Amazon Twitch to discipline people for offline behavior

Iselin · April 2021

It's a private company banning use of their services for whatever reason they want. WTF is wrong with that?

Isn't that the kind of fReEdOm libertarians dream of?

Is "no shirt, no shoes, no service" a civil rights issue now for libertarian SJWs to whine about?

Quizzical · April 2021

Utinni said:

Quizzical said:

Slapshot1188 said:

Slapshot1188 said:
Suppose I'm a Twitch Streamer who is accused of being a drug dealer. Twitch shuts me down. I lose my livelihood. 6 months later I am exonerated and it turns out I was not involved in any way. Too bad for me? Is that the world we want to live in? Where mere accusations can be treated as findings of truth?

I just want to get back to that. People are saying that this is OK? I'm not even talking about whether Twitch can legally do so. I am asking if we really want to live in a world where we do not wait for the legal process to play out, assume guilt based on accusation, and can take someone's livelihood away based on that mere accusation.

And it's not just Twitch. Twitch is part of Amazon. Perhaps I am a seller on the Amazon marketplace accused of the same... and lose my business because of a mere accusation.
Amazon is a behemoth. They are not your mom and pop store. They truly are growing closer to a utility (not quite there yet IMHO but they will get there). Should the private electric company turn off your power because they don't like something you are rumored to have said to your neighbor?

The number of people working for MLB who genuinely believe that a random bill that does a bunch of minor things to clean up election procedures is worse than the Uighur genocide is surely zero. But trolls pressured them about the former and not the latter, so they caved to the trolls on the former and tried to make money on the latter.

I wouldn't call giving the state election board the power to invalidate ballots at their own discretion a "minor thing" when it comes to democracy.

Here's the text of the bill in question:

https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/legislation/document/20212022/201498

Either the offending provision that you're referring to exists somewhere in particular in that bill, or else it doesn't exist at all. The bill is marked with line numbers for easy reference.

The reason no one has pointed out this is exactly the offending provision to you is that it doesn't exist. As I said, it's a lunatic conspiracy theory. But feel free to try to find it yourself if you want.

Sections 6 and 7 (starting on line 267) is probably what you're referring to, but it doesn't say what you seem to think it does. Feel free to read it yourself, or anything else in the bill, for that matter. If there actually is something egregiously bad in the bill, I'd like to know about it. But while lots of people assert that it must be there somewhere, no one seems to be able to actually find it.

Quizzical · April 2021

Torval said:

Yes, if a company doesn't want to do business with me for legal reasons (and all those listed sound reasonable) then that is their prerogative. Unless there are laws requiring airlines to provide service to everyone then a ban due to unruly public behavior is, again, their prerogative. We don't force private businesses to do things they don't want.

Again, you're trying to conflate business choice with legality. Nothing stops a company from engaging in business with a convict unless it violates the law (e.g. possibly weapons ownership).

Let me turn this around, do you feel everyone is entitled to corporate services even if a company doesn't want to do business with a person? Should a company be forced to do business with an entity it doesn't want to? And on what grounds would you say so (aside from the list of legal discrimination). This site can ban any user it wants to at its sole discretion for any reason and it doesn't even have to provide one if it doesn't want to. Should that legally change?

The case for Twitch being able to ban people arbitrarily is certainly no stronger than the case for Masterpiece Cakeshop being able to refuse to decorate cakes in ways that they find offensive. After all, there are a lot of other cake shops that someone could go to, and but not so many viable competitors to Twitch. And Masterpiece Cakeshop didn't completely refuse service to a customer, but only refused to make particular customizations that they found offensive. Yet the Colorado Civil Rights Commission prosecuted Masterpiece Cakeshop for that anyway, and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court.

I don't want to put words in your mouth here. Maybe you think that the CCRC's harassment of Masterpiece Cakeshop was appalling for the same reasons that you believe that Twitch should be able to ban people for any reason or no reason at all. But I do think anyone pushing for the cake shop to be prosecuted has no room to claim that Twitch ought to be able to ban people for whatever reason they want.

Slapshot1188 · April 2021

Quizzical said:

Torval said:

Yes, if a company doesn't want to do business with me for legal reasons (and all those listed sound reasonable) then that is their prerogative. Unless there are laws requiring airlines to provide service to everyone then a ban due to unruly public behavior is, again, their prerogative. We don't force private businesses to do things they don't want.

