Twitch Suspends Donald Trump's Channel Due to 'Hateful Conduct'

Twitch Suspends Donald Trump's Channel Due to 'Hateful Conduct' - News

by William D'Angelo , posted 4 days ago / 1,538 Views

Twitch earlier today temporarily suspended the Donald Trump Twitch channel due to "hateful conduct," according to a Twitch spokesperson who spoke with GamesIndustry

"Hateful conduct is not allowed on Twitch. In line with our policies, President Trump's channel has been issued a temporary suspension from Twitch for comments made on stream, and the offending content has been removed," said the Twitch spokesperson.

The Twitch spokesperson mentioned two comments from campaign rallies that were recently streamed on the Twitch channel.

Twitch Suspends Donald Trump Channel Due to Hateful Conduct

The first comment was from the Donald Trump campaign rally from 2016, in which Trump said, "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

The second comment comes from the Tulsa, Oklahoma this month, where Trump said, "Hey, it's 1:00 o'clock in the morning and a very tough -- I've used the word on occasion, hombre -- a very tough hombre is breaking into the window of a young woman whose husband is away as a traveling salesman or whatever he may do. And you call 911 and they say, 'I'm sorry, this number's no longer working.' By the way, you have many cases like that, many, many, many. Whether it's a young woman, an old woman, a young man or an old man and you're sleeping."

The Donald Trump re-election campaign launched the Twitch channel in October 2019. Twitch does not make exceptions to its code of conduct for political or newsworthy content.


A life-long and avid gamer, William D'Angelo was first introduced to VGChartz in 2007. After years of supporting the site, he was brought on in 2010 as a junior analyst, working his way up to lead analyst in 2012. He has expanded his involvement in the gaming community by producing content on his own YouTube channel and Twitch channel dedicated to gaming Let's Plays and tutorials. You can contact the author at wdangelo@vgchartz.com or on Twitter @TrunksWD.


More Articles

44 Comments

Leynos (5 days ago)

Ban the prick


KLAMarine (5 days ago)

Had no idea he had a Twitch.


DonFerrari (5 days ago)

Seems like another company will have a Senate hearing.


ClassicGamingWizzz (5 days ago)

First good thing they did on years


dirtylemons (5 days ago)

It's always bothered me how that first quote is misrepresented. He clearly said "THEIR rapists", not "they're", and if you want to take issue with that statement, fine. Just don't lie.


EnricoPallazzo (4 days ago)

Really? I didnt know that I always thought it was they are repists. Non english speaker here.


  • +2
dirtylemons (4 days ago)

Yes, in the quote provided, Trump is claiming that Mexican immigrants bring drugs, crime and "their rapists" to the U.S. If the quote was "they're rapists", then the following sentence would mean Trump claimed some rapists are good people.
Grammatically, it's a non sequitur as written in the article, which really offends my love of language.


  • +2
EricHiggin (5 days ago)

Twitch becomes another member of NIMBL? You don't say...


COKTOE (5 days ago)

I think the acronym is spelled NAMBLA.


  • +2
EricHiggin (5 days ago)

LOL. I figured it would probably be mistaken for NIMBY, since that's where I took it from which is close enough, but that's basically the same as NAMBLA anyway right?


  • 0
TheLegendaryBigBoss (5 days ago)

Now they need to ban the thots, they get away with ridiculous things with no repercussions!


mjk45 (5 days ago)

maybe Trump should use tax payers dollars to open a govt social media platform , he could be commander in chief mod' i'am open for witty acronyms for the new outlet.


EricHiggin (4 days ago)

OMG.


  • +1
mjk45 (4 days ago)

Here's an example of an acronym DOGMA stands for donalds orange guy media association


  • 0
EricHiggin (3 days ago)

Orange Man Good/Great Network. It's better without the N at the end. OMG News like FOX News, from the OMG Network, though OMG is actually an acronym in this case.


  • +1
Locknuts (5 days ago)

Pretty sure all the anti corporation people are about to get their wishes granted. There will be no exemptions (tax or otherwise) for corporations soon no matter how many people they employ.


EricHiggin (4 days ago)

Give them even more reasons to automate, sure, fantastic...


