Free Speech

The Blacklist Spreads: Twitch Now Banning "Known Hate Group" "Member[s]," "Even if These Actions Occur Entirely off Twitch"

|

From the Twitch blog today (first emphasis in original, second added):

We will now enforce against serious offenses that pose a substantial safety risk to the Twitch community, even if these actions occur entirely off Twitch. Examples of these behaviors include:

  • Deadly violence and violent extremism
  • Terrorist activities or recruiting
  • Explicit and/or credible threats of mass violence (i.e. threats against a group of people, event, or location where people would gather).
  • Leadership or membership in a known hate group
  • Carrying out or acting as an accomplice to non-consensual sexual activities and/or sexual assault
  • Sexual exploitation of children, such as child grooming and solicitation/distribution of underage sexual materials
  • Actions that would directly and explicitly compromise the physical safety of the Twitch community, such as threatening violence at a Twitch event
  • Explicit and/or credible threats against Twitch, including Twitch staff

These behaviors represent some of the most egregious types of physical and psychological harm, but we understand that this list is not inclusive of all types of harassment and abuse.

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.

This doesn't define "hate group," but consider Twitch's definition of hateful conduct, which is already broad enough to include speech that "perpetuative[s] negative stereotypes" based on, for instance, "immigration status" or "religion"; claims of "mental" or "moral deficiencies," including again based on religion; calls for "political, economic, and social exclusion/segregation, based on a protected characteristic, including age"; "mocking the event/victims or denying the occurrence of well-documented hate crimes, or denying the existence of documented acts of mass murder/genocide against a protected group"; or "[e]ncouraging the use of or generally endorsing sexual orientation conversion therapy." ("We do, however, allow discussions on certain topics such as immigration policy, voting rights for non-citizens, and professional sports participation as long as the content is not directly denigrating based on a protected characteristic.") Presumably if you belong to a group, even entirely off Twitch, that endorses such "hateful conduct," then you are just like terrorists, rapists, or child molesters, and will be potentially subject to the blacklist.

Of course, Twitch (owned by Amazon) is a private company, and is not barred by law from blacklisting people based on whether they are now, or have ever been, members of this or that group. But it's important for the public to see just how broadly Big Tech wants to assert control over people's speech and association—a desire that of course is unlikely to stay limited to gaming platforms.

As I mentioned, for instance, I think we should demand that any "vaccine passport" or "vaccine verification" systems that the government requires or facilitates must have a "common carrier" requirement (by law, regulation, or contract): Otherwise, whoever runs the system can use its power to blacklist people who belong to the wrong groups, or venues that are seen as run by the wrong groups (or even ones that, for instance, allow rallies or concerts by the wrong groups).

Likewise, as individuals and companies we need to see what we can do to try to fight supply chain political risk, whether by supporting competition to Big Tech (such as Parler), supporting open-access models, or doing other such things. I, for one, do not welcome our new Big Tech overlords.

NEXT: Some Thoughts on Google v. Oracle, from Prof. Rebecca Tushnet (Harvard)

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. What should we make of pointers on this subject from a source that engages in repeated partisan censorship yet publishes plenty of vile racial slurs?

    1. How strange to speak in the third person of yourself!

      But there is a simple answer, which I violate with this comment: we just ignore you.

      1. With defenders like you . . . the proprietor gets what he deserves.

    2. Careful on twitch, they're banning people who accuse the religious of mental deficiency.

      1. Different strokes. Here, people who mock conservatives are banned, relatively benign words are vanished, and people who use vile racial slurs are championed.

        I doubt Twitch, Twitter, and Facebook believe they should be offering pointers to the Volokh Conspiracy on censorship. It appears the Volokh Conspiracy, however, figures it should provide guidance to others concerning which content to permit.

        1. Who got permanently banned from the VC?

          1. That late, great Artie Ray Lee Wayne Jim-Bob Kirkland.

            The vanished or banned terms include “c_p succ_r” and “sl_ack-j_w,” at least when aimed at conservatives. Hard to believe, but all of this censorship is documented. No acknowledgement of error or regret. Which seems inconvenient in the context of this blog objecting to others engaging in similar curation.

            1. You're such a troll, Kirkland.

              1. You just now noticed?

  2. Nuke the gay baby whales for Jesus!

    Just want to make sure I don't accidentally join Twitch and start wasting too much time there.

    1. At what point do we adopt the tactics of the Burn, Loot, & Murder brigade? Or, as Yeats put it, "the middle ceases to hold..."

      BLM has shown the world that violence works -- and that it works well. Well, at what point will we be forced to say "when in Rome..."

      1. BLM was helped immensely by white guilt

        1. Plus the dead black guys.

  3. Up until quite recently (and by many accounts even now) many gay persons could tell you about their real fears (and some experiences) with being discriminated against as customers and employees if people knew they were gay or they 'expressed' themselves as gay (via things like 'PDA's'). Did Professor Volokh ever write about this problem and suggest strategies to fix it?

    1. I never had to sign a paper or click a button promising that I wouldn't say or do anything gay outside of work. Such codes of conduct were found in organizations that had a social mission rather than a business mission. Want to teach at a Catholic school, don't be out. Want to work for IBM, wear business attire.

      1. Wow, you don't think gay persons had to and often still do have to worry about losing clients, jobs, etc., if people find them expressing themselves as gays in public? Or do you just find the fact that such fears were not part of a written down forewarning code makes them more easily dismissed?

        1. You presume that all the people fired for being gay were actually fired for that reason.

          Reality is that it often was easier to fire him for that reason than the real reason why you wished to do so -- e.g. theft, dealing drugs, rape -- yeah, it's going to be traumatic to fire him for raping a coworker, but if all the coworker wants is him gone, and you can get rid of him for being gay, what's the harm? He's fired - and *he* knows why...

        2. QA,
          That really depends on where they work.

      2. And want to participate at Twitter, don’t be a gay-basher, a racist, a misogynist, an advocate of insurrection, a belligerent liar about illusory election fraud or illusory stolen elections, a Muslim-hater, an Asian-bashed, or a roundly bigoted loser.

        That concept seems to elude plenty of right-wingers currently, including some conservative law professors who should know better and are abandoning ostensible principle.

    2. "Up until quite recently (and by many accounts even now)."

      That's certainly true. Prior to Bostock it was legal to refuse service to gay people, and there was a hardware store in Tennessee that sometimes did.

      There's a simple word for this: Intolerance. It's not good when people don't tolerate gays, it's not good when people don't tolerate all kinds of other people.

    3. So let's discriminate against everybody you don't like on the off-chance that some of them might say hurtful things against things you pretend you like, because if you don't pretend to like them, the people who do pretend to like them will pretend to hate you and make you cry.

      1. I actually think discriminating against someone because of them saying hurtful things seems more ok than discriminating against them because of who they are (immutable qualities). The history of non-discrimination law agrees with me for the most part.

        1. What are “hurtful things”?

          1. Things like calling a black person the N word or calling someone's intellectually challenged son the R word.

            All societies have words that they think are 'beyond the pale' and not acceptable in certain social settings (and sometimes nearly across the board). Humans are distinguished by your ability to relay ideas via speech and many of our actions are motivated by ideas, especially ones that tap into powerful emotions.

