Home
Creators
Search Recent Missing Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

Why Twitch Banned Me: THE DATA (Patreon)

Published:
2025-04-19 09:39:43
Imported:
2026-06
Tags:
haven't archived this post yet. have a subscription? use the importer!

Downloads

  • 454280088.mp4

Missing 1 video, as this post has not yet been imported.

Content

Welcome to Part 3 of the Twitch Ban Saga, and Happy Easter! My first armour fitting (taking measurements for all the bits) is next Tuesday, so I'm looking forward to sharing that with you soon!

Comments

Anders

Nemo's pawprints are all over this. He is an evil genius. GENIUS! I tell you.

Fenrir Wolfganger

This development gives me a warm glow in my heart.

William Wallace

It seems like someone might be feeling a bit stabby?

chromicacid

I don't know if someone else has mentioned this already, but your friends are going to be Article 15 and 22 of the GDPR. Especially 22 in this case, and how 15 refers to 22. In order to avoid burning bridges prematurely, I would suggest parallel but civilized pressure on the company. The request was likely received by HR, someone asked a lawyer on staff, the lawyer asked a manager where the tools were that did this, the manager referred the lawyer to an engineering group, and the engineering group passed off the request to their on call engineer, who likely isn't familiar with the details of the law and is just trying to get through the week. Should the upper management be familiar with complying with the request? Yes. Will HR who received the request or the individual who landed with the responsibility of handling it be familiar with it? Probably not. Will crusading against HR and the engineers help? Likely no. This may be a much larger issue that requires pressure where they have no influence. The commissioner may be necessary to provide that parallel pressure where the email chain doesn't. Also, the automated systems may not follow a logical step by step analysis for determining fraud or not, so there may not exist a reason for the ban other than "the computer said so". Your case will become interesting if that happens and you keep pushing. It may be a system of many dimensional pattern analysis that generate a likelihood that the activity of account X bears a resemblance to the behavior of known fraudulent accounts Y, Z, etc., and if the resemblance gets above a certain threshold, banned. No logic involved. Because figuring out the logic for every possible combination of fraudulent behavior is next to impossible and the engineers might revolt, and so account activity pattern analysis is the next best option. Also, data by email may not be a reliably viable mechanism because many email systems still have limited attachment sizes. Good luck!

Have another taco…

Happy Easter Jill, you're going after Amazon here, so if they did what I think they did, and what I suspect you also think they did, then absolutely make the bastards scream. Then out them for what they did, and the guilty if you can. Because what those individuals did, if I am right, is not a thing one is legally permitted to do.

Ann Brookens

Happy Easter and happy hunting!

Brenton Clark

"Muck around and mind out," in the same vein as "This is what happens when you fight a stranger in the Alps"

Maurice

the charitable reading on this is that: ok, we had a bug somewhere in our... account processing robots or whatever, several failsafes - well - failed catastrophically, and we need to do better going forward from a policy aspect and maybe not blindly rely on an algorithm somewhere to determine all this. yay, a.i. this was totally worth clear cutting a rainforest for. the not-so-charitable, tinfoil hat sorta reading is: we know who targeted you, they have access to our system's backdoor, and we either can't or won't deal with them even though their capricious, random behavior results in shocking abuses of power like this. it's a belief i've always had. that some (a lot?) of this stuff is not really a mistake. i'd be interested to see what that final read-through of the data turns up.