I take issue with the “we should listen to her, then listen to him, and then decide” because a common pattern in these cases is she is a lone individual, and he is a guy with a whole raft of supporters ready to go “nuh uh, no chance, totally great guy”.7
So essentially it becomes
Her: “You did X”
Him: “No I didn’t”
Fansx1000: “Yeah no he didn’t he’s not like that, trolling for attention.”
left like this, it creates nothing but an impression of one person voicing against hundreds which makes their story look doubtful even if the defence comments are simply nothing but kneejerk.
The sad thing is there is not enough common sense in any area of the internet. Too many people will immediatley believe an accusation, conversely too many will defend an idol irrespective knowing nothing of the case and their behaviour outside of what they’ve been shown. They confuse a presentation online with how that person “really is” - it’s super naive. No streamer in all likelihood is anything like their presented persona. It’s a mask they wear because it sells.
I’m against lynching people with process before the facts, but people should have the right to distance themselves from people suspected of sinister activity and shouldn’t be made to feel bad for doing so if that is their choice. False accusations aren’t nearly as common as people think, what is in fact vastly more common is direct petitions to police/authorities and being told “there’s no physical evidence for this” which is what people need to be mindful of when saying “just let the police do it”.
The conviction rate for sexual assault is stupid stupid low because all too often it boils down to “he said she said” and contrary to what people think , twitter does not weigh in on this and often “he said she saids” end in the favour of the accused, not the accuser.
You don’t need to have physical evidence to win a case in a court of law. It helps, but you don’t need it. If she tells a story that makes perfect sense and he doesn’t, then she usually wins.
I do think people have the right to decide who they want to work with, obviously. I think they all have the right to do exactly what they’re doing.
But nobody has the right to post libel about someone else, and I would personally always ask the accused for their side of the story before I made my decision.
It delays the response by a few hours, but it prevents damage to your reputation in the event that the accusation is baseless.
And yeah, I agree lynchings are bad, either way. If it can be dealt with another way, you should.
That’s just my opinion.
And as for your claim about power dynamics - you are of course right which is why lynchings are so dangerous and are best avoided, however I would point out in this situation that Swifty actually has a smaller following than his accuser. She still may be right, of course, in which case it doesn’t matter who is the biggest personality. But she is punching down, not up, in this case.
Oh yes, where people are outright libelling someone that is not on. My stance is more to defend the right of people to disassociate with people who have been accused of something, even if it’s premature behaviour. Subsequently blizzard have the right to remove an NPC in the meanwhile.
It is the libellous behaviour that “ruins lives” but removing an NPC from a game as a precautionary measure is not the kind of thing that ruins someone’s life.
True, but the removal of the NPC is precisely why the life is ruined.
They have that right, obviously, but this immediate and almost thoughtless distancing before hearing the full story is exactly why the life gets ruined. It is the reason these accusations are powerful.
So I agree that any company has the right to refuse to work with or sponsor someone else, but I also think it can damage their reputation if they disassociate over false accusations they never bothered looking into, as you can clearly see right in this thread.
If they keep the NPC in game and then an investigation lasts months and months (which of this nature they usually do, at best, often longer) and then a guilty verdict is rendered (not saying it will, just saying if) then that falls back on Blizzard. They are entitled to take steps to protect their image, and they cannot be blamed for “muddying the waters” for protecting themselves- because no court in the land is going to say “Well Blizzard removed your NPC, that has to count for something right?”.
It fuelling the opinions of the twittersphere is not the same as it directly muddying legal waters. I will not sit here and say that the twittersphere has no impact because it does, but managing it is close to impossible due to how quickly these things catch. The best you can do is directly action actual libel and threats, but if you go on to action anything and everything which might fuel rumour, you’ve need a huge team of mods on it 24/7 and even then i doubt they’d stay on top of it. Now multiply that by the number of “controversies” going on on twitter at any one time.
The best we can hope for is that the legal process absolutely is not influenced by twitter but i’m not sure what we can hope for beyond that. You can’t action people for being ignorant and jumping to conclusions because it’s not a crime.
Seems to me there are two risks and only one of them is being considered.
The risk of damage to your reputation because you continued working with someone who was accused of wrongdoing, who was then found guilty. (whether in the court of public opinion or a real court)
The risk of damage to your reputation because you stopped working with some who was accused of wrongdoing, who was then found innocent. (Whether in the court of public opinion or a real court)
Just give it a few hours to let the court of public opinion settle and hear both sides quickly. You’ve got time for that for people you sponsor; though obviously not for all drama. The court ruling can come later and will probably cause a new community uproar which you can then act upon.
I mean it’s literally not even a day. For all people know, your employees might have been sleeping or been late for work or who knows what else.