Again, you're trying to conflate business choice with legality. Nothing stops a company from engaging in business with a convict unless it violates the law (e.g. possibly weapons ownership).

Let me turn this around, do you feel everyone is entitled to corporate services even if a company doesn't want to do business with a person? Should a company be forced to do business with an entity it doesn't want to? And on what grounds would you say so (aside from the list of legal discrimination). This site can ban any user it wants to at its sole discretion for any reason and it doesn't even have to provide one if it doesn't want to. Should that legally change?

The case for Twitch being able to ban people arbitrarily is certainly no stronger than the case for Masterpiece Cakeshop being able to refuse to decorate cakes in ways that they find offensive. After all, there are a lot of other cake shops that someone could go to, and but not so many viable competitors to Twitch. And Masterpiece Cakeshop didn't completely refuse service to a customer, but only refused to make particular customizations that they found offensive. Yet the Colorado Civil Rights Commission prosecuted Masterpiece Cakeshop for that anyway, and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court.

I don't want to put words in your mouth here. Maybe you think that the CCRC's harassment of Masterpiece Cakeshop was appalling for the same reasons that you believe that Twitch should be able to ban people for any reason or no reason at all. But I do think anyone pushing for the cake shop to be prosecuted has no room to claim that Twitch ought to be able to ban people for whatever reason they want.

Also... Masterpiece ruled that their actions were covered by the First Amendment and that the State showed anti-religious bias in it's prosecution. And as you pointed out, they did not "ban the customer" but refused to make a particular cake which conflicted with their religious views.

While I can see some parallels on the surface. That case really has little do do with this one. Unless Amazon is arguing that they are banning these people due to some deeply held religious belief that is covered by the first amendment.

Quizzical · April 2021

Torval said:

I have no sympathy, to be honest, because the demographic outraged by this are the very ones that supported gutting Net Neutrality in the name of anti-regulation and free capitalism. Now they're eating the dogfood consequences they created. I'm fine with that. Change isn't likely to come until we have to feel the discomfort of some bad choices.

Now, if you're arguing we should move and progress towards a much more socialistic or a highly regulated social-capitalist society and system where companies can't run roughshod over consumers then I'm all for that. But that isn't really what is being asked for in my opinion. We have the typical "I want my cake and eat it too with no accountability for the privileged" request and I can't and won't support that.

Net neutrality was about regulating ISPs, not social media companies. ISPs aren't what is in dispute here.

BeansnBread · April 2021

Slapshot1188 said:

Quizzical said:

Torval said:

Yes, if a company doesn't want to do business with me for legal reasons (and all those listed sound reasonable) then that is their prerogative. Unless there are laws requiring airlines to provide service to everyone then a ban due to unruly public behavior is, again, their prerogative. We don't force private businesses to do things they don't want.

Again, you're trying to conflate business choice with legality. Nothing stops a company from engaging in business with a convict unless it violates the law (e.g. possibly weapons ownership).

Let me turn this around, do you feel everyone is entitled to corporate services even if a company doesn't want to do business with a person? Should a company be forced to do business with an entity it doesn't want to? And on what grounds would you say so (aside from the list of legal discrimination). This site can ban any user it wants to at its sole discretion for any reason and it doesn't even have to provide one if it doesn't want to. Should that legally change?

The case for Twitch being able to ban people arbitrarily is certainly no stronger than the case for Masterpiece Cakeshop being able to refuse to decorate cakes in ways that they find offensive. After all, there are a lot of other cake shops that someone could go to, and but not so many viable competitors to Twitch. And Masterpiece Cakeshop didn't completely refuse service to a customer, but only refused to make particular customizations that they found offensive. Yet the Colorado Civil Rights Commission prosecuted Masterpiece Cakeshop for that anyway, and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court.

I don't want to put words in your mouth here. Maybe you think that the CCRC's harassment of Masterpiece Cakeshop was appalling for the same reasons that you believe that Twitch should be able to ban people for any reason or no reason at all. But I do think anyone pushing for the cake shop to be prosecuted has no room to claim that Twitch ought to be able to ban people for whatever reason they want.