            What I find really, really interesting is how this basic psychological reality must be posited in some strange, anthropological report fashion to so many libertarians and conservatives on the internet.

            1. There was a time when conservatives, especially, would have recognized this basic truth. If you insults you as an Englishman you can expect a proper Englishman to be infuriated. If a man insults your basic honor and dignity you can expect them to be infuriated. Edmund Burke would have acknowledged this readily and thought anyone who could not was more than passing strange. In this day and age, when conservatives follow Limbaugh more than Burke they *of course* acknowledge these human truths in their everyday experience, but increasingly want to deny them in political debate.

            2. "Things like calling a black person the N word or calling someone’s intellectually challenged son the R word..."

              Or denying that Jesus is the son of God. Or claiming same sex marriage should be afforded the same dignity as a traditional marriage.

              1. Do you think that denying that Jesus is the Son of God is = to the N Word?

                I mean, I guess you might think that if, say, you were a 'fatherless' child and I called you a bastard throughout high school frequently that's the same as if you were an evangelical Christian and I told you that you were stupid to think Jesus was the Son of God. And let's put this in the 50's when the former was regular and the latter not, because what's that kind of context to a Vulcan? I mean, both are upsetting things, so totes the same, right Commander Data?

                1. An irony about this...I grew up in the South, and like most people's that lost a major fight if you insulted the South around us people would be *very* upset. Later, when I moved North I was, as a child, astounded to find that if you called someone a Yankee they would usually laugh it off. Not all, some would be upset, but not nearly as consistently and at the level of the former.

                  I say as a child because as an adult this doesn't surprise me. The Irish are all kinds of sensitive more than the English about that conflict, recently divorced persons are all kinds of more funny about divorce jokes than the long divorced. All of this must mystify you, right?

                  "Captain, in both cases the persons nationality/marital status was referenced, but in some there was upset, in other's there was not. I am perplexed?"
                  "Commander, there are nuances to the human experience you may have missed. Now let's photon torpedo the hell out of those Romulans."

                  1. " if you called someone a Yankee they would usually laugh it off"
                    In most of New England a Yankee was a WASP. In RI, that term was refined for those WASPs whose ancestors were from south of Providence. The term was "swamp Yankee."
                    I expect that "swamp Yankee" is now virtually unknown

                    1. I expect that “swamp Yankee” is now virtually unknown

                      On the contrary, Don Nico. I apply, "swamp yankee," when appropriate, and correctly. It refers to whites with ancestral connection to the glacial outwash plain which forms the bulk of southeastern Massachusetts and Rhode Island. It denotes a family history of hard-scrabble, largely agricultural existence, and typically an austere lifestyle down to the near-present. Employment lately is more diverse, and more remunerative for many.

                      Swamp yankees do not consider the term a slur, except in the same way a sleeping dog can distinguish a stumbling mishap from a deliberate kick.

                      Also found among swamp yankees, practical outlooks, unusual energy, resourcefulness, fanatical thrift, higher rates of some vices. A fair number of them are Mayflower descendants, or claim to be. A subset are descendants of French Canadians.

                      Among many swamp yankees—and among folks who deal with them—the region they inhabit is sometimes referred to as, the "Old Colony," which distinguishes it on historical basis from the lesser-used, "New Colony," meaning Boston and its immediate environs. The two regions are not so different as DC and West Virginia, but the idea applies. Old Colony history and early customs continue to challenge title insurance companies.

                      Surprisingly in 21st century Massachusetts, there remain ways to accomplish considerable journeys across the Old Colony while sticking entirely to unpaved roads in various degrees of disrepair, and sometimes featuring only one lane which mutually accommodates traffic in both directions, requiring negotiated solutions to meet-up problems. The antiquity of some of these routes becomes plain when you note how extensively entrenched they are. I was exploring one such road this morning.

                      You could not have readily supposed the din of civilization from anything you could see and hear along mile after mile of my morning's pleasant excursion. I encountered no one else, but it was early. Undoubtedly, woods all around me were full of abodes of unseen swamp yankees, practicing hard-to-discern means of subsistence. Cranberry bogs remain extensive (although less than previously), but can hardly provide complete support for so many.

                      If "swamp yankee," is gone out of fashion, it may result from general cultural caution about group generalizations. On the basis of facts on the ground, the term remains useful, and largely unoffending when offered in good spirit. I suppose Boston Brahmins should avoid it.

              2. “Things like calling a black person the N word or calling someone’s intellectually challenged son the R word…”

                You called someone a Republican in police society? You cad!

        2. discriminating against someone because of them saying hurtful things seems more ok than discriminating against them because of who they are (immutable qualities).

          I'd let private actors do both. (No, I don't think it's "OK" to discriminate against someone because of their immutable qualities, but, in my book, forcing a private establishment to serve someone they'd rather not serve is even less "OK.")

      2. Or, and this is just a suggestion...

        You could stop relying on "of course corporations agree with people like me" to get access, and try actually persuading society that you're not an asshole? And that your views are the morally and ethically correct ones?

        That's what actual minorities have done. Instead of relying on a so-called "silent majority" to back them, they've worked hard, over decades, to persuade people that they're right. Sometimes they've succeeded, sometimes they've failed. But unlike you, they've never taken it for granted that modern America is structured to benefit them.

        1. "That’s what actual minorities have done."
          By that do you actually mean "immigrant" communities? Certainly they did not take granted that America is structured to benefit them.

          1. Included but not limited to.

        2. "and try actually persuading society that you’re not an asshole? "

          Here's the thing: Twitchy isn't "society". It isn't even representative of society.

          It's taking sides in controversies where society is divided.

          When they say "known hate group", they're going by the SPLC's list of 'hate groups', which is just a list of groups the SPLC happens to not like.

          You can get on their list for being the KKK or Aryan Brotherhood. Or for opposing illegal immigration. Or opposing abortion. Or opposing gun control.

          Really, if you disagree with their politics in any way, you risk ending up on their list.

          I'll tell you what won't get you on their list: Organizing riots at which Molotov cocktails are thrown at police.

    4. I know you think this is a gotcha but.....

      1. Division of labor.

      for every 1 person who writes on this topic, 100 writers or academics have written about the gay issue.

      2. The extent to which the problem exists anymore.

      Save for maybe very small businesses that are able to keep under the radar (maybe not even these) any incidence of sexual orientation discrimination (real or imagined) is liable to become a national news story

      1. These are both just supposed hypotheses with no proof of them, and of course largely shaped by your bias and the information sources you tend to rely on and then the things you tend to remember considering.

    5. You presume that all the people fired for being gay were actually fired for that reason.

      Reality is that it often was easier to fire him for that reason than the real reason why you wished to do so -- e.g. theft, dealing drugs, rape -- yeah, it's going to be traumatic to fire him for raping a coworker, but if all the coworker wants is him gone, and you can get rid of him for being gay, what's the harm? He's fired - and *he* knows why...

      1. Ed,
        In CA if you want to fire someone you either have an ironclad case based on work performance, necessity of business economics, or just say we're cutting staff and you drew the short straw.
        Any other reason you're business is going to have to settle or pay the equivalent in attorney's fees.

      2. "You presume that all the people fired for being gay were actually fired for that reason."

        I also presume that reality is consistent regardless of observer.

