While we had covered the rise and growth of esports for several years now, readers here will recognize that 2020 became something of an inflection point for the industry. The reasons for this are fairly obvious: the cultural shutdown at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic -- one that shuttered nearly all IRL athletic competition -- left a vacuum for viewership of competition that esports was almost perfectly situated to gobble up. Viewership exploded, as did the number of esports events. Meanwhile, the trend for IRL sports leagues, teams, and associated industries investing in esports ramped up considerably.

But now 2020 is, thankfully, behind us. And, while the world is still mired in dealing with COVID-19, IRL sports have largely come back. At the onset of 2021, now is the perfect time to ask two questions: what was the actual growth of esports in 2020 and what will it mean when the world begins to go back to a semblance of normalcy over the next year? Well, the numbers are out and they are quite impressive. The following comes from analysts at Engine Media, via its analyst experts at Stream Hatchet.

According to Stream Hatchet's data, the pandemic's onset in Q1 2020 caused esports streaming numbers to rise dramatically in Q2. As the year ticked on and live entertainment sports options returned, the trend continued despite the increase in online and on TV entertainment options. Stream Hatchet data showed that activity levels remained high and by year-end had increased 69% over 2019 and 81% over 2018.

There are other key points littered Engine Media's report. Twitch doubled (!) the amount of hours watched on its platform in 2020 vs. 2019. Female game streamers in particular enjoyed a large rise in viewership. There were 355 million hours of sponsored live streams in 2020, indicating that tons of brands are wising up to the growth of the industry and trying to get in on the game. Also, the inclusion of political content on these game streaming platforms exploded as well, tied to the 2020 election cycle.

"Stream Hatchet's data has confirmed that video games and esports have taken a huge step in popular culture. When much of the live entertainment world went dark, streaming platforms were able to captivate audiences through remote esports tournaments and exciting live streams," says Eduard Montserrat, CEO of Stream Hatchet.

"During one of the most closely monitored election cycles in US history, younger generations turned to these platforms, and their respective influencers, to learn about the political discourse informing their decisions at the poll booths. We're fascinated with the data points and larger media trends that are contained within this report, and are confident that 2021 will yield even more compelling insights."

Perhaps the most important aspect of the report is that the growth trend in esports streaming didn't stop once IRL sports came back to television. If that continues, it would indicate that the pandemic didn't just juice esports' growth temporarily, but rather simply supercharged a trend that would have happened regardless.

It appears that Parler's antitrust lawsuit against Amazon for suspending its AWS account isn't off to a very good start. In an emergency hearing on Thursday to see whether or not the judge would order Amazon to turn AWS back on for Parler, the judge declined to do so:

U.S. District Judge Barbara J. Rothstein in Seattle said during a hearing Thursday she’s not inclined to order Amazon to immediately put Parler back online. Instead, she expressed interest in taking a more measured approach to deciding whether she should order a permanent injunction to restore web-services to Parler.

Having spoken to two people who followed the hearing, it sounds like the judge did not make an official ruling yet, but said she will quickly. Another comment I heard from people who listened to the hearing was that Parler's lawyer did not seem to understand some fairly basic concepts regarding how all of this works, which does not bode well for his client. Also, Amazon's lawyer has said that they told Parler that the they would allow the site to return to AWS if it put in place a real content moderation strategy -- which again leans into the fact that they suspended, rather than terminated Parler's account (this has become a key point in the lawsuit, as Parler argues that termination violates their contract, while Amazon says the account was merely suspended, which is different from terminated).

One other point: Parler's lawyer apparently told the judge that Parler could not afford to litigate this case all the way to judgment (in the context of arguing that there would be irreparable harm in not turning the site back on immediately, when asked why any harm couldn't later be dealt with by an award of damages). I find this amusing, because just last week (which feels like a century ago, of course), Parler insisted that it didn't need Section 230 at all and CEO John Matze was saying that Parler was big enough to fight off any lawsuits that would come about without 230. At the time, I pointed out to him that while his backers, the Mercer family, are wealthy, they're not that wealthy.

