The reason behind his ban has been a mystery.

EDIT: Dr Disrespect has made a full statement regarding the ban.

Twitch abruptly permabanned one of its biggest names (Guy Beahm a.k.a. Dr Disrespect) from their platform back in 2020 without explanation. Four years later, two former Twitch employees have now spoken up, alleging that he was banned for sexting with a minor through the Twitch Whispers app and attempting to meet up with her at TwitchCon.

This came two years after a settled lawsuit between Twitch and Beahm, where neither party admitted to any wrongdoing, and his contract was paid.

Other notes and links:

  • subignition@fedia.io
    19·
    5 months ago

    Twitch probably doesn’t care beyond reputational damage/liability.

    a settled lawsuit between Twitch and Beahm, where neither party admitted to any wrongdoing, and his contract was paid.

    In fact it sounds like Twitch made an effort to keep it quiet, which was successful until these former employees spoke out (hope they don’t suffer consequences)

    Edit to add: Which is not to say there couldn’t be separate consequences. It’s just not going to come from Twitch. I’m sure a certain three letter agency is quite a bit more interested in Beahm now.

    • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.worldEnglish
      82·
      5 months ago

      If Twitch helped to cover up a criminal act, they’d be opening themselves up to liability. Especially since they supposedly provide the product used for the communication AND apparently knew about it.

      The simpler answer is, the reality isn’t as simple as the tweet makes it out to be. Twitch may have thought/known the user was a minor based off internal-only information, like previous messages, account information, etc. not anything in the conversation with Doc. In that case Doc would not have known they were a minor, and thus his actions would not have been illegal, and it would not be a story at all if Twitch reached out to advise Doc that the user was a minor… instead Twitch acted unilaterally and essentially burned the contract in the process. That would fit the same “facts” we’ve been told from all parties, but with a vastly different context that also matches the lack of criminal liability.