> From that same article it says that he was banned for "Promoting, encouraging, or facilitating the discrimination or denigration of a group of people based on their protected characteristics". That is harassment, not expressing an opinion. All you did was repeat the banned individual's own opinion about why they were banned. Of course, you are free to think Twitch is lying about its reasons for the ban, but you've offered no evidence of that.
And what was the nature of that "harassment"? The fact that he didn't agree with the orthodoxy around natal males in women's sports. You're acting out the the exact dynamic I'm talking about: dissenting opinions are labeled harassment or denigration and become bannable offenses. Then people get banned for the "harassment" that is holding a verboten opinion, with no actual harassment taking place. And this is by far from the only example [1].
You're asking me to prove a negative. Who was harassed? Twitch didn't say, and no one can seem to identify a harassment target. When did this harassment occur? Again, nothing is specified. If you can identify a harassment victim it'd be good of you to do so.
> According to that article, the individual also had a history of encouraging the murder of protestors by white militias on Twitch, so sounds like they had plenty of grounds on which to ban him already, and perhaps they finally just got around to it.
If this was the case, the ban would have been for incitement to violence, a separate ToU clause Twitch uses to ban people who call for violence. Not discrimination or denigration of a group on the basis of protected characteristics. Furthermore, these comments occurred two years before the ban - your comment makes it sound like this happened the week before he commented about Thomas. In case you're wondering, in reference to people defending themselves from arsonists (the exact words were, "dipshit protesters that think that they can torch buildings at 10 p.m.") not shooting actual protestors. It continues to amaze me how 10 seconds can be edited to portray someone in a completely opposite light of reality. If you're interested in this creator's leanings, just take a look at a recent video [2].
Espousing dissenting opinions absolutely does get people banned. The reasons cited are harassment, but no harassment victim is identified because holding the prohibited opinion is now considered harassment even if no individual is actually harassed.
And what was the nature of that "harassment"? The fact that he didn't agree with the orthodoxy around natal males in women's sports. You're acting out the the exact dynamic I'm talking about: dissenting opinions are labeled harassment or denigration and become bannable offenses. Then people get banned for the "harassment" that is holding a verboten opinion, with no actual harassment taking place. And this is by far from the only example [1].
You're asking me to prove a negative. Who was harassed? Twitch didn't say, and no one can seem to identify a harassment target. When did this harassment occur? Again, nothing is specified. If you can identify a harassment victim it'd be good of you to do so.
> According to that article, the individual also had a history of encouraging the murder of protestors by white militias on Twitch, so sounds like they had plenty of grounds on which to ban him already, and perhaps they finally just got around to it.
If this was the case, the ban would have been for incitement to violence, a separate ToU clause Twitch uses to ban people who call for violence. Not discrimination or denigration of a group on the basis of protected characteristics. Furthermore, these comments occurred two years before the ban - your comment makes it sound like this happened the week before he commented about Thomas. In case you're wondering, in reference to people defending themselves from arsonists (the exact words were, "dipshit protesters that think that they can torch buildings at 10 p.m.") not shooting actual protestors. It continues to amaze me how 10 seconds can be edited to portray someone in a completely opposite light of reality. If you're interested in this creator's leanings, just take a look at a recent video [2].
Espousing dissenting opinions absolutely does get people banned. The reasons cited are harassment, but no harassment victim is identified because holding the prohibited opinion is now considered harassment even if no individual is actually harassed.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meghan_Murphy#Twitter_ban_and_...
2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXfiUqlK4gU