News No More Lip Service: Twitch, Game Platforms Still Ignore Hate and Harassment

[xtc-604]

You don't have a right to bully people. It's not right to bully people. You're making excuses and we both know it.

Since when did i say, i was bullying people? Don't jump to conclusions.

I'm referring to a phrase that you get teached in elementary, seems like someone never paid attention.

 

[salgado18]

No it isn't.
And this kind of conclusion is the one that I absolutely hate. Thinking the same about some part of the matter doesn't mean that I support the rest of it.

In this case, it is. Because that is what should be regulated by social media owners, and isn't. Let's assume the rest of what you said is right, that offense and the like doesn't need moderation. There are threats, and they are not being handled appropriately. Should people who make threats be allowed to stay in a community? According to your sentence, no, and that's my point. So, if they shouldn't be there, her argument of social media not moderating them is valid.

 

[setx]

In any case: it isn't. That "handled appropriately" is what I'm wary about. You give such people an arm and then they eat you whole.

The great recent example of such seemingly "right" way that went completely insane is renaming "blacklist", "master" etc in technical applications. Because such words now offend certain people (that also contributed nothing to those applications) and everyone else is obligated to placate them.

 

[teak421]

The issue was solved with a click of the button. She banned them. Period. The system worked. Twitch provided the ability for the OP to solve her own problem, PERFECT. We're done. Let's move on...

 

[apiltch]

No matter how you frame it, the internet is not a safe haven for everyone, if you can't handle it, get off it. The rest of the world is not obligated to make it so either.

I get the sense I'm not going to convince you and that's ok. But to be clear, we're not talking vaguely about "the Internet." We're talking about a series of private businesses who own these platforms: Twitch, XBox, YouTube and other companies like them. These companies have both the right and the obligation to moderate their platforms. And, when they don't, they're making their users feel uncomfortable.

Not wanting to be threatened with physical violence or have your chat room flooded with hate speech is not "having a thin skin." It's being human and sensible. But, for argument's sake, let's say that the comments weren't hate speech and were just spam advertisements. Would you enjoy being in a chat room where every third comment was "click here to buy an extended car warranty?" Would you enjoy running a streaming channel where that happened?

The hate speech is worse because it's hate, but let's not forget that it's also a distraction (an intentional one) from the goal of these games and channels.

 

[apiltch]

The issue was solved with a click of the button. She banned them. Period. The system worked. Twitch provided the ability for the OP to solve her own problem, PERFECT. We're done. Let's move on...

If you have to keep hitting "ban" 54 times during one stream and the same users come back the next time, it's not solved.

 

[teak421]

If you have to keep hitting "ban" 54 times during one stream and the same users come back the next time, it's not solved.

That is silly. A person would have to keep creating accounts and then once a person comes into the thread, they are banned within .23 seconds. So, let me ask you what would you prefer... A large company making global decisions about what THEY feel is hate or leaving it up to EACH PERSON.

 

[bigdragon]

How do we know that bans and policies haven't worked if they are not being aggressively enforced? Using AI to identify hate speech and harassment is an interesting possibility if it could be accurate, because clearly Twitch and others don't have enough humans reading and investigating these reports. But I don't think we need to say we identify players who "won't get along."

When you start hurling racist and sexist epithets at someone just for being a woman or a POC, that's not exactly "not getting along." That's bigotry. "Not getting along" is a problem between individuals who know each other well enough to dislike each other for their personal qualities. We can't and shouldn't create a safe space for bigots to only be around people who look like them.

We've been muting, moderating, kicking, and banning problematic users for decades. I remember reading articles/posts similar to this thread back in the IRC, Ezboard, Yahoo, UT forums, BF1942 forums, and Tumblr heydays. The problem has never gone away -- it's only gotten worse. It's possible to evade even the toughest enforcement. I've seen some services ban people for actions on a different platform, and that rarely seemed to stick -- a determined troll will be back. AI is the only thing that has a chance of tackling users that have access to multiple ISPs, devices, and VPNs. AI also has the potential to be far more consistent than any human could...especially a human with conflicting business and community interests on top of implicit biases.

The idea of separating users requires you accept the assumption above that bans, policies, and enforcement will never be perfect. Separating users is all about creating those safe spaces for the people who need them. Yes, the side effect is that problematic people will get their own "unsafe space." I'd rather have those bigots, racists, ageists, elitists, agitators, etc. contained than spilling out where they're not wanted and continuing to cause chaos. Bans are binary, but separation allows for shades of grey. Services, like Twitter, have tried to create separation by having content quality controls and shadow-bans -- ideas that should be expanded in the gaming and streaming worlds to cut down those 54 bans into something smaller and more manageable.

We both recognize there's a problem that is getting worse. I just want to tackle it in a different way.

 

[HyperMatrix]

Just the type of politicized super sensitive social justice warrior garbage I hope to read when I open tomshardware.

