Hacker News Reader

Comment by whymauri | Hacker News Reader

Could it be a pre-emptive political move to avoid scrutiny from governments where the content that was streamed (Christchurch shooting, some illegal pornography) is illegal? Also, I'm pretty sure they know some of the perpetrators but are probably still building a case. A few years ago they pinpointed the heads of a viewbotting operation and successfully took legal action. I could see them finding a few people to make an example out of, honestly.

View on HN

I could see Twitch's thinking be to only catch a few people to make an example of, but in similar style cases with media companies and pirating the paperwork already has the targets name on it; the use of just placeholders imply to me that the lawyers are going to intentionally drag the case out while telling Twitch they are trying to find the "perfect target" to make an example of.

That makes a lot of sense, this is an interesting perspective.

It may be less of finding an example defendant as just providing an example that they are doing something if they're accused of not doing enough later. I expect the case will quickly settle.

Is streaming the Christchurch shooting illegal in the US, where Twitch is based?

Wouldn't just banning them and turning information over to the local police be the saner and cheaper move then?

The fact is even if traced it would end in 97% of cases with "(Home country)! You can't do shit!" While covering their asses by cooperating.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com