  4. If this keeps up, conservatives/libertarians might discover that they're actually okay with previously-unconstitutional non-discrimination laws.

    1. I don't know if that's enough. We might need some affirmative action.

      1. Heh. Yeah, the calls 'round here for affirmative action for conservative professors is all sorts of funny.

        Really hammering-home that the objections to such things were never sincere, just self-interested.

        1. "Really hammering-home that the objections to such things were never sincere, just self-interested."

          Lol. Same with the support for such things, it would seem.

          1. What nonsense.

            The argument in favor of Affirmative Action has always been "these groups are historically disadvantaged and need the leg up".

            Thinking that conservative professors don't need a leg up isn't inconsistent with thinking that racial and ethnic minorities do.

            In order for it to be inconsistent, you would have to convincingly argue that the thin sliver of pro-Affirmative Action groups that have even heard (and rejected) the specious arguments about how conservatives need Affirmative Action bought into the argument that conservatives are disadvantaged, but refuse to think they should be included in Affirmative Action anyway.

            This is entirely distinct from the way conservatives/libertarians have been arguing against Affirmative Action for decades. Sure, there are occasional arguments that Affirmative Action just isn't effective at achieving it's stated goals (the "mismatched" hypothesis, for example) but most claim to be principled, and would cut against all Affirmative Action policies, regardless of whether or not a given demographic was disadvantaged.

            So no. This hypocrisy is all on you, buckaroo.

            1. Did you stretch before those gymnastics? I hope you don't sprain anything.

      2. "We might need some affirmative action."

        Cue: Heterodox Academy!

      3. "We might need some affirmative action."

        How many stupid people do you want engineering the bridges? I'm sticking with 0.

    2. Well, it's pretty clear to me that antidiscrimination laws are generally constitutional (except in certain contexts, such as when they compel a wedding photographer to photograph same-sex weddings -- or when they compel a wedding photographer to photograph Nazi weddings or even pro-Trump weddings). I think most conservatives and even many libertarians have likewise recognized this, as a matter of established constitutional law.

      One question, of course, is whether such laws are actually a good idea. Libertarians generally say no; conservatives are likely more mixed but historically have been less supportive of them than liberals have been.

      And one more question is whether, once the legal system has adopted many such laws that ban discrimination based on religious views, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status (in many states), age (in many states), and more, it makes sense to also extend that to political views. There too I'm inclined to say that most libertarians would say no; not sure about conservatives.

      Finally, one more question is whether, apart from the civil rights rationale for antidiscrimination laws, it's also especially dangerous when vast business entities use their economic power to control political debate. There too libertarians probably aren't in favor of using the law to control it. Conservatives are probably more mixed (many conservatives have long accepted some sorts of common carrier and antitrust laws, for instance). And liberals have historically been very skeptical of such power, though some liberals seem to favor it today (while others, such as Erwin Chemerinsky, continue to condemn it).

      1. "Well, it’s pretty clear to me that antidiscrimination laws are generally constitutional"

        Are we talking state, or federal? Because I'd strongly argue that, no, federal anti-discrimination laws are NOT generally constitutional, as the 14th amendment only reaches state conduct.

        States, of course, have general police power, and unlike the federal government, are not limited to enumerated powers, but instead face enumerated limits. So I'd admit that at least some state anti-discrimination laws are presumably constitutional.

        Though it seems to me that public accommodation laws, at least as applied to single proprietorships, start to look like a 13th amendment violation, involuntary servitude.

        1. You think nothing in the federal constitution gives the government any power to combat what MLK spoke of in his I Have a Dream Speech (about hotels turning weary black travelers away)?

          1. Brett conveniently overlooked the Commerce Clause, let alone any mention of Heart of Atlanta Motel or McClung.

            1. Also what the 13th Amendment actually says and does.

              1. "Section 1

                Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
                Section 2

                Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

                Seems pretty easy to understand. No slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a penalty for a crime. And Congress can enforce this with appropriate legislation.

                Which explicitly recognizes that some legislation purporting to enforce it could be inappropriate, right?

                The application to public accommodation laws is fairly obvious: You're requiring somebody to render service, against their will, which is to say, involuntarily.

                Would it help if Congress decided to declare agricultural labor a public accommodation, so that the cotton farms in this area didn't have to worry about people refusing to accept their offer of jobs?

                1. "You’re requiring somebody to render service, against their will, which is to say, involuntarily."

                  If someone operates a business rendering that service, they have kind of waived the claim that they don't want to provide that service in exchange for money.

            2. I never overlook the interstate commerce clause, but I refuse to agree that its extension to intra-state commerce and non-commerce was legitimate.

              1. You don't think the Heart of Atlanta Motel was involved in interstate commerce?

                (I will accept that there's a non-crazy argument that McClung was wrongly decided. But Heart of Atlanta Motel was clearly right.)

              2. "I never overlook the interstate commerce clause, but I refuse to agree that its extension to intra-state commerce and non-commerce was legitimate."

                So much for the Controlled Substances Act.

          2. Yes, I think the federal constitution doesn't give the federal government any power they think would be handy to combat various evils. I think the federal government has enumerated powers, and if an evil is beyond the reach of them, tough nuggies.

            1. Alas for Brett, at no point in the legal process does anyone check with Brett to see if a specific evil is beyond his interpretation of the federal government's enumerated powers.

        2. Also, while I think your last line demonstrates the always amazing lack of distinction making, I am curious as to arguendo it would be different for a single propietorship.

        3. "Though it seems to me that public accommodation laws, at least as applied to single proprietorships, start to look like a 13th amendment violation, involuntary servitude."
          Fortunately, you're not and never will be a judge.

        4. it seems to me that public accommodation laws, at least as applied to single proprietorships, start to look like a 13th amendment violation, involuntary servitude.

          I once got cited for not cleaning the snow off my sidewalk. Guess I've got a Constitutional case.

          1. I'm pretty sure they didn't demand specific performance of you, but instead would have been fine with you hiring the kid next door to shovel the snow.

      2. Where can we read up on your views of Colin Kaepernick's treatment? Seems highly topical.

        You can of course try to distinguish based on him doing it during games, but that seems like pretty thin gruel - the major sports teams absolutely punish people for off-turf behavior.

        1. I'm not sure any anti-discrimination laws would protect Kaepernick, who's conduct during the games is what got him in trouble.

          Contrast that to Tim Tebow, when the left went ape-shit because he appeared in a super-bowl ad about families.

          1. Tebow didn't get blacklisted because of his stance (er) (and I say that as a fan of Tebow the player). Kaepernick almost certainly did (and I say that as someone who rooted against him every game he played, I hate the niners).

            1. I would guess that by far the majority of the Niners' customers, as well as those of other NFL teams, disagree strongly with Kaepernick's "stance," which he displays while at work. I see nothing wrong with those teams refusals (if it was that) to hire someone who will insult and anger their customers. A law firm that has lots of corporate clients would not put up with a lawyer or paralegal who posts anti-corporation slogans on their desks.

              1. Which is reasonable. Same reason Dixie Chicks went off the air.

                But when it happens to conservatives? "Cancel culture", and an attack on freedom and apple pie and so-on.

                It's obvious hypocrisy. And pointing out the obvious hypocrisy is a big trigger for 'em too.