You know what’s worse than mean words on the internet? Censorship. If this type of article continues, I’m going to stop coming to this website. And I’m going to take a page out of your book. I’m going to shame you to get my way because insert generic identity politics remark.

You can try to justify this however you like, but it always leads down the same path. Where people are cheered for saying black lives matter and banned for saying all lives matter because once arbitrary censorship starts, someone like you could choose to be offended by anything. Honestly I hate you as a human being right now. Not because you’re black, which I wouldn’t have even known if you didn’t decide to play identity politics and tell us, but because you’re trying to take away freedom of speech due to hearing things you don’t want to hear. And you only want to apply that rule in one direction. Only to the things you find offensive. Not to the things I find offensive, such as parents who abuse their children by “transitioning them” when they’re 6 years old, or “aborting” a baby at 9 months.

everything you’re saying is highly politicized. And relies heavily on playing identity politics. And what you’re trying to do now is far worse and far more dangerous than anything anyone could do by typing words into a chat room at you.

 

[apiltch]

. Yes, the side effect is that problematic people will get their own "unsafe space." I'd rather have those bigots, racists, ageists, elitists, agitators, etc. contained than spilling out where they're not wanted and continuing to cause chaos.

If I were running Twitch, I would not want an area that caters to racists. That is not a good look for them nor should it be. In most areas of public life, society has said to racists: "sorry, but you're going to have to share this space. Get over it or stay home."

I know your intentions are good and we agree there's a problem so not trying to cast any aspersions here. But let's remember that civil rights people fought for were all about preventing racists from having their own exclusive spaces like the front of the bus or a lunch counter that serves only them.

 

[apiltch]

Free speech can be offensive speech otherwise its just speech you agree with.

Let's remember that freedom of speech is freedom from government interference in one's speech. These incidents are taking place on privately-owned platforms so Twitch has no obligation to allow them. Also, there's a difference between have a disagreement and hurling epithets and threats at them. Also, if someone calls you a slur and keeps posting slurs in your chat while you are trying to run a game stream, is that just a "disagreement" or is it a nasty disruption.

Let's say that Twitch is an apartment building and the streams are rooms that the streamers are "renting" for lack of a better term. Is it a "disagreement" to bust into someone's apartment when they're throwing a party or having a business meeting and start cursing at them and threatening them?

 

[xtc-604]

I get the sense I'm not going to convince you and that's ok. But to be clear, we're not talking vaguely about "the Internet." We're talking about a series of private businesses who own these platforms: Twitch, XBox, YouTube and other companies like them. These companies have both the right and the obligation to moderate their platforms. And, when they don't, they're making their users feel uncomfortable.

Not wanting to be threatened with physical violence or have your chat room flooded with hate speech is not "having a thin skin." It's being human and sensible. But, for argument's sake, let's say that the comments weren't hate speech and were just spam advertisements. Would you enjoy being in a chat room where every third comment was "click here to buy an extended car warranty?" Would you enjoy running a streaming channel where that happened?

The hate speech is worse because it's hate, but let's not forget that it's also a distraction (an intentional one) from the goal of these games and channels.

First I'd like to state that it's healthy to have an open conversation, which is great and thank you for replying.

You are absolutely right, we are talking about private businesses who own these platforms. They certainly have the right to moderate, but they are under NO obligation to do so.

It's a private business, they can do as they please. Last i checked Youtube comments section is rarely ever moderated, judging by the amount of racist terms and personal attacks aimed at other users and creators.

If the problem is as big as the writer in this article is portraying it to be, rather than the clickbait non sense this is; then we can logically deduce that these private businesses should be and would be out of business right?

If these offended users are so disgusted by the behaviour of these private businesses, why not go elsewhere? No one is pointing a gun at their head and forcing them to use these services.

For arguments sake regarding the spam advertisements, this would highly depend on which position i am in. If i am the creator/streamer, I wouldn't bat an eye. You can easily setup filters for words in twitch chats. If was the business, i would definitely care, i'd care because i'm losing out on ad revenue, while these spam advertisements aren't paying!

So, unfortunately as much as you intend on framing me into a situation where that could possibly occur, it wouldn't, i'd either setup proper filtering, not use the service or ignore it altogether. It DOES simply come down to being "thin skinned". Judging by your profile picture, you're old enough to have children, have you or your children never been taught, sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can not?

But then again that's a problem with modern day society, everyone is offended about everything and anything, and if you don't agree with me that means you're a racist, misogynistic and a bigot. Right?

 

[teak421]

But let's remember that civil rights people fought for were all about preventing racists from having their own exclusive spaces like the front of the bus or a lunch counter that serves only them.

