krishna bound

3y

To be clear I'm not arguing that these bans over saying cracker aren't stupid - they are incredibly dumb and undeserved and I say that as someone that doesn't like Hasan or Vaush at all.
What i'm saying is that the bans are consistent with policy on a textual level under which has usually been widely defended in some cases even by the people in question who just got banned (or defenses of the wider platform(s) themselves). There's no situation in which policy will be applied in sole bias (even if its correct bias) and not in principle, because the admission of bias would make the platform essentially in violation of law. And if you want to go back to why it's a violation of the law it opens a huge can of worms politically as to how to best handle that.

re: them being sued, yes, usually you just don't hear about the outcome though. that's typically the case with big tech companies because they share the investors as many of the same media companies, so it's not like they really want settlement situations to leak. not every case wins either, but there are cases where some people settle out of court, or simply run out of money to continue fighting the case. the problem with CRA stuff though is unlike a simple ban thing, it'd be a walk in the park in court, hence what forces them to have these encompassing rules, and then put on the illusion they follow them

KAYTRANADA

3y

yeah i'd never think you'd be in support of the bans

but i'm confused here. i think i understand what you're saying about the Hasan case so i'll give another example.

can you explain to me what basis Twitter has to ban the Nancy pelosi stock account if it doesnt violate the terms? because then you can argue in court that the platform doesnt even abide by their own terms, and then what?

if the Pelosi stock account has the money to sustain the case, they'd have to settle right?

maybe its one of those instances where Twitter will take the hit on settlements in order to keep enforcing their malleable terms of service?

because yeah Hasan may be violating the civil rights act, and Twitter can use that to ban him, but what does the Nancy pelosi account violate legally?

krishna bound

3y

so basically the issue isn't that Hasan is violating the civil rights act himself, it's that twitch's terms say you can't harass/etc based on race (which is universal), and cracker is derogatory for race (even though no one really cares), so twitch then enforces its terms universally - the issue is they can't write in the terms "all slurs are banned except ones for whites" because then that'd be the CRA violation. there are tons of small streamers im sure which say cracker all the time, the issue with big streamers is if they allow them to ignore rules, then it becomes obvious they're enforcing terms based on bias, which goes back to square one (since with big streamers it gets publicized then people ask if the rules apply to them or not under the same textual standard)

the thing with actual arbitrary bans (let's say, twitter banning the pelosi account as you say, or the the ghislaine tracker), is that it's not actually illegal to ban someone for arbitrary reasons, because there's no current laws for legal disclosure of usage. The Twitter ToS you agree to says the following:

We may suspend or terminate your account or cease providing you with all or part of the Services at any time for any or no reason

note how it says "any or no reason". so legally they can do that for no reason. the problem is that there are certain things "any reason" cannot include - it cannot include anything protected under the CRA either - that is race, color, religion/creed, gender/sex, national origin, sexual orientation, physical or mental disability. Notice how there is nothing in the CRA for opinion or politics - that's because those are not protected statures. So twitter banning someone for political reasons is not a CRA violation. Note that ToS does need to mirror the CRA; so they could write "we can ban you for any reason we want" - the latent understanding would therefore be "any reason we want (which is legal)". The thing is with guidelines/rules is they cannot contradict the CRA; so if they write "you cannot harass someone for their race", that means it needs to be applied universally under the textual means of what race is - however the grey area is of course a ban with no reason can be enforced with bias and you'd need to prove its relation to the CRA, which is a lot of work, so it's easier to write ToS/guidelines as adhering to the CRA, and then obviously you do need to at least put on the illusion of following your own rules, but arbitrary bans not related to those derivatives aren't in violation of anything

KAYTRANADA

3y

okay that helped

are u a law student? lol

space0cadet

3y

the bourgeoise, for the first time in history, tweet at us

i love elon musk!

that punk b**** queer-lover progressive muslim just got owned! haha! :fistbump:

am i right, dudes? i love capitalism!

krishna bound

3y

This is a parody tweet I was surprised so many people seem to have fell for, he was parodying stuff like this

krishna bound

3y

This has to be like the fifth or sixth time someone’s tried this, i remember someone tried to start a $FLOYD coin as well last year

Yuzzy

3y

Incoherent

krishna bound

3y

honestly probably one of the funniest quotes from a politician ever

Undecided

3y

I've been following boogie for a while since he is from Arkansas. This isnt even the worst thing he has said recently.