                1. You'd have to explain how Brendan Eich and James Damore, among many others, insulted their employers' customers to make that analogy meaningful.

                  1. Eich? That's your defense?

                    "If gay people don't work for someone that tried to strip them of their civil rights, they're the real bullies!"

                    That's where you're coming from here.

                    Goodness, you're either ignorant of what happened there, or you're an evil sonofabitch.

                    Or are you still under the impression that he stepped down because of the media, and not because a bunch of developers said they wouldn't keep making apps for Mozilla if he was CEO? Because I know conservatives like to pretend it was outside pressure, but it was inside pressure. Mozilla developers didn't want to work for the guy because of his actions.

                2. EE,
                  Are you really saying that the cancel culture does not exist?
                  If you are, that is dishonesty

                  1. Y'all can't even agree on what "cancel culture" means, so I won't say that.

                    But I will say that conservatives/libertarians are, broadly, A-OK with an employer firing someone for non-performance reasons, including the employee's ideology. It's just when that ideology is "conservative" that it's "cancel culture" and you have a problem.

                    I will say that conservatives/libertarians are, broadly, A-OK with pressuring companies to support their views, and threaten boycotts if they don't. It's just when liberals do that that it's "cancel culture" and you have a problem.

                    I will say that conservatives/libertarians are, broadly, A-OK with celebrities losing gigs and jobs because they publicly said/did something that upset a lot of people. It's just when the celebrity is associated with conservatism that it's "cancel culture" and you have a problem.

                    And this isn't new. The only new thing about is that you've rebranded things a little.

                    1. How much do you know from experience about college campuses these day, Not from hearing about it but from being there?
                      Student pressures to abrogate tenure and other contractual relations based on perceived or even admitted minor offenses are damned strong. And admins bend over backwards to kept high tuition students happy.

                  2. "Are you really saying that the cancel culture does not exist?"

                    Nobody said anything even remotely like that.

              2. I would guess that by far the majority of the Niners’ customers, as well as those of other NFL teams, disagree strongly with Kaepernick’s “stance,”

                Citation????

                Considering that most Americans believe police brutality and racism in policing are a real problem, I am going to call bullshit on your assertion that "by far the majority if San Francisco fans as well that of other teams disagree with his stance"

                https://dailycaller.com/2020/07/08/poll-racism-police-brutality-trump-biden-elections-guardian-opinium/

                I would say there was probably a small but very vocal contingent of people who disapproved of his stance (if they had any opinion on it at all) . Furthermore, I would wager that the right wing politicians calling for Kaep to be fired for protesting police brutality (and purposely lying and labeling his as anti-flag and anti-troops ) also im sure influenced the NFL who didnt want to risk pissing off the party in power.

                But since it's all just a business decision, I assume then that you completely support MLB's decision to move the All-Star game in response to Georgia's voting laws because they made the calculus that their fans disagree with the stance towards voting rights Georgia is taking?

                1. I don't think they made that calculus at all. Rob Manfred has not said that motivated the decision. More likely, he did not want to risk no getting invited to those chi-chi cocktail parties and appearing in celebrity photo ops.

              3. "I would guess that by far the majority of the Niners’ customers, as well as those of other NFL teams, disagree strongly with Kaepernick’s “stance,”"

                You might want to review the NFL's press releases on that subject.

            2. Tebow got blacklisted for his behavior during the course of his employment.

              It's not like he got blacklisted for writing a bunch of op-eds or something.

              He's got no more right to proselytize his political views to TV viewer than a dude at McDonalds has to proselytize to people buying hamburgers.

              1. I like Tebow, but there was a consensus that his style does not translate well to the NFL. Happens all the time with great college QBs (I think they are wrong btw!). I never read any hint that he was dropped because coaches and owners thought his stance was hurting them.

                The same can not be said for Kaepernick. NFL coaches 'caught on' to this style to a degree, but he was fairly universally seen as having 'the goods' more than Tebow.

                But, he was embarrassing the entire league and product, and once Trump joined in it became a big partisan thing and it made it really tough to keep him. I get that. It's interesting you don't want to for...reasons?

                1. QA,
                  Kaep would have had a much easier time of it had his play in the previous two season not deteriorated so much.
                  He was a high risk for any team to take as his best days were well behind him.

                  1. "He was a high risk for any team to take as his best days were well behind him."

                    Sure, and that Brady fellow is still trending upwards... what is he, 65, now?

                2. "I like Tebow, but there was a consensus that his style does not translate well to the NFL. Happens all the time with great college QBs"

                  Not just QBs. Mike Hass was the best college wide receiver, then he graduated and couldn't stick to an NFL team.

              2. Tebow got blacklisted for his behavior during the course of his employment.

                Tim Tebow didnt get blacklisted by the NFL.

                He played for the Broncos and the Jets over 3 seasons and made the practice squad for the Eagles and Patriots. Washing out of the NFL is not being blacklisted.

                He then went on to sign a minor league deal with the NY Mets where he played minor league baseball for 4-5 seasons (he just officially retired)

                Again people need to stop the false equivalency. Kaep was blacklisted by the league whereas Tebow was criticized by some fans of the league.

                These 2 things are not even remotely the same as far as impact go.

                1. Ten years later, some Steelers still poke fun at the defense with a wink or smirk and one word: "Tebow?"

                  1. As a Steelers fan I’m triggered by this.

                2. Tebow was a flash in the pan.
                  Get got was he deserved.

            3. Hopefully you don't belong to a fan group that hates the niners as that would make you a member of a hate group and get you banned from platforms.

              1. SICK BURN, uncle!

            4. "I hate the niners"
              Now we know that you are WRONG.

              1. In the sense that the Niners sucked again last year? The other three teams in the division were in contention for the playoffs up to the final week of the regular season, and two of them actually made it, and then had to play each other.

          2. I’m not sure any anti-discrimination laws would protect Kaepernick, who’s conduct during the games is what got him in trouble.

            He didnt protest during games...he protested before games.

            Contrast that to Tim Tebow, when the left went ape-shit because he appeared in a super-bowl ad about families.

            Tibow didnt get black-listed. In fact I would argue that he got more chances than a bust like him should have explicitly due to his high profile religiousness.
            Nor did the left go ape-shit about him being in commercials.

            To the extend the left cared about Tebow it was the correct criticism that if he weren't a corn-fed white boy wearing his religion on his sleeve that was popular with the christian right, there is no way he would have made the NFL as a quarterback (he probably could have been a solid TE) much less gotten as many chances as he has.

            The fact that you consider being blacklisted by the NFL the same as some ill-defined "left" going "ape-shit" as even close to being equivalent is the real problem.

            1. On the field before games is "at work." Players' employers are entitled to and do direct the players before games on the field how to warm up, stretch, talk strategy, etc.

              1. On the field before games is “at work.”

                He didnt say "at work" -- he said "who’s conduct during the games is what got him in trouble"

                1. "He didnt say “at work” — he said “who’s conduct during the games is what got him in trouble”"

                  Sigh. OK. His conduct during the televised broadcasts, when people were expecting to watch the national anthem.

                  If he wants to express his views, he is free to find his own platform like Tebow did.

