This is not a suspension appeal.

I have been using this platform for over a decade now, and saw that a large streamer got banned recently for their commentary on stream. I want to point out how the current suspension flow is heavily lopsided toward playing it safe, and in doing so, hurts the platform by neglecting context and the way real users behave.

As a major platform, it makes sense to play it safe to protect public image. However, the current flow used to reach this recent decision is actually hurting Twitch's public image due to neglecting the majority of users out there: those who know their influencers, actively consume such content, and perfectly understand the context of what they are watching. There is a reason political discussion is permitted and highly popular not only on Twitch but on all of social media. They are the new spaces to touch on issues that are actively distorted, misrepresented, or often even ignored by traditional news media. It is well known that trust in traditional news media has been at its lowest point in history for several years now. What resonates on all these platforms is commentators who are genuine and speak from the heart, and they should not be expected to act fake, or to never get emotional when speaking on major, pressing issues.

I believe a more sensible suspension flow must understand context, and first issue a clear warning on such issues (with warnings resetting every few months, not a year-old warning leading to a recent ban). Only after a recent warning is violated should a ban like this ever happen.
Again, the current flow does not actually save face for Twitch. This is clear with the massive uproar from real people all across the web after the recent decision. Insta-banning someone to stick to a safe-sounding ruleset kills the platform's credibility with the real, silent majority of users. And it immediately spreads like wildfire to a massive audience who learn about it on all other platforms. Yes, people who consume this type of content understand, and often even live through these intense political frustrations, and a lazy, ban-on-sight ruleset only ignores this majority to appease the loud minority.

I saw a banner here which states that suspension appeals get removed. However, suspension requests do not get the same treatment. The vast majority of your audience is simply living their lives, not going around complaining, but your system rewards that small number of people who do. I want to make a difference by speaking on behalf of the majority that you are neglecting. A majority which I believe should be your primary focus, even if a small group rages on complaining. And I believe that a context-aware, recency-based warning system is the key to that.

Regards,

Cormin