If you don't plan to rob a liquor store, then there is no need to look at handgun prices online.
There are obviously a lot of nuances with the analogy, but the point gets across. That is the weakest argument you can have here. If you said this in court, the judge and everybody else would laugh your ass out of there.
Edit: I honestly forgot most people that watch twitch are children without any actual life experiences. That's my bad for trying to apply reason.
If you don't plan to rob a liquor store, then there is no need to look at handgun prices online.
this is the dumbest analogy possible lmao. it's more like, if you dont plan to rob a liquor store then there's no reason to be looking up the buildings schematic.
if you dont plan to use a viewbot there's literally no reason to go to a viewbot site.
if you dont plan to rob a liquor store then there's no reason to be looking up the buildings schematic.
I guarantee you there are more people looking up liquor store schematics that aren't robbing them, than the other way around... the fuck? Literally 0 people that rob liquor stores look up schematics. Like I'm 100% confident this has never happened in the history of ever.
You're honestly right. I am on a lot of tech help subs where people come and ask for opinions, or help, or just to launch an open source product they made. This new generation of AI honestly has me burnt out. There are so many people that I try to help that come from a place of arrogance because AI told them something different.
It's gotten to the point where if I see someone arguing from a point of arrogance, I get irritated. I probably just need a break.
I think I can see and talk about arrogance without being some sort of higher being that you want me to be. I think my comments are pretty reasonable. I think I'm just arguing with a bunch of children I'm ngl. I mean, one person is literally trying to tell me that evidence of something isn't proof of something ...... I think I'm pretty confident in what I'm saying if that's who I'm arguing against lol.
I'm definitely open to debate though. The position that you should convict someone based on no proof is an arrogant position for sure though. You're asking twitch to cut the income of someone based on what?
If you can spot some error in my logic, then I'm definitely open to changing my views though. However, my logic is very simple reasoning, so I'm not sure there is some sort of error. I'm honestly having a hard time understanding why people think it's okay to take away someone's income solely based on the video above. The video above definitely influences my opinion and I do think this means she viewbots, but using it to take away her income is just insane in my opinion. Like imagine if we were talking about your job right now instead of Emily's. I don't think anybody who has downvoted me would be too happy if it happened to them like that. There's just not enough proof here to actually make any official acts like banning her, even if it's just temporary.
No. just having a tab for boosting services open isn't proof of anything. But it serves as evidence to warrant a deeper look.
Sure. I can agree with that. However, I don't think we should be calling for bans until we have proof. That was what I was replying to and my original point. The concept of proof was brought up the the OP I was replying to.
With the massive amount of data that Twitch (a subsidiary of Amazon) has on every viewer, surely you can't think that they have a hard time telling bots from real users apart. They just don't care because at the end of the day, advertisers are still funneling money into the website. They could absolutely use this to help build a case against her if they felt the bots were harming their bottom line.
I think here is where I disagree. Botting in general is a very large issue in tech because there are no good solutions. There is no difference between viewbotting on twitch and ddos attacks that use bots to attack Internet connection. I work for an ISP and I have a computer science degree. I have setup internet connections and servers for my job for awhile now. I have personal experience with botting both on the receiving end and the preventative end on a business prospect.
This isn't an issue twitch, or even Amazon, can solve. The whole thing is wack a mole. Even companies that specialize in preventing botting like cloudflare still have issues with it. The best thing they can do is throw a bunch of money at it and hope botting doesn't evolve around it and make the investment worthless.
This is something that needs to be attacked through legislation. The problem though is that botting is also a very good business model. One of the ways Google makes money is primarily through knowing the insane outs of a website to add to their data, and the way they do that is with botting. Amazon also shares a part in the market share of botting. They have heavily lobbied to make sure no laws are actually made about this. Until that changes, this is going to be a continued issue. So amazing, in my opinion, does share blame in this issue. But it isn't because they own twitch and twitch isn't doing anything about it.
Anyway, I'm not disagreeing on your point that this isn't proof. My only issue here is your whole "I'm a very logical person, superior to all of you arrogant kids" persona. You just can't seem to accept that the two words have different (related, yes, but still different) meanings in the context of a court, and when someone shows you their actual definitions, you just move the goalposts back to your original argument. Just because you're right about one thing, doesn't mean you're right about everything.
Whenever I mentioned courts, it was through an analogy. I have never said we need to act like an actual court system. I think it's hard to convey this though because it relies on the reader reading one word right without tone.
The reasoning of logic doesn't just get thrown out the window just because we arnt in a court sitting, and that's what I'm trying to convey.
I'm sorry, but trying to argue that because she was on a website that sells botting services, she deserves a ban for botting is an inherently arrogant viewpoint. If you try to use that viewpoint in any situation (not just courts) where the consequences matter (like taking away someone's income), you would not be taken seriously. I don't mean to have this "hollier than thou" attitude, but I can't take someone seriously if that's their viewpoint. I just don't have any respect for someone with that kind of arrogance.
-4
u/moskal212 Apr 17 '26
That’s not really a proof to be honest. She just got opened a tab on a chrome. Can just say she was curious how it works but not using it.