This isn’t a case of a streamer talking to a viewer through chat. This is a case of an adult private messaging with a minor in a self admittedly “inappropriate” manner. Doc might have said after the fact that he didn’t “intend” on following through with his messages, but when an adult, even jokingly, is making plans to meet up with a fan at a convention who is a minor, that’s a BIG red flag.

Twitch had no choice but to ban him. What if they did nothing and he did end up meeting up with them? What if it turned into SA allegations and it was found out that Twitch was aware of this? I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t want my kids talking to an adult over private messages full stop. Let alone if the content was “inappropriate”.

If you’re a 40 y/o texting “inappropriate” things to a minor, you should have your twitch contract cancelled too.

Just because you have a IPv6 address doesn’t mean you’re actually using it. At best you’re tunnelling IPv4 traffic through your carrier’s IPv6 network. Current estimates (from Cloudflare) show only about 34% of the global internet uses IPv6.

If you only used IPv6, you wouldn’t be able to access nearly 66% of the internet.

The question is “what capital does a landlord provide?”

The capital needed to buy the house which the renter either doesn’t have, or doesn’t want to spend.

and the answer is, none, because when we talk about capital in this context, we’re talking ownership of money or assets

I’m not even sure what you mean by this? The capital the landlord provides IS the money to buy the house and the asset (the house).

Just because the landlord makes money off the transaction? It’s a transaction. The landlord is providing the risk of using their capital to purchase the home and the renter gains the ability to live there without having to extend their own capital to purchase the house (for whatever reason, maybe they don’t have it, maybe they don’t plan to live their long, maybe they are adverse to owning property, there’s lots of reasons).

Why is it OK for any other business to make a profit from their risk and service they provide, but it’s not OK for a landlord? The landlord is providing a service just like any other business.

I get the argument against large corporations buying mass amounts of land and driving up housing prices locking homeowners out of the ability to purchase land, but what is wrong with, if for example I have extra cash, am able to buy a home and rent it to someone who can’t purchase a house for whatever reason?

Because if you had the capital to buy a house, you would. A landlord has the capital to purchase the house and rent it to you under more favorable terms. I.e., not putting ~20% down and committing to a 15-30 year loan.

What is the alternative (besides a utopian society where everyone is provided housing for free or near-free)?

Maybe you could sell premium access to support it.