship between a creator and a publisher. They get editorial control minus the accountability that comes with being a publisher.
Re: (Score:3)
Analogies only go so far because these things aren't identical.
Twitch is also like a TV channel. You bet they'd axe a show that brought in bad publicity regardless of whether the bad publicity was caused by on-screen or off-screen actions.
What Twitch is proposing is akin to the relationship between a creator and a publisher. They get editorial control minus the accountability that comes with being a publisher.
I don't see a problem with this. The internet doesn't always fit into exactly pre-internet categori
Re: (Score:2)
Not everyone on Twitch is a professional.
"Always online" is flawed, always has been. (Score:2)
I never liked the internet and then Web in that it was "always online". This gives to much power to AOL and Compuserve or their modern day equivalents Google, Twitch and such.
It's a good thing people such as Tim Berners-Lee have come up with alternatives, namely IPFS. Current DNS and other services are flawed in that they are single points of truth*and* failure. I'm looking forward to a time when IPFS and blockchain based Nameservices - one of the very rare things blockchain is actually useful for - are com
People change (Score:3)
One thing that they don't seem to take into account is that people change.
People sometimes actually do see the errors of their ways, and choose to leave e.g. a criminal gang, or a racist organisation.
Some people who have served prison time for heinous crimes do feel sorry and come out rehabilitated.
A sentence should not be a sentence for all time.
Twitch (Score:3)
Twitch: "We found the golden goose! .... now let's kill it!"
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Someone belongs to a group that is critical of Biden? HATE GROUP!
You don't support America's endless Wars? HATE GROUP!
You don't agree with men competing against women in sports? HATE GROUP!
You like guns? HATE GROUP!
You think it's odd children can't sign for a loan but they can sign up for irreversible hormone treatments? HATE GROUP!
You like Justin Bieber? HATE GROUP!
Personally I only think the last one is a hate group, what about
Re: Depends on your side. (Score:2)
So you think that someone that's a registered republican will be banned for being critical of Biden?
I really doubt you actually believe that.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
So you think that someone that's a registered republican will be banned for being critical of Biden?
I really doubt you actually believe that.
Well Hello There Mr. Van Winkle, I mean Rip, nice of you to wake up and join us.
Did you miss the celebrities who were cancelled for supporting Trump, or near misses like Fallon who didn't publicly hate him enough, but dogged the knife by repenting quickly enough.
They literally banned a social media app from every major US platform for hosting things you could have foun
Re: (Score:2)
You must have slept through the time when the Dixie Chicks spoke out about George Bush and were cancelled by their conservative fan base. Sounds like you need a safe space for yourself.
Re: (Score:3)
Pointing out that something is hypocritical is not whataboutism. An example of whataboutism would be if he was saying that it doesn't matter that the left is cancelling people because the right hates both freedom of religion and secularism and wants to impose Christianity on the entire citizenry of the US. Clearly, he was pointing out hypocrisy. These are two different things. If they weren't two different things, then I guess the 2010s just cancelled hypocrisy. Wouldn't that be convenient!
Re: (Score:2)
So you are clueless and ignorant, I bet in my list of "hate groups" you think they are ALL hate groups, you must be a democrat.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't know about that, probably not on its own, but the transcontroversial stuff you can totally be called a hate group over already.
Re: Depends on your side. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If you disagree with the policies then I'm sure you can find another place to stream. Do I get upset over not being able to order spaghetti at Burger King? I got to a restaurant that serves spaghetti.
Re:Depends on your side. (Score:4, Insightful)
I disagree with a game streaming platform becoming a political tool.
But I do agree with you, and many many others will as well, we are free to use other platforms instead, Twat can die a slow and painful decline and death like all the other American tech giants who have chosen to become political tools and arbitrators of what is right or wrong in the world based solely on people whining on Twitter.