                  1. Did any major national Democratic politician call for Tebow to be fired for his behavior?

                    Trump politicized Kaerpernick's situation in an attempt to gain popularity by promoting 'canceling' him. Nothing like that happened to Tebow. Tebow fell victim to what you see in the film Moneyball, football insiders found his style and performance to be different than what is currently thought to be solid in the NFL. They did this despite the fact that teams did fairly well under his direction. I think that was stupid, but he there was no indication he was blackballed because of his beliefs and speech.

                    1. "They did this despite the fact that teams did fairly well under his direction."

                      No, he won ONE playoff game. That's one more than Johnny Manziel or Brady Quinn, but somewhat less than, say, Patrick Mahomes or Aaron Rodgers, each of whom is won exactly ONE Super Bowl.

                  2. "Sigh. OK. His conduct during the televised broadcasts, when people were expecting to watch the national anthem."

                    How depressing life must be for people who tune into NFL games because they want to watch the national anthem.

                2. All business is show business.
                  The game is more than between the whistles. I don't know the official NFL rule, but when the players come out onto the field that is part of the show.

                  1. "The game is more than between the whistles. I don’t know the official NFL rule, but when the players come out onto the field that is part of the show."

                    If you're in the stadium, maybe, but they don't put it on TV, which is where the NFL's money comes from.

                    1. James,
                      The usually put the players entry to the field and standing through entry ceremonies, coin toss etc. on TV. Those are part of the game.

                      As a referee, once a player got to the sidelines, I considered that s/he was in the game with respect to offenses of the rules.

                    2. "The usually put the players entry to the field and standing through entry ceremonies, coin toss etc. on TV. Those are part of the game."

                      They don't put that on TV because they're still in the pregame show. They cut to the play-by-play announcer telling you who won the toss and who's going to receive the kickoff, and you MIGHT get to see the players lining up for the kickoff. In an ordinary game, they don't show the coin toss. For the Super Bowl, the pregame show runs for like 4 hours, and they have airtime to go to the coin toss before the game.

                    3. "As a referee, once a player got to the sidelines, I considered that s/he was in the game with respect to offenses of the rules."

                      As a non-referee, I was aware that players on the sidelines are NOT in the game.

            2. "To the extend the left cared about Tebow it was the correct criticism that if he weren’t a corn-fed white boy wearing his religion on his sleeve that was popular with the christian right, there is no way he would have made the NFL as a quarterback"

              The criticism was that "...Focus on the Family is abusing Tim Tebow's celebrity status to force-feed a political agenda down America's throat."

              1. The NFL is nothing but anti-American national-anthem kneelers anyway, what do they know about football talent? Why, they let the Cleveland Browns into the playoffs, if you can believe it, and not the Dallas Cowboys.

                1. Aww, they didn't let your team play? Boo-hoo.
                  Real footballers don't wear crash helmets and body-armour

                  1. or even body armor.

                  2. "Aww, they didn’t let your team play? Boo-hoo."

                    Naw, they made them play the Rams. Again. Their own fault, for not securing the bye.

          3. "I’m not sure any anti-discrimination laws would protect Kaepernick, who’s conduct during the games is what got him in trouble."

            Yeah, being good at football is a hated characteristic for people who watch football on TV.

      3. Today's Tech companies wield more power than many governments (and arguable, in some directions, more than the US government).

        It seems strange to worry about government regulating speech, assembly or religion but give Big Tech free reign to do same.

        1. How so? My state, local and federal governments literally shoot and imprison people regularly. Twitch...decides not to do business with them (I honestly have no idea wtf Twitch is).

          1. QA - Can your local or state government manipulate a national election?

            1. Notice I mentioned "My state, local and federal governments "

              And AtR says "Can your local or state government manipulate a national election?"

              Of course this is laughable, but the jokes on him, it's even Trump Dogma that state and local governments can manipulate a national election (hence his lawsuits against various states and local governments).

            2. As conservatives proved with their Georgia hysteria, they consider "counting the votes" to be "manipulation".

              1. The most common manipulations have always come when "counting" the votes.
                When CA ruled out almost a half million primary ballots in 2020, that was a manipulation, maybe a legal one, but a manipulation nonetheless, when counting the votes.

                1. See what I mean?

                  A Republican administration counted the votes. They audited the votes. They hand-counted the votes. They did every thing they could to verify that their totals reflected what the voters actually voted.

                  But that's "manipulation".

                  Meanwhile, Trump calling up the Georgia secretary of state asking him to "find" exactly how many votes he needed to win the state was a perfect phone call.

                  1. I agree that the GA SoS and election officials did their job.

                    1. So did the get-out-the-vote effort put forth by the "get in there and tell Trump he's fired" election volunteers.

                    2. James,
                      The best effort to defeat Trump and flip the Senate was delivered by Donald J. Trump

                    3. Absolutely, Donald Trump did his best to get a Democrat elected President.

          2. "(I honestly have no idea wtf Twitch is)"

            It's what young people did for entertainment before there was a TikTok.

        2. It seems strange to worry about government regulating speech, assembly or religion but give Big Tech free reign to do same.

          Actually it's not strange at all. What is strange is to hear a bunch of people on a right leaning blog essentially arguing for common carrier status and anti-trust actions against successful private tech corporations.

          You HAVE to deal with the government. You don't HAVE to use facebook or google or any companies tech that you don't like their rules.

          It seems odd that this distinction is being ignored by so many people who were railing against the Obama's FCC treating ISPs as common carriers.

          The right and libertarians for years have been telling the world that private corporations should not be regulated.

          I feel like I am in Bizzaro-world.

          1. Help me out here; where do I look up the names of all the companies that use Amazon's cloud services so I can be sure to boycott them because I hate Twitch?
            Google?
            IBM?
            Not saying I want to, just pointing out you no longer can actually not patronize the big tech companies. It's like trying to avoid all products associated with the slavers in Communist China.

            1. Help me out here; where do I look up the names of all the companies that use Amazon’s cloud services so I can be sure to boycott them because I hate Twitch?

              Most companies have a "contact us" section of their website. You can reach out to them and ask who their cloud provider is. You can even tell them why you want to know the information and implore them to stop using the vendor because the vendor supports whatever it is you are against.

              That's generally how boycotts work. They require effort -- and it also means that living up to your principles requires effort on your part.

              But regardless of all of that...whats the reccomendation? That because it's hard for you to boycott them they should be regulated? Have they gotten too big? That they are acting monopolistic ?

              What are you proposing? Anti-trust action to break them up? Common Carrier / Equal time regulations to control their content ?

            2. Holy shit, Chomsky speaks!!!

            3. "Help me out here; where do I look up the names of all the companies that use Amazon’s cloud services so I can be sure to boycott them because I hate Twitch?"

              It's everybody. It's probably be easier to boycott all the businesses that use gasoline because of being mad at BP. OK, it's not literally everybody, some are using Azure and some built their own cloud infrastructure. But the ability to spin up a virtual machine in AWS gives flexibility to IT organizations that they love to use for innovation, to develop new infrastructure and new services on a tighter budget.

        3. "Today’s Tech companies wield more power than many governments (and arguable, in some directions, more than the US government)."

          Yeah, if you don't understand how the tech works, I guess it must be plenty scary. Here's a hint for the slow: If you don't use Facebook, Facebook has approximately zero power over you.

