[mondoshawan]

> "Twitch said it would rely more heavily on law enforcement in “off-service” cases and is partnering with an investigative law firm to support its internal team."

So if a user becomes noteworthy, expect to have investigative checks periodically done by the agency? What an insane concept -- this is how we end up with corporate governance and unjust punishment without societal review by fiat, without review by our peers.

Consider that Twitch is owned by Amazon. If Amazon were to start doing things like this, suddenly someone so accused can't walk into Whole Foods?

[mustbedreaming]

Your point about corporate governance being a generally bad thing is valid, but I don’t think this case is anywhere near that.

A “user” and a “streamer” are two different things. Anyone can create an account and be a viewer who consumes content on Twitch. That’s not the same as being a content creator who draws viewers to the platform and implicitly represents the brand.

You can go scream racist nonsense in the town square and then quietly shop at Whole Foods. But if a Whole Foods employee was found screaming racist nonsense in the town square, Whole Foods might fire them for it, and they are well within their rights to do so.

Obligatory “I know streamers aren’t employees.” Their relationship to Twitch is similar enough to that of an employee that the same logic applies.

[DarkByte8]

It is similar enough that they don't get any benefits for being employee just the responsibility of being employee. What a shit deal.

The idea that any employee is representing the company is dumb in my opinion. The person that cleans Whole Foods toilets should not be considered a representing of the company. The only people that represent the company should be C-suits, VPs and other upper managers, not a mindless drone.

And the concern is not about the guy who is screaming racist nonsense in the town square, it is about who judges what is racist nonsense and what is not.