For a platform like Twitch, this is fine. They have a brand. They’re akin to a modern television channel, and television has always been this ruthless. There are lots of other streaming sites.
I think this is what's happening, it's just that the users of Twitch want something different than what you want. You might think they're the vocal minority or something, but Twitch is almost certainly making a data driven decision here.
I don't mind folks coming in and saying, "Hey, this is a change that I dislike." But a lot of the discourse here today is just outrage and finger pointing and yelling about free speech absolutism.
I think that HN's downvoting system actually makes it harder to have a reasoned discourse about topics like this, because if I disagree with the prevailing opinion in this community that Twitch is doing a bad thing, it's likely my comment gets strongly downvoted, rather than opening a line of discussion.
I don't know how to solve this. Maybe separate "I disagree" vs "Off-topic/poor quality comment" downvotes?
There's a reasonable discussion to be had about the decision Twitch made. I happen to think it's a good decision, and I'd love to be able to have that discourse in a calm way, but I don't know how to have it in something like HN where comments get swept up in voting and yelling and hostile replies.
I understand that there are UX challenges to adding different kinds of votes, but I totally agree that the UI affordances we have right now make conversation harder instead of easier.
I wonder if separating "quality" (vote + or -) from "reports" ("excessively rude", "inappropriate", "off-topic") would be useful. I do think that people can be excessively rude and useful at the same time. Edit: So, this would change from "-3 points" -> "-3 points [rude: 3, off-topic: 5]".
As someone who does not operate a streaming platform, I don't care whether they have a brand or not - I care about the pragmatic benefits of living in a society where principles like innocent-until-proven-guilty are available and practiced in a way that benefits average people like me. I think the number of people who would consider "they have a brand" to be a good justification can't be higher than the number who own major brands.
It all makes sense when you look at it from a money angle rather than an ethical angle.
It's no different to the owners of M:TG banning people for serious misconduct, for example.
For example: if Twitch hosts a well-known sexual abuser and groomer who's known for taking advantage of vulnorable fans, then people will be rightfully upset with Twitch for giving them an audience.
This is why Ryan Haywood got permanently banned from Twitch. Some of his victims and many of his former fans reached out to Twitch and said "hey, this guy is an abusive and manipulative piece of shit who will take advantage of vulnerable fans if he gets the chance. Please don't provide him with a megaphone and a potential audience."