Still, it's pretty stunning to go from "eh, we can handle such lawsuits if we're liable for our users postings" to "uh, we can't afford this lawsuit we filed to keep our site alive" in just one week.

Parler, Parler, Parler, Parler. Back in June of last year when Parler was getting lots of attention for being the new kid on the social media scene with a weird (and legally nonsensical) claim that it would only moderate "based on the 1st Amendment and the FCC" we noted just how absolutely naive this was, and how the company would have to moderate and would also have to face the same kinds of impossible content moderation choices that every other website eventually faces. In fact, we noted that the company (in part due to its influx of users) was seemingly speedrunning the content moderation learning curve.

Lots of idealistic, but incredibly naive, website founders jump into the scene and insist that, in the name of free speech they won't moderate anything. But every one of them quickly learns that's impossible. Sometimes that's because the law requires you to moderate certain content. More often, it's because you recognize that without any moderation, your website becomes unusable. It fills up with garbage, spam, harassment, abuse and more. And when that happens, it becomes unusable by normal people, drives away many, many users, and certainly drives away any potential advertisers. And, finally, in such an unusable state it may drive away vendors -- like your hosting company that doesn't want to deal with you any more.

And, as we noted, Parler's claims not to moderate were always a part of the big lie. The company absolutely moderated, and the CEO even bragged to a reporter about banning "leftist trolls." The whole "we're the free speech platform" was little more than a marketing ploy to attract trolls and assholes, with a side helping of "we don't want to invest in content moderation" like every other site has to.

Of course, as the details have come out in the Amazon suit, the company did do some moderation. Just slowly and badly. Last week, the company admitted that it had taken down posts from wacky lawyer L. Lin Wood in which he called for VP Mike Pence to face "firing squads."

Amazon showed, quite clearly, that it gave Parler time to set up a real content moderation program, but the company blew it off. But now, recognizing it has to do something, Parler continues to completely reinvent all the mistakes of every social media platform that has come before it. Parler's CEO, John Matze, is now saying it will come back with "algorithmic" content moderation. This was in an interview done on Fox News, of course.

"We’re going to be doing things a bit differently. The platform will be free speech first, and we will abide by and we will be promoting free speech, but we will be taking more algorithmic approaches to content but doing it to respect people’s privacy, too. We want people to have privacy and free speech, so we don’t want to track people. We don’t want to use their history and things of that nature to predict possible violations, but we will be having algorithms look at all the content … to try and predict whether it’s a terms-of-service violation so we can adjust quicker and the most egregious things can get taken down," Matze said. "So calls for violence, incitements, things of that nature, can be taken down immediately."

This is... mostly word salad. The moderation issue and the privacy question are separate. So is the free speech issue. Just because people have free speech rights, it doesn't mean that Parler (or anyone) has to assist them.

Also, Matze is about to learn (as every other company has) that algorithms can help a bit, but really won't be of much help in the long run. Companies with much more resources, including Google and Facebook, have thrown algorithmic approaches to content moderation at their various platforms, and they are far from perfect. Parler will be starting from a much weaker position, and will almost certainly find that the algorithm doesn't actually replace a true trust and safety program like most companies have.

In that interview, Matze is also stupidly snarky about Amazon's tool, claiming:

"We even offered to Amazon to have our engineers immediately use Amazon services – Amazon Rekognition and other tools – to find that content and get rid of it quickly and Amazon said, ‘That’s not enough,’ so apparently they don’t believe their own tools can be good enough to meet their own standards," he said.

That's incredibly misleading, and makes Matze look silly. Amazon Rekognition is a facial recognition system. What does that have to do with moderating harassment, death threats, and abuse off your site? Absolutely nothing.

Instead of filing terrible lawsuits and making snarky comments, it's stunning that Parler doesn't shut up, find an actual expert on trust and safety to hire, and learn from what every other company has done in the past. That's not to say it needs to handle the moderation in the same way. More variation and different approaches are always worth testing out. The problem is that you should do that from a position of knowledge and experience, not ignorance. Parler has apparently chosen the other path.

We write a lot about defamation suits here at Techdirt. Most of what we cover are baseless lawsuits -- lawsuits featuring powerful people "punching down" in hopes of silencing critics.

