US Military Under Fire on Twitch
- Christian Wolfe
- Jul 21, 2020
- 7 min read
Welcome everyone to today's blog!
I would like to prepare you all as this may become a controversial topic, but I would like us to stay focused and objective. Today I would like to speak specifically to the first amendment right and the Twitch terms of service (TOS) as it pertains to streamers or organizations who stream on the platform. I will share bits of information that speak specifically to the matter while intentionally leaving other matters vague; I encourage everyone to read the articles below to educate yourself and develop your own opinion about what is currently written in present day media.
The US military forces have made their way into headlines recently after establishing their own eSports team and streaming on the Twitch platform. This became controversial as certain links were shared with viewers that would send them to a recruitment page as a means of, well, recruiting. This recruitment tactic in part concerned many viewers who then began to speak of US military war crimes in the chat, hoping to enlighten young viewers (13+) of the dangers of military life and exposing the lies often depicted in dramatized advertisement. When these viewers were told to stop talking about such things or they would be banned, this line was tested which ultimately resulted in viewers being banned. It is now that these banned viewers took to social media stating their first amendment right (in short their freedom to speak freely) was being infringed upon, and such entities like the military force do not have a right to ban them based on what they said; the implication being that it goes against the Twitch TOS and their ban should be lifted. The military eSports team has refused to comment on the majority of the accusations, but do stand by their decision stating their actions are well within the parameters of the TOS of the platform.
It is clear why this topic is controversial from a moralistic perspective, but I would like to draw attention to viewers claims that their rights have been violated. Over the past two years, Twitch has been under fire for their lackadaisical enforcement of their TOS particularly that of Alinity, Zombie Unicorn, DSP, and more recently Dr. Disrepsect. However, there has always been an enforcement of peoples right to free speech and platform management. It is up to the streamer and their moderators what constitutes a ban from the channel and what does not. Often times people will have to agree to the "Chat Rules" before they can interact with others, making it clear what is and is not acceptable within the chat itself. More often than not, these rules are generic and defer to viewers following the TOS. However, should a message be construed as harassment, hate speech, or libel, the streamer is within their rights to time-out, suspend, or ban the viewer. This right of the streamer is not subject to change based on status of the individual, group, or organization; rather, it is a right regardless of individual or organization, including the US military.
Matthew Gault at Vice says, "[The US Army eSports team] banned people from its Twitch channel for asking questions about U.S. war crimes," and highlighted his story by using like-minded Jordan Uhl's experience who stated, "This is an official government space that the military and the U.S. Government is funding. I’m not going in there and saying, ‘Kill yourself. I’m saying, ‘hey, this is what the U.S. military has done.’ It’s directly about the military’s behavior. I’d argue that’s fair game." Because this eSports team is funded by the government, it is consider a public forum and therefore supports freedom and preservation of speech (i.e., comments and statements cannot be filtered, modified, or removed) as stated by Katie Fallow, a Senior Staff Attorney with Knight First Amendment Institute. She also spoke to "Chat Rules" in that the team did not prohibit viewers from asking questions about war crimes. She argues, “You have to apply your own rules uniformly and without viewpoint. None of these rules cover what those comments were.”
The US military team refused to comment on many of these points, but did argue in favor of their decision and right to ban the viewers by saying, "The user's question was an attempt to shift the conversation to imply that Soldiers commit war crimes based on an optional weapon in a game, and we felt that violated Twitch's harassment policy." The US military spokesperson continued, "We fully support users' rights to express themselves, but we will not support harassment of our Soldiers on our forums." According to the Twitch TOS, they were within their right to take necessary action: Section 1 of the Twitch TOS under community guidelines explicitly speaks to Hateful Conduct and Harassment. Paragraph two starts out, "Harassment is any content or activity that attempts to intimidate, degrade, abuse, or bully others, or create a hostile environment for others, and is prohibited."
Jordan Uhl at The Nation briefly reports on his experience in the US military eSports chat where he began to question and highlight their negligent behavior as a government entity, stating that many traumatic experiences that can occur within the military were not openly being discussed with viewers. Because of their efforts to recruit through the Twitch platform, it is incumbent on the military to paint a more detailed picture of what a real military experience is like, and properly prepare potential recruits: "Was I undiplomatic? Sure. But if the military is going to use one of the world’s most popular platforms to recruit kids, then it shouldn’t be able to do so without some push-back." The majority of his article speaks to his opinion on current military practices, particularly that of recruitment processes and how they market themselves, while only briefly mentioning his ban.
Now that the information has be summarized and more specific points have been highlighted, I would like to share my opinion on the matter and briefly explain why this conversation is important for every streamer. Harassment, bullying, slander, and libel are pastimes of those generally with a low self-esteem, something to prove, or who are bored. Some even find enjoyment in such activities for drama's sake and will intentionally go around social media feeds to "troll." What deems such comments harassment is the intent of the statement; are you stating your opinion or inciting riot? It is in the example of Jordan Uhl that we see an intent to push an agenda to negatively characterized military life on a platform focused on gaming. Although I do not disagree with his opinion on the prominent issues within the military, their recruitment practices, and occasional misrepresentation of military life, it is not unreasonable to expect some retaliatory response from them if you speak to these truths during a live stream on their Twitch channel. It also does not help Jordan's argument that he ignored the initial warning by the moderators of the channel; he was clearly given an opportunity to stop that he just ignored.
Katie Fallow, of the Knight First Amendment Institute, argues that streamers have to outline in the chat rules what are restricted topics of conversation; this is a case of cherry picking. It is clear she stands to uphold and fight for the first amendment right, but her occupation makes her bias in a case where her argument and ignorant expectations are just not reasonable or realistic. It is impossible for any streamer to outline all restrictions in their chat rules and it is unrealistic to expect any person or organization to do so. Viewers generally do not read the rules anyway as they simply want to enter the chat and begin interacting with others. More often than not, streamers will simply defer to the TOS or write rules that are generic enough to align with the TOS to justify time-outs, suspensions, and banning.
Though I do not agree with using Twitch as a means to recruit for the military, I also do not view it as an inappropriate practice. Much like any other business, the military attempts to attract recruits by building a relationship with the customer through common and shared interests, which in this case is gaming. Successful marketing is a result of highlighting the best aspects of your product and ignoring the worst; the US military is no different. So it stands to reason that when viewers enter their chat to belittle, disavow, and highlight the negative aspects of the military, that those viewers are warned and/or silenced. Much like any other business, they have a right to manage and filter the information shared on their platform. Jordan argues that because this is a government funded channel, the chat is viewed as a public forum according to law. However, this does not justify or give viewers the right to harass the streamers.
Twitch is not the media platform on which such conversation should be had, nor should it be shaped into that. I fear that restricting the power of a single person or organization to decide who remains in the stream chat will have a domino effect on all members of the platform. I am especially fearful for small businesses like Amateur Hour Commentary, a community where we respect all opinions, give people chances, and ban those who take it too far. Without the means to create structure through the enforcement of our rules and standards, and should our power to determine who is in our community be stripped from us, we would fail as a business and as community leaders. This holds true for all you streamers who are trying to grow a brand or image. Such stances on freedoms and rights made by Katie, Matthew, and Jordan are painted with broad strokes, and when agenda's like this win, we all suffer the consequences. There is much more to discuss as it pertains to issues of rights and freedoms, so I encourage you to share your thoughts on the matter in the comments. Be respectful of each other; agree to disagree and do not harass, belittle, threaten, or attack others. We all have a right to our opinion and it is important to keep an open mind. Do not forget to read the articles below! Thank you all for reading and I will talk to you in the next one!
Resources:
Comments