I think a lot of this risk assessment might be based on the fact that Blizzard is in California, which has gone completely insane… but either way, I don’t like this presumed guilt.
Are kids just making up new words these days? Laughs in the only Generation that can’t be called Boomers or Zoomers
Whilst I agree with the Court of Public Opinion bit, they already did enough to deserve being removed. He should never have had an NPC in game, and it was an act of folly to give him one.
Just going to point out to you that “Innocent until Proven Guilty” did originate from a Medieval King, one much maligned by history, but who did say that people could automatically be assumed innocent of a crime unless there was evidence and proof. That’d be Richard III then.
So yeah, you’re kind of -asking- for Medieval methods there…-Before- then is what you are describing.
So Every Swifty Post here then, basically?
I agree with you. It becomes a Fan frenzy of ill informed people, rather than the ironic “Innocent until proven guilty” “Yeah, but you’ve clearly already made up -your- mind without knowing the evidence!”
“Thats not the same!”
OK. Simple test.
Who here, is a lawyer who has the facts and evidence to hand? (Just saying I am not)
If anyone says “Me!” Then congratulations, I will report your post and hopefully you will be debarred from practicing Law as you have just commited a Criminal offence.
Does anyone know the facts of the report(s) made? (I do not)
If anyone answers ‘yes’ then they are again guilty of a criminal offence and abuse of station and will be reported and get their backside fired from Law Enforcement. You are not allowed to do that stuff.
Am I really angry that some Streamer who has actually sabotaged part of the game has been accused of something is being accused of something and I don’t know the facts but I want to lash out against women and the left and feminazi’s?
Yep. I thought so. Sadly that is not something that will lose you your career. If you don’t -know- shut the heck up. if you do know, then it is your civic duty to perform your duty without comment during the said legal process.
I feel like there is a general one-sided interpretation of social pressure via mediums like Twitter where people are assuming here it is utilised only to trash people’s livelihoods when they’re accused of something.
There seems to be a willful ignorance of where precisely the same mediums are used to prevent people being scrutinised as their supporters and fans close in on any critical messages and in some cases resort to harassing the person in a more persistent fashion. It happens. The fans behind people (celebs, streamers) can be quite unhinged in some cases.
Social storms via twitter are rarely helpful, but let’s not pretend it only ever flies against streamers etc. There are plenty of examples where one’s social standing and vehement fanbase prevents them being criticised at all or tries to discredit any accusers without said fans having any knowledge of the facts whatsoever.
I Completely agree, and such avenues should be disregarded. Only those reports made following the legal process. Thats why I have not commented on Swifty’s innocence or guilt in this matter. I don’t have the facts, but then -none- of us do, and anyone who -does- claim to have the facts is committing a federal offence.
We don’t know.
But. I do have a very unpopular opinion on such things. I think Libel and Slander laws internationally need to be expanded. Because the Internet is how gossip travels nowadays. I think people -need- to be held accountable. Its horrible, because it sounds like banning freedom of speech, but really, its not, it is actually protecting civil liberties. But I do think that the legal system needs to adapt, to take into account things like Twitter, and Facebook, and to actually have a consistent approach.
I realise how bad that sounds. That may be the old man in me talking, but I don’t believe our laws have expanded, as quickly as our means of expressing views have.
I think where damages can be proven i wouldn’t be against an expansion of their jurisdiction. I don’t think it is alright for someone spreading stuff about you that directly impacts your business should be given a free pass because they reside in country X instead of Y, not if damages are proven.
I think extending the scope of libel and slander can be tricky where it’s “indirect damages” for example loads of people here has said “removing the NPC is essentially killing his reputation” - i’d argue that’s not true when you look at the evidence of a) how many people knew who Swifty is and b) how many were unaware the NPC was in game and C) where the NPC actually is. It’s extremely unlike one day Joe logs in, sees the NPC gone and goes “Oh they must have done something bad, I hate them now!”
However someone directly accusing you of X Y and Z on the internet and spreading it around, demanding RTs etc, yeah that is directly libellous and should be actioned if there’s no proof of the claims.
Blizzard did the right move by removing the npc. They had really no other good options here. I don’t know about this person or this method guild much since i dont fangirl streamers so i wont go into the topic did he do it or not time will tell, but as for the npc yeah i agree on removing it.
You can bet your last dollar that if things are found to be correct regarding accusations (not saying they are at all) Asmon and others like him would be the first to completely change their stance. I wouldn’t trust him to tell me the time faithfully.
Everything he does is acting to sell a product. Using a potentially serious accusation to increase hits on your own page is pretty sickening, particularly because in this case there’s pretty much no doubt he’d do a complete 180 if it turns off his reaction is supporting the wrong side of the argument. He’s done it on countless other topics before.
let’s just say that i was talking about medieval methods before Richard 3 was a king