Also... Masterpiece ruled that their actions were covered by the First Amendment and that the State showed anti-religious bias in it's prosecution. And as you pointed out, they did not "ban the customer" but refused to make a particular cake which conflicted with their religious views.

While I can see some parallels on the surface. That case really has little do do with this one. Unless Amazon is arguing that they are banning these people due to some deeply held religious belief that is covered by the first amendment.

The reason the Cake thing went to court and there was a big case about it is because it was about freedom of religion vs a protected class of citizens. In the US, you can't refuse someone service because of their skin color or sexual preference.

In the end they decided in favor of the religion argument.

Amazon doesn't need any reason at all to ban people. They just can't do it on the basis of their religion or because they are part of one of the protected classes.

olepi · April 2021

Let's say I have been convicted of bank robbery. I want to go on a platform and post a recipe for tuna casserole.

Is it fair for them to prevent me from posting the recipe?

I'm certainly not violating any TOS, and obviously tuna casserole isn't dangerous to anybody. Under what grounds are they banning it?

Iselin · April 2021

olepi said:

Let's say I have been convicted of bank robbery. I want to go on a platform and post a recipe for tuna casserole.

Is it fair for them to prevent me from posting the recipe?

I'm certainly not violating any TOS, and obviously tuna casserole isn't dangerous to anybody. Under what grounds are they banning it?

On the grounds that it's their business and they can do whatever they want as long as it is legal.

This is pretty well the same topic people went around and around with in the thread where someone got banned from Gloria Victis or whatever the game was.

The bottom line is that the mods might have been wrong and may be a bunch of cliquey asshats but it's their house and their rules.

Unless you're being refused service for one of the protected cases (race, sex, etc.) they can do as they wish. I didn't see any protected reasons on the list... well some people think domestic terrorist should be but that's a different discussion

rojoArcueid · April 2021

So Twitch is another facebook now, that must know the entire lives of everyone so they can manipulate them accordingly, but this one goes even further with their "private investigators".

Nice... not.

BeansnBread · April 2021

rojoArcueid said:

So Twitch is another facebook now, that must know the entire lives of everyone so they can manipulate them accordingly, but this one goes even further with their "private investigators".

Nice... not.

The private investigator thing is pretty nuts.

Iselin · April 2021

rojoArcueid said:

So Twitch is another facebook now, that must know the entire lives of everyone so they can manipulate them accordingly, but this one goes even further with their "private investigators".

Nice... not.

Hmm... Didn't Blizzard recently hire the ex COO of the CIA?

Food for thought...

Quizzical · April 2021

BeansnBread said:

Slapshot1188 said:

Quizzical said:

Torval said:

Yes, if a company doesn't want to do business with me for legal reasons (and all those listed sound reasonable) then that is their prerogative. Unless there are laws requiring airlines to provide service to everyone then a ban due to unruly public behavior is, again, their prerogative. We don't force private businesses to do things they don't want.

Again, you're trying to conflate business choice with legality. Nothing stops a company from engaging in business with a convict unless it violates the law (e.g. possibly weapons ownership).

Let me turn this around, do you feel everyone is entitled to corporate services even if a company doesn't want to do business with a person? Should a company be forced to do business with an entity it doesn't want to? And on what grounds would you say so (aside from the list of legal discrimination). This site can ban any user it wants to at its sole discretion for any reason and it doesn't even have to provide one if it doesn't want to. Should that legally change?

The case for Twitch being able to ban people arbitrarily is certainly no stronger than the case for Masterpiece Cakeshop being able to refuse to decorate cakes in ways that they find offensive. After all, there are a lot of other cake shops that someone could go to, and but not so many viable competitors to Twitch. And Masterpiece Cakeshop didn't completely refuse service to a customer, but only refused to make particular customizations that they found offensive. Yet the Colorado Civil Rights Commission prosecuted Masterpiece Cakeshop for that anyway, and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court.

I don't want to put words in your mouth here. Maybe you think that the CCRC's harassment of Masterpiece Cakeshop was appalling for the same reasons that you believe that Twitch should be able to ban people for any reason or no reason at all. But I do think anyone pushing for the cake shop to be prosecuted has no room to claim that Twitch ought to be able to ban people for whatever reason they want.