You can't be serious... You are comparing forcing Black folks into the back of the bus as the same as giving a racist(s) their own room (not at the exclusion of others) on Twitch. #unhinged

 

[teak421]

Let's say that Twitch is an apartment building and the streams are rooms that the streamers are "renting" for lack of a better term. Is it a "disagreement" to bust into someone's apartment when they're throwing a party or having a business meeting and start cursing at them and threatening them?

Absolutely terrible analogy. Here's why:

1. As the homeowner, I can call the police (if its not defunded) and get them to leave my apartment.
2. As a Twitch channel owner, I can click a button that takes .23 seconds to BAN them from my channel.

Both end with the idiot out of your house/channel.

 

[xtc-604]

If I were running Twitch, I would not want an area that caters to racists. That is not a good look for them nor should it be. In most areas of public life, society has said to racists: "sorry, but you're going to have to share this space. Get over it or stay home."

I know your intentions are good and we agree there's a problem so not trying to cast any aspersions here. But let's remember that civil rights people fought for were all about preventing racists from having their own exclusive spaces like the front of the bus or a lunch counter that serves only them.

Sorry, you're being very delusional, all we've moved on from was the law that says they can't. This still exists modern day, exclusive clubs with extremely high membership prices is one such example.

Let's remember that freedom of speech is freedom from government interference in one's speech. These incidents are taking place on privately-owned platforms so Twitch has no obligation to allow them. Also, there's a difference between have a disagreement and hurling epithets and threats at them. Also, if someone calls you a slur and keeps posting slurs in your chat while you are trying to run a game stream, is that just a "disagreement" or is it a nasty disruption.

Let's say that Twitch is an apartment building and the streams are rooms that the streamers are "renting" for lack of a better term. Is it a "disagreement" to bust into someone's apartment when they're throwing a party or having a business meeting and start cursing at them and threatening them?

Twitch also has no obligation to remove or censor them.

Your example would be very valid if it were not a fatal flaw in the logic.

Twitch is an apartment building and streams are rooms that streamers are "FREELOADING" from. To say that streamers are "Renting" is very different to the actual concept, they can stream for free, can join and leave whenever they want, and if you do well, Twitch / other users will also pay them.

To throw another wrench into your flawed example: if said "renter" doesn't like their room being busted into all the time, move somewhere else where they won't get busted into?

 

[teak421]

@apiltch

You've not thought this stuff through as evidence in your posts... This is why you must stop putting your politics on a hardware site...you simply are not self-aware enough to understand that people can think differently than you...that people may hold positions that you will not agree with. Head to a political web site, and have fun posting your stuff, but please, for the love of all things good, stick to hardware here...

 

[HyperMatrix]

Finally, I know some will say that Tom's Hardware should stick to benchmarking hardware, but this is an important technology topic. The tech and gaming communities, which are intertwined, should not only be open but welcoming to people of all races, genders, ethnicities, religions and sexual orientations. If they are not, everyone loses out, even those of us who fit into categories that don't attract the ire of bigots.

See the problem here is that you’re pushing a specific ideology. I’m on a sport streaming site that has a chat room with thousands of people on at a time. You know how they keep it civil? “No politics of any kind.”

Over here, you’re deciding what is good and what is bad speech. You would consider anything and everything pro-lgbtq to be awesome and anything that disagrees with it to be hateful. You consider messages in support of BLM to be welcomed and supported, but someone saying all lives matter, or day I says...white lives matter to be hateful content that should be banned.

That’s the problem with opening up this can of worms. The gaming community aren’t like your average CNN viewers. We don’t all pat ourselves on the back for making pro-SJW comments on social media to get virtue points from our peers. We’re people who as a whole believe that you should be nice, you should be civil, you should be kind, but don’t agree that you should police and enforce niceness. 62% of Americans polled last month say they’re afraid to state their true position on political matters. And the reason is articles like this. And calls to action like this. Call it what you want...but this is more cancel culture. And you wouldn’t like it if the same type of censorship you’re advocating for was being set up with rules acceptable to groups in the other side of the political debate.

I’ll give you an example. You gave lip service to the idea of welcoming all people of all religions, etc etc...but you don’t really believe that. The moment someone of a religious background talks about homosexuality being wrong because it’s a sin, you want to ban that too. That’s why I’m saying you’re being very disingenuous in your claims. You want to protect any of those groups, as long as they only say the things you support. And that’s why this kind of move is dangerous.

 

[andrewkelb]

There should never be a protected class of people who have veto rights over the speech of others. Nor should that protected class then have the right to define what hate is based solely on personal whims and politics. These platforms all provide ways for you to moderate your room but that never seems to be enough. Taking personal offense is not a qualifier to be able control what others should say.

 

[teak421]

There should never be a protected class of people who have veto rights over the speech of others. Nor should that protected class then have the right to define what hate is based solely on personal whims and politics. These platforms all provide ways for you to moderate your room but that never seems to be enough. Taking personal offense is not a qualifier to be able control what others should say.