But this case is on a more equitable level. As the election results rolled in last November, the Trump Administration maintained the election had been "stolen." The fantasies of the lame duck were encouraged and enabled by lawyers who should have known better. This includes Rudy Giuliani -- self-proclaimed 9/11 hero and all-around evidence that satire is dead.

One of Trump's lawyers went on the warpath. Sidney Powell -- one-time legal counsel to the President -- sued as early and often as possible, hoping to get key election results thrown out. The evidence the so-called "Kraken" brought with her wasn't really evidence of anything. It made "hearsay and conjecture" seem like a solid basis for a lawsuit. What Powell brought with her was a combination of sovereign citizen fanfic and anthropomorphized YouTube videos.

Trump cut ties with Powell -- perhaps considering her too far out there for even his OAN-enabled fever dreams. She went on without him, ensuring taxpayers would keep paying to defend the Republic against wild fantasies of widespread voter fraud and election machinery interference.

Powell targeted Dominion Voting Systems early and often, apparently only because they were deployed in Georgia -- a state Trump lost that he did not expect to lose. Georgia has a problem with election security, but for years, elected officials have chosen to attack Democrats and bury negative info rather than address these problems.

Powell's lawsuits aren't going to make voting in Georgia any more secure. But they may carve some holes in Powell's bank accounts. Dominion Voting Systems isn't happy with Powell's assertions about its products. After weeks of being publicly reamed by Trump and his litigious supporters, Dominion is fighting back.

Taking an action long promised to be “imminent,” Dominion Voting Systems has sued right-wing lawyer Sidney Powell. The company seeks damages to the tune of more than $1.3 billion for “wild” and “demonstrably false” allegations against the company that Powell made through “conspiracy theorists, con artists, armchair ‘experts,’ and anonymous sources.”

“During a Washington, D.C. press conference, a Georgia political rally, and a media blitz, Powell falsely claimed that Dominion had rigged the election, that Dominion was created in Venezuela to rig elections for Hugo Chávez, and that Dominion bribed Georgia officials for a no-bid contract,” the 124-page complaint states.

Dominion is a public entity. That raises the bar for successfully alleging defamation. Sidney Powell is a public figure as well, which evens things out a bit. And some of her accusations were made outside of a courtroom, where immunity for statements made during litigation doesn't apply. Powell was given a chance to retract her allegedly defamatory statements but refused to do so. And now it's a lawsuit [PDF].

As Dominion points out, many of the "arguments" made in court were aired publicly by Powell during press conferences and political rallies. There's no immunity for these accusations -- ones Dominion says have no basis in reality.

Powell’s wild accusations are demonstrably false. Far from being created in Venezuela to rig elections for a now-deceased Venezuelan dictator, Dominion was founded in Toronto for the purpose of creating a fully auditable paper-based vote system that would empower people with disabilities to vote independently on verifiable paper ballots. As it grew, Dominion developed technology to solve many of the technical and voter intent issues that came to light as a result of the 2000 Presidential Election. Its systems are certified under standards promulgated by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (“EAC”), reviewed and tested by independent testing laboratories accredited by the EAC, and were designed to be auditable and include a paper ballot backup to verify results. Since its founding, Dominion has been chosen by thousands of election officials throughout the United States to provide the technology to effectively administer transparent and fully auditable elections.

When you don't have the facts, you pound the table. Powell's fists must be pretty raw.

When respected Georgia Republicans disproved Powell’s false accusations by announcing that Georgia’s paper ballot recount had verified the accuracy of Dominion’s vote counts, Powell sought to discredit them by falsely accusing Dominion of paying kickbacks to them and their families in return for a no-bid contract. The only “evidence” Powell ever put forward to support that false accusation was a doctored certificate from the Georgia Secretary of State. Powell has insinuated that the fact that the certificate is undated is suspicious. In reality, the authentic certificate is dated and is publicly available on the Georgia Secretary of State’s website…

If you don't want your fists bruised and your ass sued, maybe try to secure some real evidence before holding press conferences and filing lawsuits.

Powell’s “evidence” included declarations from a motley crew of conspiracy theorists, con artists, armchair “experts,” and anonymous sources who were judicially determined to be “wholly unreliable.”