Also... Masterpiece ruled that their actions were covered by the First Amendment and that the State showed anti-religious bias in it's prosecution. And as you pointed out, they did not "ban the customer" but refused to make a particular cake which conflicted with their religious views.

While I can see some parallels on the surface. That case really has little do do with this one. Unless Amazon is arguing that they are banning these people due to some deeply held religious belief that is covered by the first amendment.

The reason the Cake thing went to court and there was a big case about it is because it was about freedom of religion vs a protected class of citizens. In the US, you can't refuse someone service because of their skin color or sexual preference.

In the end they decided in favor of the religion argument.

Amazon doesn't need any reason at all to ban people. They just can't do it on the basis of their religion or because they are part of one of the protected classes.

That is an egregiously awful misstatement of both what was in dispute in the case and how the Supreme Court ruled.

Masterpiece Cakeshop has no problem with selling cakes to absolutely anyone who wants to buy them, without regard to skin color, sexual preference, or any other characteristics beyond ability to pay. The dispute was about whether they could be compelled to customize those cakes in ways that they find offensive. They offered to sell a generic cake to the customer in question and let the customer further decorate it himself however he wanted. So they weren't denying service to people entirely.

After left-wing trolls tried to have Masterpiece Cakeshop prosecuted for this, some right-wing trolls went to other cake shops around town and asked to buy cakes that were decorated in ways that were gratuitously offensive. The other cake shops refused, so the trolls appealed to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission to prosecute them, too. The CCRC refused.

The Supreme Court ruling actually did not involve religion at all, and did not care whether Masterpiece Cakeshop's reasons for refusing to decorate cakes in particular ways were religious in nature. It was a 7-2 ruling, not a 5-4 ruling mostly along a common left-right split. The issue at hand was freedom of speech (or more to the point, freedom to refrain from speech that you disagree with), not freedom of religion.

The Supreme Court's ruling was that the government doesn't get to decide what is offensive and what is not. The state of Colorado cannot say that bakers are obligated to whatever their customers request, but carve out an exception for things that the state of Colorado officially regards as offensive. Rather, they must either allow the bakers to decide for themselves what is offensive, or else mandate that all bakers must bake whatever their customers request whether it is offensive or not. The state is prohibited from cherry-picking cases to enforce rules only against people that those in charge personally dislike, while declining to enforce the same rules against the allies of those in charge.

Kyleran · April 2021

Slapshot1188 said:

Torval said:

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.
I guess don't do those things?
Lawmakers have threatened to strip tech giants of their liability under the communications protection act. So, blame the party that gutted Net Neutrality. Since we can't get political here, even though our very civil fabric is under assault, I'll leave you to guess which group installed and championed Ajit Pai. Even though he's now gone, thankfully, the damage he did to online Civil Liberties, among other things, is huge.
Can you imagine the outrage if Twitch didn't censure people who engage in those activities? Worse, can you imagine the lawsuits and revenge by that one political party that hates the big tech sector? This is the consequence the rest of us pay for abandoning civil democracy for hostile partisan political tribalism. When capitalism is politically weaponized this is how mega-corporations respond.

Nobody is condoning any of that, but there is a LEGAL SYSTEM to address it. If people are found guilty of that stuff then I suppose they would not be on Twitch right? They would be in jail.

So you are comfortable with a company superseding the legal system? For behavior that did not occur on their service? That is downright scary to me.

Actually yes, because it's their platform, their world if you will, so they get to rule it the way they wish.

Or are you going to argue people have a "right" to access social media platforms?

Their house, their rules, especially for services I don't pay for and can easily opt out of.

In fact I have very few accounts on any major social media platforms prefering to stay more under the radar, bet many others here do the same.

Also, since I'm basically not one to skirt the law or get involved in huge political fights I'm not worried about being labeled a terrorist.

Wizardry · April 2021

It might sound wrong but it isn't.
Think about it,you don't have to be online to be charged with crimes and no business wants people representing their business with bad people.

The law is never perfect and doesn't take into consideration things some of us might deem criminal.At worst some offences might be a slap on the wrist, a small fine but to some they might want to see that person jailed.