Nailed it!

But, for those who get offended, Twitch has supplied them with the ability to ban anyone for any reason. What more do these people want? Twitch should be applauded, not bashed.

 

[xtc-604]

Interesting how some people become silent, once they've been out logically debated.

 

[jimmysmitty]

I'm just going to say, If you're posting to say you don't see the problem, you are the problem.

People are fully willing to engage in homophobic, racist, misogynistic, and bigoted behavior online that they would never express in person. You know you're wrong. We know your wrong. It's shameful. Stop.

There is no reason anyone should expect to be bullied and harassed while playing games because of who they are. Stop making up excuses for this abhorrent behavior. I've been gaming since 1982 and this was never part of 'our' culture. Denying that there is a problem is just a deflection from the fact that you know you should be ashamed of your behavior. Reflect, grow, change. The gaming community can be better than this.

Never a fan of this TBH. It's like an ultimatum. You are either with me or against me. But its never that simple. Some people may experience different problems than you or I. Others may never experience anything. Some people may think they do but they do not. Not saying this author does not but I have seen plenty of people play victim to just normal criticism and as I said most people do not like it.

And you are right. It is not part of gaming culture. In fact gamers are very accepting. However now that its more mainstream it has invaded that culture much like everything else. However on the flip side so has other aspects invaded and tried to change said culture to fit their world view and I have seen that push a lot of people the wrong way.

I am also really tired of people making the general assumption that if you deny a problem than you are part of it or one who likes to do said things. That is not even remotely true. Some people have their own issues to deal with. I currently have a lot of work stress and personal stress and use gaming as a way out. Not every problem in the world belongs to every person to solve. Sometimes its better for people to be self accountable and to handle their own problems from within instead of expecting everyone to cater to their issues instead of a persons own.

I get the sense I'm not going to convince you and that's ok. But to be clear, we're not talking vaguely about "the Internet." We're talking about a series of private businesses who own these platforms: Twitch, XBox, YouTube and other companies like them. These companies have both the right and the obligation to moderate their platforms. And, when they don't, they're making their users feel uncomfortable.

Not wanting to be threatened with physical violence or have your chat room flooded with hate speech is not "having a thin skin." It's being human and sensible. But, for argument's sake, let's say that the comments weren't hate speech and were just spam advertisements. Would you enjoy being in a chat room where every third comment was "click here to buy an extended car warranty?" Would you enjoy running a streaming channel where that happened?

The hate speech is worse because it's hate, but let's not forget that it's also a distraction (an intentional one) from the goal of these games and channels.

Question for you. Who gets to decide what is and is not hate? Do we leave it up to the companies so that when they go to far we can say they are censoring or if they are too lenient they are allowing hate on their platform?

Do we leave it to the community who will probably go by mob rule and whatever they decide is hate speech is and if you disagree you are not banned?

Do we leave it up to the individual person its directed at so their own beliefs and sensibilities are deciding? I would say more so this than the others since its their channel much like a YouTube channel etc.

Here is another kicker. If they are platforms than they do not have the right nor are they obligated to moderate anything. Now if they are a publisher than yes and they also can if they want. But they really have no obligation to moderate anything. They could leave it a wide open forum for everyone and let the market decide if they continue to exist. Thats the whole idea of a free market.

 

[Giroro]

I've never had my car vandalized in a twich chat. I've never had my phone ripped out of my hand and smashed on the ground by YouTube. Xbox never tried to set fire to my apartment complex in the name of starting a race war.
Most people who want to be employed and a part of society need to have certain online accounts, but I can choose whether or not I participate in an online game streaming service. I can choose how much I self-identify based on my physicality versus my personality.

What I can't choose, is the targeted irl violence that happens when my city decides to give my neighborhood over to an anarchist hate group.
I can't control whether or not editors of a website choose to support that hate and violence, that's their right for as long as they are allowed to remain in that job. But what I can do is speak out against bigotry in all forms.
Minority groups are made up of people. We experience the same diversity of thought , emotion, and opinions as anybody else. We don't all think alike, we don't all and alike. It's dehumanizing and condescending to aft like many different groups are all exactly the same, even where there's overlap.
Taking sides with one specific organization is not the same thing as being accepting of everybody.

 

[teak421]

Just a thought... Think the publishers would be interested in hearing our feedback? Not to get anyone fired of course, but to suggest that Toms Hardware should focus on...hardware. Not political ideology. Again, I must stress, I am not suggesting that any attempt be made to try to get someone fired, rather, maybe bring some insight to the bosses that they could lose business if this keeps up. They might decide, so...because being woke might be more beneficial to the bottom line....

 

[xtc-604]

This has to be a top down decision.

Being woke generates clicks.

 

[andrewkelb]

Are people getting banned for disagreeing with the author of this article?