  • 0
SuaveSocialist (4 days ago)

...and nothing of value was lost.


Amnesia (5 days ago)

Twitch belongs to Amazon, Amazon belongs to the GAFAM, GAFAM are globalists. It is easy as a pie.


ArchangelMadzz (5 days ago)

I thought this was like some company organisation. But it literally just mean big tech company make lots of money.

Twitch ban users all the time, political figures aren't immune. Unless you think they should be?


  • +2
CaptainExplosion (5 days ago)

Just delete it altogether, and get him off of all social media period. He's a good for nothing rich parasite who jails children, abuses women, endorses dictatorships, glamorizes hate crimes and colludes with foreign powers to stay in power.


padib (5 days ago)

Is what he's saying true in any way? If yes, wouldn't this be censorship?


Ljink96 (5 days ago)

Umm...you must not be from America. Most of everything that comes out of this idiot's mouth is pure lies.


  • +1
padib (5 days ago)

I'm not from America. I'm just not a fan of censorship. I don't want a world where people are silenced because we don't like what they say. If it's hateful then alright, but this is the president of america after all, we don't have a guarantee that he's lying. And to say that everything he says is a lie is impossible to believe. Rather it sounds like brainwash.


  • +2
Ljink96 (5 days ago)

Yes, the promote hate. That's the point of this article. You asked if what he said is true, I said no they're lies. And I also soad "most" of what he says is lies. Politifact did that work for us. If you want brainwashed individuals, look no further than most Trump supporters who are so desperate that they'd take anyone as their leader. In America, we are given the freedom of Speech, but obscene and hateful speech are not seen as a part of that. And that's exactly what Trump promotes and his followers echo.


  • +2
JWeinCom (5 days ago)

A private company is allowed to censor whatever they want. And people are free to not use that platform if they find those policies unnecessarily restrictive. Freedom of speech also means that Twitch is free to allow or not allow certain speech on a platform they control.

To the point, there is no research that Trump has produced that supports his claim of illegal immigrants are committing crimes at a greater rate than that of the general population. Most research conducted on the matter indicates the opposite. https://www.factcheck.org/2018/06/is-illegal-immigration-linked-to-more-or-less-crime/

Making such an accusation without evidence is incredibly irresponsible, and absolutely should be restricted. We don't need a guarantee that he's lying. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. If I say you have a two inch long penis you shouldn't have to post a picture of your penis disprove me.

Obviously everything is an exaggeration... but he lies. A lot. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/list/?speaker=donald-trump


  • +2
padib (5 days ago)

Jwein, I'm not saying he doesn't lie. I just wouldn't say that everything he says is a lie. And, to go a little further, you know that corporations are gaining more and more power over time, as the digital age continues to loom in. Meaning that, in the future, companies will dictate who has and who doesn't have a voice, and now as you can see they can even silence country leaders. We are defining our future today. Is the future you desire one where corporations get to decide who has a voice and who does not.

You might consider my vantage point alarmist, I think it's real.


  • +3
JWeinCom (5 days ago)

Obviously, everything was an exaggeration.

Speaking of exaggerations, Twitch cannot silence country leaders. Trump can and does say dumb shit all over the place.

I am perfectly fine with companies having control of speech on their platforms. Because there is competition among platforms. There are plenty of places that are perfectly willing to accommodate such bullshit. To the extent that there is a problem, the solution is in anti-trust laws, declaring the internet a public activity, and limiting the political activities of corporations. Not forcing Twitch to provide a platform for the government.


  • +1
Mr Puggsly (5 days ago)

@JWeinCom - As far as the service Twitch provides, I don't think there is a real competitor. The only other one I can think of is YouTube and they also get attacked for censorship and silencing people who oppose the values of Google.

There are plenty of places willing to accommodate, "bullshit." However, even combined they don't have nearly the same reach as just a few popular websites. People point to anti-trust laws but maybe that isn't necessary if these platforms simply weren't so quick to limit speech.

On a side note, the two examples given in this article aren't invalid. His choice of words is often poor, but its not bullshit. Crime does come from Mexico and the police have been ignoring crime, cities have even discouraged people from calling the police.


  • +1
JWeinCom (5 days ago)

Already addressed the first thing he said. Second, I'm honestly not sure what he was talking about.

As for other platforms not having the same reach... so? That falls under the category of tough shit. They are not obligated to make provide a platform for everyone. They are allowed to run their business as they see fit. Murica.


  • +1
padib (5 days ago)

J, you fail to see the implications of these events. That's your right, but it doesn't make you right.


  • 0
JWeinCom (5 days ago)

Well, that's a pretty substance-less rebuttal.


  • 0
padib (5 days ago)

I'll be honest, with your last reply, I am not really confident that you really care. What's your point anyway, really? Do you think that the landscape of corporate power will stay the same over time?

That's a pretty plain view, imho.


  • +2
JWeinCom (5 days ago)

My point is that private businesses should be able to manage their businesses as they see fit. In particular, no private entity should be forced to host content they feel is false or hateful.

If we agree that a platform has a right to eliminate hate speech and misinformation, then we have two options. Either the private enterprise has the right to monitor it, or the government does. Of the two options, the former is far superior, and the latter is potentially unconstitutional, and is also a hallmark of fascist regimes.


  • +1
padib (5 days ago)

The globalized world will end up having both: private enterprises with the right to monitor content, and them governing peoples' voice. It will be worse than a fascist regime, because you will have no control over it, no right to vote. The only way you will be able to steer corporations will be with your wallet, like people are already starting to do. It's a flawed future we're entering into, where the government is superseded by corporations, and the only thing that elected them is money.

If that's the kind of world you want, you're honestly mistaken. It's definitely not the world I want. I never took position about Trump, other than asking if what he was saying was pure BS, and putting into question the fact that he was silenced by a corporation. Today it seems harmless, but it is a new trend, and trends grow. Over time, essentially our only voice will be digital, and corporations will own it. It's only a matter of time before we are all obliged to think alike on political questions. I never took position politically, but I take firm position against the control of corporations, as you can see even in my forum posts. I'm vehemently against it because it's a future that concerns me a lot. The only place then to find freedom will be outside of the digital world where people will be connected, in the rare social connections that people will still have, those who will be brave enough to do so. Not so far-fetched, since spending a bit of time with teenagers will show that they are glued to their smartphones, even when together. I don't believe in that future, and I while I understand your pioneer/freedom mentality for corporations, don't be surprised in a few years if the whole thing is flipped upside down, and people are under domination of corporations.

Already today, facebook owns your private pictures. Your conversations and personal content is being sold to all kinds of companies in order to profit from your personal life. The trend is growing and it's only a matter of time before the beloved constitution itself is challenged by the power that corporations are gaining over time.


  • 0
JWeinCom (5 days ago)

Uhhhhh... that's really unresponsive to the actual issue? You can have whatever concerns you have about the future. It's really neither here nor there.

Should a private entity have the right to control the kind of content on its website? If not who should?


  • 0
Mr Puggsly (5 days ago)

@JWeinCom - Wait... you mentioned antitrust laws which deals with monopolies. Then you say, "tough shit" in regard to a few platforms having a monopoly. Either you're showing ignorance or don't want to admit you support monopolies if they're on your side.

A few websites gained mass popularity partly for allowing people share their views and also ignoring people uploading licensed content. But now that they have a monopoly, they use it to silence people. This is a genuine problem.

This isn't just a discussion about free speech and what private business should be allowed to do. This is about monopolies trying to curate what opinions are allowed.


  • +1
padib (5 days ago)

It's the whole issue. We have now a case where a political leader's whole profile is suspended for a rebroadcast of a video speech made in 2016 which can be barely categorized as hate. The censorship trend is not new, and this latest event is proof that things are getting worse, hence why I'm trying to point you to the future. We know that people have been silenced on youtube for a lot less, just today I saw that Nerdrotic's video on Dr. Who was requested to be taken down by the BBC. He reposted it and there is nothing wrong in his video, but companies are abusing their ability to silence people in this digital age. You might have read about how Sony abused DMCA policies in order to bring down comments about TLOU2. I actually just learned about it.

If it were up to me, nothing should be controlled unless it is clearly dangerous, such as a death threat or plans for a crime. Otherwise, that power will be used to mind-control people or anyone who has an opinion that deviates from the status quo. So my answer to your last question is nobody. I don't believe in control, especially not controlling what people say, I'm vehemently against that. On a small forum like ours it's okay because it isn't really central, but here Trump is being silenced on all the major social media platforms, which essentially silences him completely digitally. Unless you can show that his statements are truly dangerous, then this censorship is a serious problem. Not that I care, I'm not pro-Trump and I also dislike what he says quite often. I care more about the future of our world, and I'm surprised you don't see what's happening. How would you react if Barak Obama or Joe Biden was banned from a social media platform? I doubt you would sit back and accept that corporations have a right to censor whoever they want. You would probably call them pro-right, or whatever is popular for people to sling the other way.

These worldwide platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, Youtube and Twitch have a growing responsibility towards those on their platforms to represented them, even if their opinions don't agree with their policies, because as you can see in this case, racism, homophobia, religious intolerance, hate, all this is up to the interpretation of the reader, and clearly in this case such judgements are prone to sever abuse. And even then, people are allowed to have their own opinion, even if it is hateful, because it's their opinion and is not dangerous in a greater pool of voices, just like in real life. So, as platforms grow in scale, and, like facebook which is now at billions of user accounts, the userbase becomes closer and closer to representing the global population, as the opportunities for people to voice their opinions becomes more and more tied to the digital world, these companies should be required to allow people free to express their views, whether they are politically correct or not. If they don't, then the only solution will be for people to mass-migrate to platforms which allow freedom of expression, and allow for a more real place for people to interact. Last point on this: how is a person's rotten opinion supposed to change for the better, if they're not allowed to express it, and then have someone with a more learned opinion lean in and teach them another way? Censorship therefore, in my opinion, is the wrong way to go because for one it's prone to abuse, and for two it's not really the solution.


  • +1
JWeinCom (5 days ago)

@Puggsly No... Because I never said anything about companies having a monopoly. I said something about some companies having more reach. Certain companies having more reach =/= a monopoly. Being the most popular does not necessarily mean one has a monopoly. Being a monopoly would require that they are somehow preventing any potential competition, which I don't believe applies here. If it does, then break it up.

In the current situation Trump has tons of places where he can broadcast his message. He is in no sense being censored by a monopoly.

@Padib

I am absolutely fine with any platform banning Joe Biden or Barack Obama. That is absolutely their right. Don't tell me how I would feel about things. That being said, unless there was some kind of reason I found compelling, I would probably no longer use that website or service. People who are upset about Trump being banned have the option of no longer using Twitch.

Twitch banning users is no different than us banning users. There is nothing illegal about people calling people fanboys. But, the powers that be at VGChartz feel that allowing that kind of behavior leads to a low quality forum that will eventually become abandoned. They ban certain speech specifically because they feel this will make the forum more attractive than a forum with an anything goes policy. The fact that Twitch is larger does not mean that they lose their right to manage their website in the way they feel is best. If they think banning certain speech will make their platform more attractive (or simply that it aligns with what they want the site to be) then that's entirely their right.

Donald Trump deserves no special treatment. If Donald Trump came here and started calling people fanboys, he'd be banned. If he posted something that is against Twitch's rules, he should likewise be banned.

The solution to the problem is simple. Users can stop using the service. If users prefer social media sites that are a free for all, that's their decision.


  • -1
JWeinCom (5 days ago)

Just to clarify, I'm not an expert on what constitutes a monopoly. From my novice point of view, I don't think the current companies qualify, but I could be wrong. Point is, if and when there's a monopoly, the solution is to break up the monopoly, not for the government to decide the terms of service for a website.


  • +2
John2290 (5 days ago)

You're all not seeing the bigger picture, whether you love him or hate him a private corporate entity has made a show of their power. Unless you want the next big fuck up of the 2020's to be corporations taking more and more control until there is no democracy left you should all be against this. Bring on the cyberpunk dystopia, i guess.


ClassicGamingWizzz (5 days ago)

Cyberpunk dystopia would BE a dream come true to trump


  • -1
John2290 (5 days ago)

Arwn't you overreacting, slightly?


  • 0
JWeinCom (5 days ago)

Uhhhh... yeah, private corporate entities are allowed to have power. This isn't a communist country.


  • -2