SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Twitch, the Amazon-owned video streaming platform primarily used by gamers to livestream their games, announced a new policy Wednesday empowering the company to take action against users who display certain harmful behaviors entirely offline.
The policy represents a unique approach among social media peers at a time when the industry has been under escalating pressure to institute strong and consistent content-moderation policies. As lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have threatened to strip online platforms of their liability protections under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, many platforms have taken steps to place stronger guardrails on what users can post.
Under the new policy, Twitch can suspend users for up to an indefinite period of time after a third-party investigator determines there is strong evidence the person has engaged in certain offline behaviors. These actions include engaging in deadly violence, terrorist activities, grooming children for sexual exploitation, committing sexual assault or even "acting as an accomplice to non-consensual sexual activities." It will also continue to consider offline harassment in cases where a user alleges abuse online.
Twitch said it will work with "an experienced investigations law firm" to determine the validity of claims, which will rely at times on accessing evidence from law enforcement. The company said it would not take action on a user's account until it concludes its investigation and confirms evidence of wrongdoing.
The harmful offline behaviors do not need to involve another Twitch user to be considered a violation, a spokesperson confirmed. That's based on the notion that people who engage in these types of behaviors are more likely to create safety risks for the Twitch community, the spokesperson added.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Beryllium Sphere (r) on Monday April 12 2021, @04:50PM (5 children)
They're not being imprisoned, fined, or pilloried. A private business is declining to do business with them.
There's room for debate over that business's wisdom or ethics in doing so but let's debate what's actually happening.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 12 2021, @05:39PM (1 child)
CaNcEl CuLtUrE!1eleven!111
Rules for thee, but not for me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 12 2021, @06:36PM
At Twitch, it's just thot culture.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Tork on Monday April 12 2021, @06:31PM
There's nothing that says that people who object to this policy can't boycott Twitch. That's how the whole 'invisible hand' is supposed to work. Then again there are people that think being on the unpopular side of a topic is somehow unfair to them.
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
(Score: 2) by loonycyborg on Monday April 12 2021, @11:03PM
This still can interfere with people's work if they depend on Twitch. And those people are entirely at mercy of those third party investigators and the way Twitch employees would categorize uncovered facts. If they police people outside their site then room for error is a lot greater.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Tuesday April 13 2021, @03:58PM
They're being barred without due process from what operates as a public space.
On the scale of the internet, competition is virtually impossible. Twitch is king. Look at what happened to Mixer.
Look, this is what you Libertarians asked for. Private police forces, right? We all thought it was a joke when that AC was making the rounds.
Well, now all you anti-wokeness creeps can contort your peabrains around the puzzle of how to prevent private corporations from turning our society into 1984 without invoking *gasp* sOcIaLiSm.
I mean, I have my doubts that this is a good thing. Obviously. But this policy does provide some consequences, however unjust, for what previously went completely unpunished. My take, it's probably good on the whole for about the next 3-4 years before its original purpose becomes obsolete and the whole thing becomes no more than a pretense for an unchecked expansion of corporate authority over our private lives.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?