      4. "t’s also especially dangerous when vast business entities use their economic power to control political debate. "

        Professor Volokh, do you think this is some new thing? Left wing figures like Noam Chomsky and his acolytes have for decades been arguing that concentrated corporate power puts dangerous bounds on what gets to be mainstream and/or popular debate. I don't think the left has walked away from this much either (Warren still wants to break up those media companies, well, most big companies), it's more a sudden 'ha ha' about conservatives finally feeling they are on the receiving end and portraying it as some new, apocalyptic phenomena.

      5. One-sentence snark about obvious and blatant hypocrisy.

        Four-paragraph wall-of-text defense of said hypocrisy.

        I don't think I need to say more here.

      6. while others, such as Erwin Chemerinsky, continue to condemn it

        I very much admire this about Erwin. His "Rethinking State Action" law review article 30 years ago where he first took this position, was well argued. A lot of people nowadays not only endorse corporate censorship of speech rights, but are very arrogant and condescending about it, pretending that those of us concerned about the issue are too stupid to understand the Constitution. In fact, there's a very long, honorable history of scholarship calling for constitutional scrutiny of private power. It may be right, it may be wrong, but people are not stupid or playing into conservatives' hands by endorsing Chemerinsky's position.

        1. "A lot of people nowadays not only endorse corporate censorship of speech rights, but are very arrogant and condescending about it, pretending that those of us concerned about the issue are too stupid to understand the Constitution."

          This is the bullish of bullshit, a liberal 'Holier than Thou Always' thing.

          Most liberals today are still very concerned about 1. corporate bigness and 2. how that negatively impacts 'true' diversity of debate and speech. As I've said, this is standard Chomsky 101 and that hasn't changed. You can't get more mainstream left than Warren and she still is adamant about breaking up big tech and big media.

          What's happened is that many liberals now find it funny that conservatives and libertarians suddenly discovered that big tech and big media might do this when their buffoonish Orange Leader went crazy on their platforms. Who can blame them? This sudden turn around on those terms is indeed hilarious.

          Just because people are laughing at the sight of Walter Sobchaks being hustled out of the door for their antics doesn't mean they aren't still worried about the general power of the owners of the means of production to shape the world.

          1. Hypocrisy isn't an argument. It's an excuse to take positions you don't believe in.

            And to be clear, yes, liberals have gone beyond the hypocrisy point and argued that corporate censorship of speech is good.

        2. "A lot of people nowadays not only endorse corporate censorship of speech rights"

          Meh. Part of owning something is deciding who else gets to use it and for what.
          Don't like how the owner decides who gets to use their stuff and for what? Make a cash offer for the asset or build your own and run it the way you like.

          1. Does that work with wedding cake bakeries? Lunch counters?

            1. Works just fine for me. Are you having trouble with either of those?

      7. 30 years ago, it wouldn't have been possible for businesses to know who had been in DC on Jan 6th -- now it is.

        1. Funny how many criminals record themselves committing the crime and then whine when the footage shows up at their trial.

    3. If this keeps up, conservatives/libertarians might discover that they’re actually okay with previously-unconstitutional non-discrimination laws.

      It almost makes one think that their principles only exist when it isn't their ox being gored.

      The whole tone of this (and the other articles they've recently published around this topic) strikes me as very odd coming from a libertarian site.

      This article uses the same arguments that liberal blogs decrying media consolidation or a lack of net neutrality use. Which libertarians have been mocking liberals for worrying about forever.

      It's like they make just a token nod to the whole private actors/freedom

      1. Ah, you beat me to it. Serves me for not scrolling through first!

      2. "It almost makes one think that their principles only exist when it isn’t their ox being gored."

        There's nothing wrong with saying that people ought to be free to discriminate against whoever they choose, but if they're not, I'm going to make sure that they're not free to discriminate against me.

        1. Is that like 'I want people in my workplace to be respectful of diverse minds, but if they're not I'm going to show them the door?'

        2. There’s nothing wrong with saying that people ought to be free to discriminate against whoever they choose, but if they’re not, I’m going to make sure that they’re not free to discriminate against me.

          HA!

          For years that was my stance on this site. That I'd be okay with getting rid of all non-discrimination laws, but so long as we had them, and I was obligated by the state to ignore that someone's god was an asshole, then I wanted LGBT folk to be covered too.†

          For the exact same stance you are espousing now, I was called a slaver, a fascist, a number of uncreative slurs, and so-on.

          So yeah, there is something wrong with saying that when your cohort has been loudly and adamantly decrying that same fucking position for years.
          ________
          †Had the same stance for marriage law too. I could accept doing away with all recognition of marriage by the states, but so long as that was a thing, I wanted to be able to marry too. This also prompted slurs, "slaver", "fascist", and so-on.

          1. I don’t think you’re arguing against libertarians. You’re arguing against assholes.

            The libertarian position has been consistent and remains consistent.

            Your marriage example is a good one, and libertarians, including every conspirator on this blog, was consistent in thinking that so long as the state is involved in this whole marriage thing, same sex marriage should be legal.

            And in the case with private companies banning people for whatever reason they want, we can simultaneously think it should be legal while also criticizing some of their practices as lame.

            Hopefully society moves in the right direction on these things. Just like we look back and criticize the entertainment industry for blacklisting people with the wrong political ideas. Libertarians think it should have been legal then and should be legal now, regardless of whose ox is being gored. But libertarianism is strictly a legal and political philosophy. We all have different opinions about what private entities SHOULD do.

            Please don’t lump us in with republicans or Trump supporters. Everyone is “libertarian” on issues where the government is messing with liberties they like.

            1. ... did you just attempt to "No True Scotsman" me out of my own experiences in dealing with libertarians/Libertarians?

              And then attempted to gaslight me about the actual arguments I had with actual libertarians/Libertarians?

              Uh, yeah. Cool story bro. Not how it happened.

              1. I’m not trying to gaslight anyone. I’m not dismissing conversations you had with people who call themselves libertarian. I’ve seen those types of exchanges with Trump supporters who love to be “libertarian” when freedom from state intervention suites them.

                And yes, I get the “no true Scotsman” thing, and that libertarianism is a spectrum... but when we’re talking about a specific issue, where the libertarian position should be pretty clear, and it turns out that the “libertarians” you were debating switched positions on the issue when it was suddenly their ox being gored, then what is the more logical conclusion? That libertarians are just flip flopping hypocrites who don’t have any kind of principled stance on liberty, or that the people who are flip flopping might not actually be libertarian on this particular issue?

                EVERYONE is a “libertarian” when they don’t want the government messing with them at some particular moment in time. I really don’t know when conservatives calling themselves libertarians became a thing, or how it helps their cause, but as you yourself have discovered, many of them are simply not. Or at least it’s not the most useful label to describe them when “conservative” happens to be far more accurate

                There might not be such a thing as a pure libertarian on every issue. But a libertarian damn well should remain a libertarian on the SAME issue that he was so libertarian on last year when the government was interfering with his preferred point of view.

                So does the Soviet get to claim to be a libertarian if he’s all for you being able to freely criticize the government... as long as it’s not the Soviet government? Does he get to nail me on the “no true Scotsman” fallacy if I question if that’s really a useful label to use for his specific political philosophy?