And don't say stuff like this in public:

Powell deliberately lied about having a video of Dominion’s founder saying he could “change a million votes, no problem at all.” Powell has never produced that recording because it does not exist.

Sidney Powell will once again be asked to explain herself by federal court judges. But this time, she'll be doing it as a defendant. A smarter conspiracy theorist may have confined their baseless claims to legal filings, where they would be shielded by immunity. But the "Kraken" decided she needed to rouse the rabble periodically. And now she could be on the hook for millions of dollars in damages. (Dominion is asking for $651 million, but it seems unlikely this will be the judgment amount, even if the company wins handily.)

There are plenty of legitimate reasons to be concerned about election security and foreign interference in elections. Powell's claims, however, aren't legitimate. They're fantasies constructed by people who should never be relied on as witnesses, much less "expert" ones. Powell's decision to pander to Trump and amplify baseless allegations made by internet detritus looks like it's going to come back to hurt her.

While Twitter is opening up to have the difficult conversation about how content moderation and the open internet should co-exist at a time when the President of the US has inspired an insurrection, Facebook, perhaps not surprisingly, has taken another approach. It's one that is condescendingly stupid, and simultaneously self-serving.

Sheryl Sandberg went public to say both that most of the planning for the invasion of the Capitol was not done on Facebook, and that only Facebook was big enough to prevent such things from happening.

She says:

"I think these events were largely organized on platforms that don’t have our abilities to stop hate, and don’t have our standards, and don’t have our transparency."

Even if that's true (and that's unclear, and we'll get back to that...) it's a very short-sighted and silly thing to say. At a time when the company is literally facing two major antitrust cases, to run around trying to argue that you're the only one who can handle this issue is just painfully dumb. On top of that, there's no way that anyone can totally stop people from spreading these messages on any platform, no matter what abilities/standards/transparency you have -- and pretending that your moderation efforts are somehow perfect is the kind of stupid thing that (1) will come back to bite you and (2) is easy to disprove.

In fact, it was quite easy to prove that Sandberg's claims are not even remotely true. The Washington Post has detailed how bogus that claim is:

A growing body of evidence shows Facebook played a much larger role than Sandberg suggested.

The #StopTheSteal hashtag was widely used on the service until Monday, when a search on Facebook reported that 128,000 people were talking about it and in many cases using it to coordinate for the rally, according to Eric Feinberg, a vice president with the Coalition for a Safer Web.

And two dozen Republican Party officials and organizations in at least 12 states posted on Facebook to coordinate bus trips to the rally, according to research by the left-leaning media watchdog group Media Matters for America, which published screenshots of the fliers and memes.

“BUS TRIP to DC … #StoptheSteal. If your passions are running hot and you’re intending to respond to the President’s call for his supporters to descend on DC on Jan 6, LISTEN UP!” wrote the Polk County Republican Party of North Carolina in a Facebook post that is no longer publicly available.

Oooof. Meanwhile, even after Facebook and Sandberg said that Facebook had taken down the militias and that it had the "ability to stop hate," it wasn't difficult for a Buzzfeed reporter to find "Stop the Steal" groups still active!

A search on Facebook for the words "Stop the Steal," a rallying cry that the mob who forced Congress to flee chanted, turned up dozens of places where new plots could be coordinated. There are at least 66 groups dedicated to the slogan, the largest of which has over 14,000 members. That group is private, meaning nonmembers can’t access the content, but its description is unambiguous: “to make aware the issues of fraudulent voting practices and Fraudulent ballot counting. also, to make these issues transparent for all!”

Several of these groups were created after the election. The 14,000-member group was created on Nov. 6. Another, with nearly 10,000 members, was started on Nov. 29, and another that has 8,000 members on Dec. 10.

This is the nature of content moderation. You're always going to make mistakes. Big ones. Small ones. Medium ones. You're going to make mistakes. Pretending that you won't is silly and will backfire. And here it's especially stupid given the circumstances.