Re: (Score:2)
The concern is not that the policies as written are an assault on conservative values, it's how words are redefined and policies are implemented differently based on one's political alignment. Twitch could have made this a policy limited to punishing people for putting puppies in blenders off-stream, and it would still be predictably applied much more readily against right-wingers than left-wingers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Talk about a persecution complex. How do you bear that heavy cross? How would twitch even know the political leanings of someone who puts puppies in blenders?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh, go fuck yourself. Conservatives are the worst cucks, crybabies, snowflakes, whiners and professional victims on the planet. Who was it that invoked cancel culture on Lou Dobbs, the Dixie Chicks, Colin Kaepernick, Parler's former CEO, MLB, Coke, Liz Cheney, Delta Airlines, JP Morgan Chase, ViaComCBS, Cisco, CitiGroup, Merck, UPS and many, many others? Hint: it wasn't liberals.
Re:Severe = ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Severe = ? (Score:4, Insightful)
You're right, of course. Still, I have to ask the obvious question: since conservatives are all about principles and values and accountability, why should money be a factor? Surely Fox News wouldn't let a vile, election-stealing pack of foreigners SLAPP them into silence!
Not a serious question. All we have to do is look at (conservative) mega-churches for proof that when values and profits are on a collision course, values have no more chance than a tricycle hitting a Hummer head on.
Re: Severe = ? (Score:3)
Aren't mega churches usually inner city?
Serious question, I don't go to any church at all because I'm atheist, so at the end of the day I have no idea, but they don't strike me as being examples of conservatism.
Re: (Score:2)
The ones typically labelled that are mostly located on palatial country estates. They're run by televangelists like Kenneth Copeland, Joel Osteen and their ilk.
Re: (Score:2)
No, not al all actually.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is wisdom in your words. And thanks for starting my day on a positive note. I think you're right about the tearing of new ones, and this gives me joy.
Re: (Score:2)
You may have discovered the key to interstellar communication.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Trump calling for a boycott (cancelling) of Coca Cola while photographed with a bottle of it on his desk is the best.
Re:Severe = ? (Score:5, Informative)
Bro, you seriously need to lay off the conservative talk radio and get laid.
Your fantasy angry incel world is really not good for your mental health.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Severe = ? (Score:3, Insightful)
I just love vague threats like Twitter's. You can do anything you want with them.
Not fitting the current popular narritave? YOU'RE BANNED
Not following a cult of personality? YOU;TE BANNED
The CEO does not like your face? YOU'RE BANNED
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Considering how many openly fascist neo-N@zis are on Twitter, or the fact that it took an actual insurrection against the United States to get Trump banned, your claims that Twitter will ban people over trivial stuff doesn't hold up.
In fact the main criticism of Twitter is that they don't ban enough people, and when they do they don't enforce the bans and simply allow them to make new accounts.
Re: Severe = ? (Score:3, Insightful)
When you point, there are usually three or four other fingers pointing back at you. It isn't just a trite saying. As one of the more shrill harpies on Slashdot, you should be more discreet. Your rep isn't that good.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Twitch is already circling the drain, banning the most popular streamers because they aren't woke enough is only going to accelerate the process.
The problem is that some genius at Amazon decided to go to war with ad blockers on Twitch. Because Twitch is a live video streaming service, they can basically just embed ads into the live video stream and there's basically nothing ad blockers can do to stop it. However, thanks to advertisers compulsive need for metrics, ad blockers can DETECT when an ad is being s
Re: (Score:3)
So anyone with mod points, this whole post is a load of horseshit.
Twitch just had its best year ever, and plenty of streams don't have excessive ads. Only the famous folks who set that up to make more money. This whole scaremongering about "woke" people engaging in "cancel culture" is just another right-wing dog whistle. Our white nationalists don't want any sort of talk of equality for anyone who's not a straight white christian.
Downmod and lets get on with life. Their imaginary monsters are not worth our
Re: (Score:2)
Last time I was on twitch, there was a ton of very public subscriptions and donations. They're clearly much, much better at it than your average internet project.
The woke game (Score:5, Funny)
I propose a new drinking game on slashdot. Every time a person throws around the word "woke" you take a drink. First person admitted to the ER with alcohol poisoning is the winner.
You guys really need a new rallying cry.
Re:Severe = ? (Score:4, Insightful)
It won't be enough to just not be a racist. If you don't actively speak out against racism and white supremacy (AKA virtue signaling on social media), you *will* be seen as a racist. This is our future.
This was our past too. People who didn't speak out against Communism were communists. People who didn't speak out against Atheists were witches.