I don't like to talk about it because i am an animal lover but the laws that surround and protect animals are often garbage.If you knew someone was abusing animals offline would you want to pay them money to represent your business?
.
I can use another factual example.The UFC once contracted a fighter from Russia without doing any homework on the guys background.This dude was used as an assassin to torture and kill people for unjust reasons.We used to have a co worker that we all knew was psychotic,on heavy drugs.We were always worried this dude who simply lost it every single day might seriously harm or even kill someone so my boss had to finally fire him.

My point is that you don't have to SEE IT up front live in your face to know when something is VERY wrong and SHOULD be dealt with.So in this case i have to side with Amazon even though i am 99% certain they are simply covering their ass from possible lawsuits.

BeansnBread · April 2021

Quizzical said:
That is an egregiously awful misstatement of both what was in dispute in the case and how the Supreme Court ruled.

Masterpiece Cakeshop has no problem with selling cakes to absolutely anyone who wants to buy them, without regard to skin color, sexual preference, or any other characteristics beyond ability to pay. The dispute was about whether they could be compelled to customize those cakes in ways that they find offensive. They offered to sell a generic cake to the customer in question and let the customer further decorate it himself however he wanted. So they weren't denying service to people entirely.

After left-wing trolls tried to have Masterpiece Cakeshop prosecuted for this, some right-wing trolls went to other cake shops around town and asked to buy cakes that were decorated in ways that were gratuitously offensive. The other cake shops refused, so the trolls appealed to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission to prosecute them, too. The CCRC refused.

The Supreme Court ruling actually did not involve religion at all, and did not care whether Masterpiece Cakeshop's reasons for refusing to decorate cakes in particular ways were religious in nature. It was a 7-2 ruling, not a 5-4 ruling mostly along a common left-right split. The issue at hand was freedom of speech (or more to the point, freedom to refrain from speech that you disagree with), not freedom of religion.

The Supreme Court's ruling was that the government doesn't get to decide what is offensive and what is not. The state of Colorado cannot say that bakers are obligated to whatever their customers request, but carve out an exception for things that the state of Colorado officially regards as offensive. Rather, they must either allow the bakers to decide for themselves what is offensive, or else mandate that all bakers must bake whatever their customers request whether it is offensive or not. The state is prohibited from cherry-picking cases to enforce rules only against people that those in charge personally dislike, while declining to enforce the same rules against the allies of those in charge.

I was summarizing it, and it started exactly how I said it did and it got big exactly for the reasons I said it did. You are correct that I missed the part where the court actually ruled on the fact that the Commision did not employ religious neutrality instead of ruling directly on freedom of religion. Here it is from wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission#:~:text=The case dealt with Masterpiece,on the owner's religious beliefs.&text=Following appeals within the state,to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The case dealt with Masterpiece Cakeshop, a bakery in Lakewood, Colorado, which refused to provide a wedding cake to a gay couple based on the owner's religious beliefs. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission, evaluating the case under the state's anti-discrimination law, the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, found that the bakery had discriminated against the couple and issued specific orders for the bakery. Following appeals within the state that affirmed the Commission's decision, the bakery took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In a 7–2 decision, the Court ruled on narrow grounds that the Commission did not employ religious neutrality, violating Masterpiece owner Jack Phillips' rights to free exercise, and reversed the Commission's decision. The Court did not rule on the broader intersection of anti-discrimination laws, free exercise of religion, and freedom of speech, due to the complications of the Commission's lack of religious neutrality.

BeansnBread · April 2021

Wait, I'm reading your post again, and that was an egregiously awful misstatement of both what was in dispute in the case and how the Supreme Court ruled.

Quizzical · April 2021

BeansnBread said:

Quizzical said:
That is an egregiously awful misstatement of both what was in dispute in the case and how the Supreme Court ruled.

Masterpiece Cakeshop has no problem with selling cakes to absolutely anyone who wants to buy them, without regard to skin color, sexual preference, or any other characteristics beyond ability to pay. The dispute was about whether they could be compelled to customize those cakes in ways that they find offensive. They offered to sell a generic cake to the customer in question and let the customer further decorate it himself however he wanted. So they weren't denying service to people entirely.