                1. "There might not be such a thing as a pure libertarian on every issue. But a libertarian damn well should remain a libertarian on the SAME issue that he was so libertarian on last year when the government was interfering with his preferred point of view."

                  No two libertarians agree about much of anything, including specifically what it means to be "libertarian".

            2. "The libertarian position has been consistent and remains consistent. "

              The only thing consistent about libertarians is that none of them agree about anything.

  5. Eugene, i hope you join in the support of the seizure in civil forfeiture of these tech platforms, instead the houses of granfmothers where the grandson smoked a joint. Billions of federal crimes ar ed being committed on these platforms. Millions of the crimes are by the platforms, overinflating viwerships to defraud advertisers.

    1. I wouldn't object to asset forfeiture of your tech assets, in the service of the public good.

  6. The world is changing and we change with it or get left behind. As was suggested, there are always alternatives.

    1. "The world is changing and we change with it or get left behind."

      That great maxim of conservative thought...

  7. So what exactly was wrong with the Hollywood Blacklist of the 1940s and 1950s?

    1. Nothing legally.

      But there is also nothing wrong with criticizing it as an ultimately bad idea.

    2. "So what exactly was wrong with the Hollywood Blacklist of the 1940s and 1950s?"

      It deprived the studios of exactly the creative people they were profiting from, without providing an alternative income stream.

      1. Their alternative income stream was to use the same people under assumed names. Nobody could whip out a decent rewrite as quickly as Dalton Trumbo.

  8. But it's important for the public to see just how broadly Big Tech wants to assert control over people's speech and association—a desire that of course is unlikely to stay limited to gaming platforms.

    This strikes me as dishonest framing....especially coming from a libertarian perspective.

    The tech companies are exercising their right to not associate with people whose views they find problematic. They get to decide for themselves what they consider problematic.

    Let's not forget that these companies are in the business of making money. The company voluntarily gives people access to their platform because it is in their financial interest to do so. If they decide that any particular user or group is a threat to that financial interest should they be forced to give you a platform? Absolutely not.

    No one would think twice if I decide to not allow anyone into my house that I suspect is a drug dealer. Yet it's somehow a problem for Facebook to make a similar decision? Are tech corporations not people? (SCOTUS says they are) Do they not have the same first amendment rights as private individuals? (SCOTUS says they do ) So where are all these Chicken Littles coming from that all of a sudden are afraid of private entities deciding who they want to do business with???

    Unless there is some contractual restriction, being able to censor or shut out things you don't agree with is exactly the way private property and freedom of association are supposed to work, is it not?

    Freedom of speech gives you the right to say and do what you want, it does not prevent other entities from shunning you for your expressions.

    If the companies' decisions wind up pissing off too many people, the market will take care of that. Just as FB topled MySpace, and Google usurped Yahoo, there is no reason to believe that if any social media platforms censors or kicks off too many people their users won't flee en masse to some other less restrictive platform.

    I also find the use of "Big Tech" and the scare tactics of this article kind of ironic. Libertarians in general tend to mock the "Big XXX" phrasing -- yet here we are using the same sort of phrasing.
    If you replace words Big Tech with "Corporate Media" your argument is essentially the same one that liberals have been making about the dangers of media consolidation and shutting out liberal/non-corporate voices.

    1. This times a 1000. I remember when the voices of libertarianism were people like Virginia Postrel or Milton Friedman chiding liberals for being afraid of modernization in the form of rising tech, big organizations, etc.,.

    2. Progs support all sorts of restrictions against corporations and especially monopolies relating to who and how they can do business to this very date. Why is this and only this area the one and only time you are balls to the wall lassiez faire capitalist?

      Why is a cake shop deserving of the hammer of justice and we move heaven and earth to sanction them for discrimination but not a global tech oligopoly?

      Either we give free rein to private business or we don't. Not just the times that are convenient for you.

      You guys are raging hypocrites and you know it.

      1. You guys are raging hypocrites and you know it.

        PREACH!!! Completely agree...

        Anyone who thinks bakers should be able to refuse service to gay couples but supports regulating the tech companies and forcing them to associate with entities they don't want to are raging hypocrites who should be ignored!!

        1. if I gave you a choice between never being able to patronize a cake shop in kansas for a SSM cake and never being able to use anything from Google/Microsoft/Yahoo/Twitch/Amazon every other major tech company along with major payment processors like Visa and Mastercard without major harassment and the threat of banning looming over your head forever for things you cannot predict ahead of time anywhere you do them what do you think the majority of people would pick?

          1. We've come to the point where the Right is arguing 'it's different if we're talking about big, successful companies!' And it happened with their Dear Leader literally living in one of his country clubs.

            It's like false consciousness took steroids and LSD and wrote it's manifesto and that became the Right.

        2. Okay, but aren’t you both right? And perhaps both hypocrites? If you want to look at it that way?

          I think the baker is a total asshole, or at least an ignorant fanatic, for refusing to make a cake for a gay couple. But I think it should be his legal decision to make.

          I think tech companies also should have the same legal right of association, but there is no hypocrisy or inconsistent legal theory if I criticize their practices as being unwise or just lame.

          So where do you stand on both issues? Are you just as much of a hypocrite as the right wingers on this?

          I don’t even think it’s weird to see hypocrisy from the left or the right on these issues. In fact, hypocrisy might not even be the right word for it. You’re all consistently statist when it comes to regulating ideas and practices you don’t like while being staunchly “libertarian” when the state dares regulate something you’re into.

          It’s like the Soviets were totally libertarian on the issue of freely criticizing the American government.

      2. "Why is a cake shop deserving of the hammer of justice and we move heaven and earth to sanction them for discrimination"

        Because their discrimination was lame.
        If you go down to the dealership, and buy a Ford, do they get to tell you which roads you can drive on? Or is deciding where to drive your car part of your rights as owner of it?
        OK, so if I walk into a bakery and say I want a cake, if they try to tell me who I can serve it to, is that not bullshit?

        Now, on the other hand, if a couple of gay dudes walk into a bakery and start having the gay sex right in the display window, they can be thrown out. (so can a thoroughly straight pair). They're not being thrown out for being gay, they're being thrown out for having sex.

      3. "Either we give free rein to private business or we don’t."

        We don't.

    3. "If you replace words Big Tech with “Corporate Media” your argument is essentially the same one that liberals have been making about the dangers of media consolidation and shutting out liberal/non-corporate voices."

      Nice try. But everyone* knows that media is all liberal, all the time.

      *as used here, this word means "stupid people".

    4. Well then the problem is monopolization.

      1. Do not pass Go.

  9. How about anyone who was a Boy Scout!

  10. I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that Twitch's notion of a hate group is anyone whom the ADL or SPLC (both formerly non-partisan institutions now controlled by hard-core woketards) consider to be one. So if you're one inch to the right of Nancy Pelosi, you're a hater.

    Thank God that Gab and Parler are still around.

    1. Yup...'hate' and 'severe violations' will mean whatever Bozo wants it to mean. Also, the booby streamers that form Twitch's aristocracy will be immune and can continue with their rampant sexism, racism, and abuse of others and animals.

      1. You mean the guy who owns the property will decide?

        Yeah, that's some Marxist shit there Amos!