I'm saying this as someone who has spent plenty of time in the last week explaining to people why it's silly to blame Facebook for what happened at the Capitol. If people didn't plan on Facebook (and, of course, they did), they would have planned this elsewhere. But, it's just gaslighting people to pretend that Facebook has the power to moderate away all bad behavior, and even dumber to pretend that no such planning happened on your platform. I'm sure that plenty of the planning happened elsewhere, but of course some of it happened on Facebook.

I truly do not understand Facebook's continued failure to comprehend how it, and its senior leadership, keep shooting themselves in the foot time after time.

The Create Your Own Website with WordPress Bundle has 5 courses geared to help you launch your own website. You'll learn about web design basics, how to create an online store, how to create Facebook ads, and more. It's on sale for $30.

Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Last Friday, Twitter made the decision to permanently ban Donald Trump from its platform, which I wrote about at the time, explaining that it's not an easy decision, but neither is it an unreasonable one. On Wednesday, Jack Dorsey put out an interesting Twitter thread in which he discusses some of the difficulty in making such a decision. This is good to see. So much of the content moderation debate often is told in black and white terms, in which many people act as if one answer is "obvious" and any other thing is crazy. And part of the reason for that is many of these decisions are made behind close doors, and no one outside gets to see the debates, or how much the people within the company explore the trade-offs and nuances inherent in one of these decisions.

Jack doesn't go into that much detail, but enough to explain that the company felt that, given the wider context of everything that happened last week, it absolutely made sense to put in place the ban now, even as the company's general stance and philosophy has always pushed back on such an approach. In short, context matters:

Here's his thread in plaintext:

I do not celebrate or feel pride in our having to ban @realDonaldTrump from Twitter, or how we got here. After a clear warning we’d take this action, we made a decision with the best information we had based on threats to physical safety both on and off Twitter. Was this correct?

I believe this was the right decision for Twitter. We faced an extraordinary and untenable circumstance, forcing us to focus all of our actions on public safety. Offline harm as a result of online speech is demonstrably real, and what drives our policy and enforcement above all.

That said, having to ban an account has real and significant ramifications. While there are clear and obvious exceptions, I feel a ban is a failure of ours ultimately to promote healthy conversation. And a time for us to reflect on our operations and the environment around us. Having to take these actions fragment the public conversation. They divide us. They limit the potential for clarification, redemption, and learning. And sets a precedent I feel is dangerous: the power an individual or corporation has over a part of the global public conversation.

The check and accountability on this power has always been the fact that a service like Twitter is one small part of the larger public conversation happening across the internet. If folks do not agree with our rules and enforcement, they can simply go to another internet service. This concept was challenged last week when a number of foundational internet tool providers also decided not to host what they found dangerous. I do not believe this was coordinated. More likely: companies came to their own conclusions or were emboldened by the actions of others. This moment in time might call for this dynamic, but over the long term it will be destructive to the noble purpose and ideals of the open internet. A company making a business decision to moderate itself is different from a government removing access, yet can feel much the same.

Yes, we all need to look critically at inconsistencies of our policy and enforcement. Yes, we need to look at how our service might incentivize distraction and harm. Yes, we need more transparency in our moderation operations. All this can’t erode a free and open global internet.

I fear that many will miss the important nuances that Jack is explaining here, but there are a few overlapping important points. The context and the situation dictated that this was the right move for Twitter -- and I think there's clear support for that argument. However, it does raise some questions about how the open internet itself functions. If anything, this tweet-thread reminds me of when Cloudlflare removed the Daily Stormer from its service, and the company's CEO, Matthew Prince highlighted that, while the move was justified for a wide variety of reasons, he felt uncomfortable that he had that kind of power.

At the time, Prince called for a wider discussion on these kinds of issues -- and unfortunately those discussions didn't really happen. And so, we're back in a spot where we need to have them again.

The second part of Jack's thread highlights how Twitter is actually working to remove that power from its own hands. As he announced at the end of 2019, he is exploring a protocol-based approach that would make the Twitter system an open protocol standard, with Twitter itself just one implementation. This was based, in part, on my paper on this topic. Here's what Jack is saying now:

The reason I have so much passion for #Bitcoin is largely because of the model it demonstrates: a foundational internet technology that is not controlled or influenced by any single individual or entity. This is what the internet wants to be, and over time, more of it will be. We are trying to do our part by funding an initiative around an open decentralized standard for social media. Our goal is to be a client of that standard for the public conversation layer of the internet. We call it @bluesky.