After left-wing trolls tried to have Masterpiece Cakeshop prosecuted for this, some right-wing trolls went to other cake shops around town and asked to buy cakes that were decorated in ways that were gratuitously offensive. The other cake shops refused, so the trolls appealed to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission to prosecute them, too. The CCRC refused.

The Supreme Court ruling actually did not involve religion at all, and did not care whether Masterpiece Cakeshop's reasons for refusing to decorate cakes in particular ways were religious in nature. It was a 7-2 ruling, not a 5-4 ruling mostly along a common left-right split. The issue at hand was freedom of speech (or more to the point, freedom to refrain from speech that you disagree with), not freedom of religion.

The Supreme Court's ruling was that the government doesn't get to decide what is offensive and what is not. The state of Colorado cannot say that bakers are obligated to whatever their customers request, but carve out an exception for things that the state of Colorado officially regards as offensive. Rather, they must either allow the bakers to decide for themselves what is offensive, or else mandate that all bakers must bake whatever their customers request whether it is offensive or not. The state is prohibited from cherry-picking cases to enforce rules only against people that those in charge personally dislike, while declining to enforce the same rules against the allies of those in charge.

I was summarizing it, and it started exactly how I said it did and it got big exactly for the reasons I said it did. You are correct that I missed the part where the court actually ruled on the fact that the Commision did not employ religious neutrality instead of ruling directly on freedom of religion. Here it is from wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission#:~:text=The case dealt with Masterpiece,on the owner's religious beliefs.&text=Following appeals within the state,to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The case dealt with Masterpiece Cakeshop, a bakery in Lakewood, Colorado, which refused to provide a wedding cake to a gay couple based on the owner's religious beliefs. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission, evaluating the case under the state's anti-discrimination law, the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, found that the bakery had discriminated against the couple and issued specific orders for the bakery. Following appeals within the state that affirmed the Commission's decision, the bakery took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In a 7–2 decision, the Court ruled on narrow grounds that the Commission did not employ religious neutrality, violating Masterpiece owner Jack Phillips' rights to free exercise, and reversed the Commission's decision. The Court did not rule on the broader intersection of anti-discrimination laws, free exercise of religion, and freedom of speech, due to the complications of the Commission's lack of religious neutrality.

On the free speech angle, I was going from memory and got the main ruling mixed up with one of the concurrences. My mistake. The main ruling did indeed base the grounds on freedom of religion.

But the dispute was not about whether the cake shop would sell a cake to the couple in question. It was about whether the cake shop could be required to customize that cake in ways that the shop owner found offensive. The actual ruling makes that clear in the summary:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf

The cake shop owner specifically offered to sell them any premade cake that he had already made. The issue wasn't about the people buying the cake, but about how they wanted it customized.

Slapshot1188 · April 2021

People keep talking about the corner bakery. This is Amazon. They are bigger than 80% of the COUNTRIES in the world... and growing.

They have a reach and impact that is closer to that of a government. And it's not just them. Imagine that Microsoft decided that you couldn't use Windows because they didn't like who you voted for. So you lose your job... Hey... private company so that's cool right?

That is utterly chilling to me.

Again... these are MEGACORPORATIONS larger than most governments in the world.

Iselin · April 2021

Slapshot1188 said:

People keep talking about the corner bakery. This is Amazon. They are bigger than 80% of the COUNTRIES in the world... and growing.

They have a reach and impact that is closer to that of a government. And it's not just them. Imagine that Microsoft decided that you couldn't use Windows because they didn't like who you voted for. So you lose your job... Hey... private company so that's cool right?

That is utterly chilling to me.

Again... these are MEGACORPORATIONS larger than most governments in the world.

Are you saying they need to be regulated?

Slapshot1188 · April 2021

Iselin said:

Slapshot1188 said:

People keep talking about the corner bakery. This is Amazon. They are bigger than 80% of the COUNTRIES in the world... and growing.

They have a reach and impact that is closer to that of a government. And it's not just them. Imagine that Microsoft decided that you couldn't use Windows because they didn't like who you voted for. So you lose your job... Hey... private company so that's cool right?

That is utterly chilling to me.

Again... these are MEGACORPORATIONS larger than most governments in the world.

Are you saying they need to be regulated?