This is what humans do, finally in the last few years, the last stubborn holdouts, the cognitive class, started joining in too. Educated people who ostensibly took history in college.
With helicopter parenting and a prize for finishing in last, we groomed this generation for narcissism the likes of which the world has never seen on a mass scale.
The results are what you're witnessing. When people ask, "what the worst that can happen if you spoil your kids", well, this is. People who are completely unable to tolerate anything that disagrees or even doesn't agree enthusiastically enough. Someone possessing a different opinions from themselves is evil. There is simply no other possibility.
It's not their fault, though, Gen Xers and younger boomers did this.
Re:Severe = ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Not to talk to myself, but imagine being told that you're special every day of your life. Ad-nauseum.
You'd believe it too. Eventually.
Re:Severe = ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Except none of that is actually true.
Tens of millions of americans go through their daily life not taking a position on anything and just get on with life. They aren't being "canceled" as if that's a real thing, and they aren't somehow destroying the country in the process of living their lives.
You've conflated a problem that people who want to be famous (mostly on social media) have with the real world.
Re: (Score:2)
Threats of mass violence will only be deemed credible if they are against twitch-approved targets.
To be fair, it's very generous of them to maybe let you back on if your bad deeds were 20 years ago. You know, assuming your were "rehabilitated".
So yeah, willing to conceded that Idiocracy was a documentary from the future yet?
Re:Da Fuq (Score:4, Insightful)
Twitter seems to be a 'broadcast utility', similar in function to a phone service.
They are not. They have no monopoly over your connection. They are more like a TV channel, and they can't compel you to tune in to access the internet. As such, there is no right to regulate them
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Da Fuq (Score:2)
Twitch (not Twitter) is relying on police investigations.
The policy is very clearly broader than crimes, so I don't know why you think the conviction is the gold standard relevant.
For example, if someone is arrested for harassment, but the legal of harassment doesn't rise to criminal, Twitch may still want to ban them. This seems reasonable for a private company to decide.
Re: Da Fuq (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter seems to be a 'broadcast utility', similar in function to a phone service.
Phone service is not broadcast, it's peer-to-peer.
Re: What about the RNC (Score:2)
Someone like that can arrange to have child porn planted on a computer owned by those who don't tow the line, and get away with it scott free.
People don't realize just how dangerous people like Trump really are.
'
On that note, I believe there are no sleletons with Trump's name on them wearing concrete galoshes at the bottom of the Atlantic from his casino years about as much as I believe in Santa Claus.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.cnn.com/videos/pol... [cnn.com]
And he still kissed Trump's ass.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh boy here I go reporting everyone from REEEEsetera for being part of a white supremacist forum. [imgur.com]
Re: Reminder (Score:2)
Being banned IS a rite of passage for being grown up. It *is* losing your online virginity.
If you have never been banned, I cannot take you seriously, be friends or hire you. (Child labor is a crime. The age of the mind counts.)
Re: Good thing that (Score:2)
Considering how cyberspace has been looking lately, I suspect its cardinality is closer to 10 than it is to Aleph Null.
Re: (Score:2)
Well that's just what I want to see, morality police only accepting reliable and verifiable reports of misconduct somewhere unrelated, right?
This is basically going to be "swatting on Easy Mode", and any troll with MS Paint can participate.
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine if phone companies, super markets, etc. refused to do business with anyone with a criminal history. Truly insane. It's fine if they want to go this right, but then they should be treated as publishers, not platforms.
Imagine if phone companies, super markets, etc. refused to do business with anyone with a criminal history. Truly insane. It's fine if they want to go this right, but then they should be treated as publishers, not platforms.
This doesn't really have anything to do with being a criminal. The people they are going to ban will almost never actually be criminals.
Re: (Score:2)
Twitch is a streaming site. Originally it was mostly for gamers. Seems like people who just want to stream themselves playing video games could be hounded off the platform for displaying political views elsewhere on other platforms. They could also be wiped out from stupid pranks they posted online in highschool. Seems pretty common for teenagers with underdeveloped social skills to do or say objectionable things online. Now Twitch encourages all their users to dig up crap for the past and use it to ge