Say I own twitch, can't I just shut it down? Maybe I mismanaged it, maybe it isn't profitable, maybe it isn't profitable enough to make it worth the trouble, maybe I want to make a statement, maybe I am bored, maybe I am sick. The point is the effect on the users would be the same. If you can't make it illegal for me to shut it down (on the premises that it would risk my users' livelihood) then you can't make it illegal for me to kick users out (on the same premise). So yes, people depending on MY service to earn a living has a lot of thinking and diversifying to do, it is not as risk-free as it seems, and there are nuances around that. In the end though, the owner(s) do and should have the last word.
> In the end though, the owner(s) do and should have the last word.
Thats not exactly true. A relevant counter example would be to look at other major communication services. For example, take telecom. A telephone company cannot just kick users off of the platform, for any reason. They have to follow common carrier laws.
Obviously, the law would have to be changed, in order for these laws to apply to these new platforms.
But, unrelated to any specific moderation policy, I think that there is a very nuanced and interesting discussion to be had, about how common carrier laws have not really kept up to date with some of the many new internet platforms these days.
The parallel doesn't really exist for Twitch. Other than perhaps YouTube, are there any platforms that would get you anywhere close to the pool of potential users on Twitch?
It has a little something for everyone.
But let’s take a step back here - no one is entitled to be a Full time professional streamer. Say you do something egregious (or not) and get banned from all streaming sites - just go get another job? Twitch doesn’t have a monopoly on employment.
But in the Twitch, YouTube, Amazon, etc. cases there is no other platform that pays the same.
Did you not just enumerate 3 different organizations in your comment?
Do "Twitch Streamer" and "YouTube Streamer" really constitute different "jobs"?
(I mean, to the extent that they are "jobs" at all, I consider them the same "job".)
YouTube: Youtuber
Twitch (as discussed elsewhere in the thread): eSports tournament competitors
If I work for a large company, and I go out and do something that may not even be all that bad. Say, publicly berating an Uber driver like that woman doctor in Miami, my organization will fire me. Just as her organization fired her. Especially if people start publicly connecting me to them. This has happened forever, no internet need be involved.
The difference here, at least one side claims, is that the large organization paying your living exists on the internet, and so should be viewed differently than any other large organization. Since those other large organizations are not internet-based? I find myself unpersuaded though, I'm honestly not really seeing much of a difference.
So just so I understand what you're saying, is your position that no large organization should be able to separate themselves from that lady doctor in Miami for instance? Or is your position that only large internet-based organizations should be precluded from separating themselves from her?
(Dr in Miami that berated the Uber driver is just the most analogous offline example I could think of. Large organization with enormous market power paying her living. They fire her, no one else will touch her. I'm sure there are many many more.)