I think there is a fundamental difference between a local store and a megacorp larger than 80% of the worlds countries. If you look at my old posts I am consistent about this. I do not believe these should exist. I mean, facebook and Twitter and the like... those are big (or massive) companies but they are fairly narrow in scope. The Apples and Alphabets of the world are the next level as they are multi-channel. Amazon to me is the most dangerous company on the planet because they are into EVERYTHING: Movies, TV, sports, gaming, clothing, electronics, shipping, medicine/prescriptions, webservers, broadband internet, WholeFoods...

Just wait until all their warehouses are fully automated and their cost of labor becomes a tiny fraction of what it is now. They simply will not have any legitimate competition. It's coming... and not too far in the future. They already have stores that have no checkout.

I have no problem if the local baker wants to ban you from the store because their cousin Bobby said you were an "American terrorist". The impact of a local baker isn't a blip on the power that Amazon wields and that is just going to grow. History has had instances where companies grew to hold too much power. This isn't really a new phenomenon. Where that line is... I don't know but I DO know that it's been crossed when you are bigger (revenue) than 4 out of 5 countries on the planet.

Utinni · April 2021

Quizzical said:

Utinni said:

Quizzical said:

Slapshot1188 said:

Slapshot1188 said:
Suppose I'm a Twitch Streamer who is accused of being a drug dealer. Twitch shuts me down. I lose my livelihood. 6 months later I am exonerated and it turns out I was not involved in any way. Too bad for me? Is that the world we want to live in? Where mere accusations can be treated as findings of truth?

I just want to get back to that. People are saying that this is OK? I'm not even talking about whether Twitch can legally do so. I am asking if we really want to live in a world where we do not wait for the legal process to play out, assume guilt based on accusation, and can take someone's livelihood away based on that mere accusation.

And it's not just Twitch. Twitch is part of Amazon. Perhaps I am a seller on the Amazon marketplace accused of the same... and lose my business because of a mere accusation.
Amazon is a behemoth. They are not your mom and pop store. They truly are growing closer to a utility (not quite there yet IMHO but they will get there). Should the private electric company turn off your power because they don't like something you are rumored to have said to your neighbor?

The number of people working for MLB who genuinely believe that a random bill that does a bunch of minor things to clean up election procedures is worse than the Uighur genocide is surely zero. But trolls pressured them about the former and not the latter, so they caved to the trolls on the former and tried to make money on the latter.

I wouldn't call giving the state election board the power to invalidate ballots at their own discretion a "minor thing" when it comes to democracy.

Here's the text of the bill in question:

https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/legislation/document/20212022/201498

Either the offending provision that you're referring to exists somewhere in particular in that bill, or else it doesn't exist at all. The bill is marked with line numbers for easy reference.

The reason no one has pointed out this is exactly the offending provision to you is that it doesn't exist. As I said, it's a lunatic conspiracy theory. But feel free to try to find it yourself if you want.

Sections 6 and 7 (starting on line 267) is probably what you're referring to, but it doesn't say what you seem to think it does. Feel free to read it yourself, or anything else in the bill, for that matter. If there actually is something egregiously bad in the bill, I'd like to know about it. But while lots of people assert that it must be there somewhere, no one seems to be able to actually find it.

Section 5. Lines 184-191 are a good start. Perhaps you think having a majority legislature circumvent the chain and push the Secretary of State aside when he doesn't fall in line is appropriate though?

Just for clarity as to why this is being done.

Here's a phone call of the georgia Sec of State refusing to commit election fraud at the behest of his parties leader

Here is also the same Sec of State confirming no evidence of voter fraud.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2020/11/11/georgia-secretary-of-state-brad-raffensperger-recount-no-widespread-fraud-sot-tsr-vpx.cnn

Now why would you take away power over elections from someone who refuses to commit fraud unless your goal was to commit fraud and he got in the way.

FrodoFragins · April 2021

Sandmanjw said:

Huge lawsuit incoming...............

About time too...these companies thinking to be the moral/thought police need to be reined in...soon.

You have a choice not to work for them. companies generally have clauses that they can fire you for conduct detrimental to the image of the company. Including your off hours. No lawsuit would get far as there are no laws protecting you for what you do outside of work.

The last thing companies want to deal with is BS related to employees behavior or social media statements. You're free to say and do what you want and they are free to fire your ass.