This will take time to build. We are in the process of interviewing and hiring folks, looking at both starting a standard from scratch or contributing to something that already exists. No matter the ultimate direction, we will do this work completely through public transparency. I believe the internet and global public conversation is our best and most relevant method of achieving this. I also recognize it does not feel that way today. Everything we learn in this moment will better our effort, and push us to be what we are: one humanity working together.

There had been some concern recently that, since nothing was said about the Bluesky project in 2020, Twitter had abandoned it. That is not at all true. There have been discussions (disclaimer: I've been involved in some of those discussions) about how best to approach it and who would work on it. In the fall, a variety of different proposals were submitted for Twitter to review and choose a direction to head in. I've seen the proposals -- and a few have been mentioned publicly. I've been waiting for Twitter to release all of the proposals publicly to talk about them, which I hope will happen soon.

Still, it's interesting to see how the latest debates may lead to finally having this larger discussion about how the internet works, and how it should be managed. While I'm sure Jack will be getting some criticism (because that's the nature of the internet), I appreciate that his approach to this, like Matthew's at Cloudflare, is to recognize his own discomfort with his own power, and to explore better ways of going about things. I wish I could say the same for all internet CEOs.

House lawmakers say that telecom giants are exploiting a national health and economic crisis to make an extra buck.

The subject of their ire are broadband usage caps, which we've long made very clear are little more than price gouging of captive customers in uncompetitive US broadband markets. Such restrictions don't manage congestion, aren't technically necessary, and serve no financial function outside of price gouging, given flat rate broadband is already hugely profitable, and "heavy" users can already be bumped to business class tiers.

Broadband caps are a monopolistic toll on captive customers. And while the Trump FCC struck a temporary pinky swear agreement with ISPs to suspend them during the first few months of the pandemic (which many ignored), ISPs like Comcast and AT&T were not only quick to return to the punitive charges, some ISPs like Comcast actively expanded them. Sure, millions of Americans are struggling to pay for essential services and rent, but monopolies are always going to monopolize unless they face one of two things: penalties via competition, or penalties via functional regulators. The US broadband sector has neither.

Regulators inclined to look away from the problem of US telecom monopolization in normal times have found it harder to do so via COVID, even if that usually doesn't result in any serious repercussions. This week, House Energy & Commerce Committee members Reps. Frank Pallone, Jr, Mike Doyle, and Jerry McNerney lambasted companies like Comcast for doubling down on their greedy bullshit during an economic crisis:

"Over the last ten months, internet service became even more essential as many Americans were forced to transition to remote work and online school. Broadband networks seem to have largely withstood these massive shifts in usage. Unfortunately, what cannot be overlooked or underestimated is the extent to which families without home internet service — particularly those with school-aged children at home — have been left out and left behind.” “This is an egregious action at a time when households and small businesses across the country need high-speed, reliable broadband more than ever but are struggling to make ends meet."

This is all a very polite way of saying monopolies are ripping customers off during a tragic crisis. The lawmakers in question fired off equally polite letters to most telecom CEOs, asking for more detail on the timing of many capping decisions.

Granted this is empty rhetoric until the incoming administration arrives and the makeup of Congress shifts away from GOP control. For four years, the Trump administration was literally incapable of even acknowledging that US broadband isn't competitive, resulting in mediocre service in nearly every global metric that matters, and some of the highest prices for broadband in the developed world. They similar turned a blind eye as telecom monopolies used a universe of bogus surcharges to jack up the cost of broadband and TV services post sale, a tactic that effectively lets them falsely advertise lower rates.

Again, lawmakers were happy to turn a blind eye to this stuff in normal times, but as the wheels of government shifts its focus to providing COVID aid to struggling Americans, broadband monopolies' relentless efforts to price gouge captive customers who can't vote with their wallets is going to find itself increasingly in the spotlight. Which is why Comcast recently expanded its broadband caps now when it knows nobody in government gives a damn.