        The conservative love for the Orange Man has turned up to down. But, according to lots of songs, I've heard true love will do that kind of thing.

        1. If you're so probusiness now I'm all with you if you want complete and true laissez faire. Not your bogus pick and choose

          Lift all restrictions on employer choice, freedom of association, business freedom not just the ones you dislike.

          1. You do realize that even if "politics" is added to non-discrimination laws, conservatives are still going to claim they're being singled-out, right?

            Because at the end of the day, when you look at the "conservatives" who were "cancelled", it's not their politics they were "cancelled" over. It's their asshole behavior.

            And "asshole" isn't a political ideology.

            Which is to say, go for it. I don't actually care. But if you think it'll solve your problems, you're delusional

            1. We aren't asking for protection or nondiscrimination, we just ask that they stick consistently with the rules and values they claim they want to enforce. Not pick and choose based on what they feel like. If they can't do that then at least the progs can admit from their dirty little mouth that 'might makes right' and its all there is to it.

              Or don't if you wish, regardless sensible people will continue to educate the public about your hypocrisy and it will be fun to hear you squeal as the next cult inevitably knocks you out of power and into the garbage bin you using the tools you created.

              >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
              Because at the end of the day, when you look at the “conservatives” who were “cancelled”, it’s not their politics they were “cancelled” over. It’s their asshole behavior.
              >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

              I agree! What ah$les these guys are! The gall of these people
              https://reason.com/2021/04/07/microaggressions-uva-student-kieran-bhattacharya-threat/

              1. (A) I can read, ya know. You obviously don't speak for conservatives/libertarians here, many of which do want to make it illegal to refuse conservatives/libertarians and are total hypocrites on this.

                (B) If I had any confidence of a good faith debate on where "rights" come from, I'd give my views on that. But I don't. You guys are kind of dicks around here, y'know? But hey, maybe I'm not a "prog" according to you. Whether y'all consider me a "prog" tends to vary with how much I've annoyed y'all on any given day, so it's not like it's a consistent label anyway.

                (C) Right. What do you think "cancelled" means today? Because last time y'all were talking about it, it required some amount of public outcry (which somehow differentiated it from a morally acceptable 'boycott') and public moralizing from uninvolved folk. None of which seems to apply to this guy, who has no problems with "Big Tech", had no public outcry, and just seems like another example of power-mad bureaucrat...

                So what's the definition for "canceled" today? Because if this guy counts, it sure seems like "anytime someone I identify with faces a consequence I disagree with", which makes an already useless term even more useless.

                1. I think you’re right that people can be a little imprecise and inconsistent when discussing cancel culture. But I also think it’s a mistake to accept any and all consequences for expressing ideas outside the current acceptable standard.

                  Can you not think of a time or culture when people received unfair social consequences for being out of step with mainstream thought? Isn’t it possible that just chalking everything up to “actions” and “consequences” isn’t the end of the discussion? Was everyone just an asshole who received consequences for their unpopular offenses?

                  I’d be hard pressed to come up with a more evil ideology, in both theory and practice, than communism. Stalin was an asshole. Che was an asshole. And anyone who romanticized them are assholes. But I also think the entertainment industry’s black listing of communists was a bad idea and worth criticizing. It was cancel culture that very well may have canceled mostly assholes... or at least misguided people who should have been discouraged from loving such an asshole philosophy. I don’t have to be particularly sympathetic to the victims of cancel culture to think that it’s most likely a troublesome road to go down.

                  And while I do think it should be perfectly legal for private actors to not associate with people they disagree with politically, I can still in good conscience criticize the practice of barring someone from employment for having unpopular opinions about certain things, or saying something stupid at some point.

                  I am socially quite liberal. Today it’s mostly people I disagree with being canceled. Yet the practice makes me uneasy, and I think it’s a mistake to assume you and everyone you care about will always pass society’s purity test.

                  1. " Isn’t it possible that just chalking everything up to 'actions' and 'consequences' isn’t the end of the discussion?"

                    Once upon a time, conservatives were largely drawn from business, and they objected to businesses being required to do things they didn't support politically, such as allowing signature-gathering on retail properties. Now, however, there's a whole category of businesses who aren't run by old white guys, and that's put a chink into the armor and all of a sudden conservatives are concerned about the effect of corporate power on politics after literally decades of saying "don't worry about it, it'll be fine." when liberals expressed frustration that the Fortune 500 were all run by political conservatives. It's just the opposite of how they decided that we didn't need an FCC Fairness Doctrine when they dominated AM Talk Radio stations. Now that they don't control the operations of these businesses, they think we need a digital Fairness Doctrine.

                    1. Right. Conservatives will gladly impose restrictions on private actions that they don’t like. Leftists will enthusiastically do the same.

                      There’s nothing new about both sides claiming to be “pro choice” (about the choices they want people to be able to choose) and statist when we can’t just allow people to do whatever they want with their own bodies or property! That would be madness!

                      Both sides feel the other are hypocritical when they only want state intervention to prevent their own ox being gored.

                      I think hypocrisy is the wrong word for it. Neither side has any principles regarding liberty for its own sake. Which side leans towards greater individual liberty has always depended on the subject, or which side was kind of steering the cultural ship at any given moment.

                      Maybe you can poke fun at the right for claiming to be quasi libertarian (when it suits them) but it’s no more of a gotcha than pointing out that the left used to be all about free expression and fighting against the blacklisting of people with unpopular ideas.

                      I guess it’s a fun game for you and your respective political tribes, but you both do engage in the same kind of freedom loving or hating depending on whether or not the freedom serves your tribe’s agenda at any given time.

                      So, yes. This is the time you get to poke fun at conservatives for pretending that they ever wanted freedom of association for the sake of that freedom itself. And they get to make fun of you for ever pretending to be against blacklisting for the sake of principled dissent against socially acceptable orthodoxy.

                      But we learn nothing from that exchange except that you’re both rightly convinced that other side loves to keep those goal posts of freedom on wheels.

                    2. James, businessmen were only a third of the Reagan triad -- what is now MAGA was the other 2/3rds. People forget that.

                    3. "what is now MAGA"

                      People willing to say that America isn't great are a trivial force in American politics, and deserve to be mocked and scorned to the maximum degree possible.

                2. "So what’s the definition for “canceled” today? "
                  It seems that you are way out of touch.
                  As a member of an professional society ethics committee, I hear many calls for people being cancelled (expelled from membership and worse) when what they need is a stern warning and some unpleasant arm twisting.

              2. "We aren’t asking for protection or nondiscrimination"

                We just want to use other people's stuff to do things the way we damn well feel like it with no consequences from the people whose stuff we're using. y'know, like the things we used to accuse leftwingers of doing.

      2. "Yup…’hate’ and ‘severe violations’ will mean whatever Bozo wants it to mean."

        If you don't like the way he runs his businesses start your own competing businesses and run them the way you prefer.

  11. " it's important for the public to see just how broadly Big Tech wants to assert control over people's speech and association"

    If you don't like Twitch's rules, don't use Twitch. Too complicated?

  12. How much of a boomer am I since I never even heard of Twitch? Is that where all the cool kids hang out? I thought they were all in the AOL chatrooms.

    1. The kids WERE all on Twitch before the Tiktok came along.

Please to post comments