YashaX · April 2021

Quizzical said:

Or consider that the MLB just moved their All-Star game out of Georgia in response to some lunatic conspiracy theory that a previously obscure bill does some unspecified, nefarious things that appear nowhere in the text of the actual bill. And this is even though the actual text of the bill is on the Internet where absolutely anyone who cares could actually read it. Nowhere in their announcement did MLB say that such and such particular thing was wrong with the bill. They probably have no idea what the bill actually does and almost certainly don't care. They simply calculated that it was easier to cave to the demands of an army of trolls caught up in some lunatic conspiracy theory than to ignore them or explain why they're nuts.

And the MLB did this the day after they signed a deal to stream MLB games in China. The number of people working for MLB who genuinely believe that a random bill that does a bunch of minor things to clean up election procedures is worse than the Uighur genocide is surely zero. But trolls pressured them about the former and not the latter, so they caved to the trolls on the former and tried to make money on the latter.

You scare me.

Iselin · April 2021

Slapshot1188 said:

Iselin said:

Slapshot1188 said:

People keep talking about the corner bakery. This is Amazon. They are bigger than 80% of the COUNTRIES in the world... and growing.

They have a reach and impact that is closer to that of a government. And it's not just them. Imagine that Microsoft decided that you couldn't use Windows because they didn't like who you voted for. So you lose your job... Hey... private company so that's cool right?

That is utterly chilling to me.

Again... these are MEGACORPORATIONS larger than most governments in the world.

Are you saying they need to be regulated?

I think there is a fundamental difference between a local store and a megacorp larger than 80% of the worlds countries. If you look at my old posts I am consistent about this. I do not believe these should exist. I mean, facebook and Twitter and the like... those are big (or massive) companies but they are fairly narrow in scope. The Apples and Alphabets of the world are the next level as they are multi-channel. Amazon to me is the most dangerous company on the planet because they are into EVERYTHING:  Movies, TV, sports, gaming, clothing, electronics, shipping, medicine/prescriptions, webservers, broadband internet, WholeFoods...

Just wait until all their warehouses are fully automated and their cost of labor becomes a tiny fraction of what it is now. They simply will not have any legitimate competition. It's coming... and not too far in the future. They already have stores that have no checkout.

I have no problem if the local baker wants to ban you from the store because their cousin Bobby said you were an "American terrorist". The impact of a local baker isn't a blip on the power that Amazon wields and that is just going to grow. History has had instances where companies grew to hold too much power. This isn't really a new phenomenon. Where that line is... I don't know but I DO know that it's been crossed when you are bigger (revenue) than 4 out of 5 countries on the planet.

Welcome to left of center

No argument from me about the need to regulate megacorps but I have been pro-regulations consistently for a long time.

This is not necessarily the issue that twigged me to this point of view, a POV that has gotten me more WTFs in these forums, typically with respect to gaming companies and monetization practices, than any other thing I've ever said here.

I'm no fan of unregulated capitalism and never have been. I'm old enough to remember when people in both Canada and the US looked at British rule Hong Kong where corporations built private highways and charged for their use and we thought they were repulsive and nuts.

Little did I imagine back in the '60s and '70s that the same brand of laissez faire capitalism would become "normal" over here too.

Yeah, these megacorps need public oversight but that's just the start of it for me if I had anything to say about it.

Ungood · April 2021

FrodoFragins said:

Sandmanjw said:

Huge lawsuit incoming...............

About time too...these companies thinking to be the moral/thought police need to be reined in...soon.

You have a choice not to work for them. companies generally have clauses that they can fire you for conduct detrimental to the image of the company. Including your off hours. No lawsuit would get far as there are no laws protecting you for what you do outside of work.

The last thing companies want to deal with is BS related to employees behavior or social media statements. You're free to say and do what you want and they are free to fire your ass.

Should they be free to terminate you because they don't like your political views?

It's a question, because ideally that is where this all will end, you will have a world view, or a belief, they they will find unacceptable, and currently, while religious views are protected by the EOE, political ones, are not.

Howdy, Stranger!

Amazon Twitch to discipline people for offline behavior

Comments

Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Amazon Twitch to discipline people for offline behavior

Comments

Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV