137
Dr Disrespect Knowingly Sent Explicit Messages to a Minor, Former Twitch Employee Says
(www.rollingstone.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2024
137 points (92.5% liked)
Games
15788 readers
812 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
There is a sizeable gap between "beyond a reasonable doubt" in terms of a very specific law, and things that are gross/immoral.
People keep questioning the timeline as a defense... They might not have known until 2020. It's normally against internal company policies to just look through people's DMs. It's not like someone's job is to rifle through them. They probably were made aware of it, and then took action.
That's speculation on my part, but if Twitch sat on it for 3 years, shame on them too, but that doesn't so shit for this guy. It was still not ok.
The monetary incentive was to pay out his contract so they didn't have a VERY public story about a VERY high profile streamer inappropriately messaging a minor with their service. That could be super damaging for Twitch. So they likely paid it out to try and bury the story.
It doesn't seem like such a large gap or grey area to me. You can tell a woman "Nice T-Shirt" and that is fine but "Nice Tits" is not fine, it's a pretty clear division to me. What could the Doc say that would qualify him as the monster people are calling him but also not illegal?
They attempted to not pay out his contract btw. He had to sue them to get that, and they payed it out. If they had evidence of such behavior from him then I'm sure courts would agree that his own actions destroying his own public image would have been more than enough reason to cancel the contract.
I see you have access to what was said then. At least... I assume you do to try and split hairs defending a man who has admitted to inappropriately messaging a minor
The fuck? Where did I defend him?
I'm just dismissing delusions and mass hysteria by presenting what we do know versus what we don't. I don't NEED access to what was said, my entire statement is that we don't know what was said.