[HN Gopher] Let's Talk About Hot Tub Streams
___________________________________________________________________
Let's Talk About Hot Tub Streams
Author : danso
Score : 78 points
Date : 2021-05-21 18:53 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (blog.twitch.tv)
(TXT) w3m dump (blog.twitch.tv)
| 29athrowaway wrote:
| tl;dr: no ban. new category (pools, hot tubs and beaches).
|
| The revenue model of hot tub streamers is herding simps and
| sending them to their onlyfans via one level of indirection like
| twitter.
| fasteddie31003 wrote:
| It's a slippery slope. There are a lot of things that are
| intentionally sexual suggestive in society that we don't bat an
| eye at such as makeup, push-up bras, and yoga pants. When will
| they start banning these things?
| tibbydudeza wrote:
| I really don't get it.
|
| What is the joy of watching a girl in a bathing costume sitting
| on a inflatable horse in a kiddy pool showing off her behind
| every now and again ???.
|
| Most of the chat are about as dumb as bricks so you can't be
| there for the conversation.
| serf wrote:
| >What is the joy of watching a girl in a bathing costume
| sitting on a inflatable horse in a kiddy pool showing off her
| behind every now and again ???.
|
| sex sells.
|
| people like looking at other people half-nude and becoming
| aroused; it's about as simple a marketing tactic that exists.
| jedberg wrote:
| I never used Twitch before the pandemic -- watching people play
| games was never really my thing. But then I discovered the entire
| second use of Twitch, streaming music. Since March 2020, it's
| been possible to find someone streaming music at pretty much any
| time of day.
|
| One day I was watching around 2am Pacific time, and the stream
| ended. I was looking for another one when I saw someone in the
| music category with 13,000 viewers (most DJs don't crack 1000).
| So I went to check it out.
|
| It was a hot tub streamer holding a guitar while she thanked
| people for their tips and subs. In the 10 minutes I watched, she
| never once played anything.
|
| I was fascinated by the fact that she had so many people
| basically just watching her in a hot tub and giving her money.
| She wasn't doing anything compelling.
|
| To each their own, but I had no idea there were so many people on
| the internet willing to pay for such a thing.
| throwkeep wrote:
| It reminds me of World of Warcraft, where guys give female
| avatars their items and gold for nothing.
| tibbydudeza wrote:
| Men that are lonely and crave some sort of connection to the
| opposite sex.
| poyu wrote:
| > I was fascinated by the fact that she had so many people
| basically just watching her in a hot tub and giving her money.
| She wasn't doing anything compelling.
|
| Wait until you learn about VTubers.
| tick_tock_tick wrote:
| I mean don't they do the same thing as most people on twitch
| (video games) just with a fake avatar? Honestly I still
| remember when face cam was rare and you had no idea what most
| streamers looked like.
| jedberg wrote:
| I just Googled that. I'm equally fascinated.
| JohnJamesRambo wrote:
| Especially on the internet, home of more pornography than any
| human could ever consume in a million lifetimes. I don't
| understand what would compel someone to sit and watch and tip
| someone in a bathing suit attempting to play video games.
| jedberg wrote:
| The one I saw wasn't even playing games. She is literally
| just sitting in the hot tub in a bikini. And in the corner it
| says "new bikini with 50 subs".
| booleandilemma wrote:
| Go on Tiktok and check out how many random girls list their
| cashapp profile in their bio. Men will just give them money.
|
| https://www.buzzfeed.com/kristatorres/venmo-tiktok-money-fro...
| gabereiser wrote:
| Hasn't the business model been either top-notch gaming or this,
| the soft core porn niche? I mean, most women streaming on twitch
| are using their looks and body for viewership. It's the oldest
| play in the book. It's all over YouTube as well (show a girl in a
| thong, get a million views). Twitch should just create a
| NSFW/Verified 18+ section and be done with it. I think the real
| issue is with advertisers. They don't want to be associated with
| porn or even suggestive content. Twitch won't police their
| platform so people are going to continue meeting the "bare
| minimum" definition and argue they are following the rules.
| bluefirebrand wrote:
| > I mean, most women streaming on twitch are using their looks
| and body for viewership. It's the oldest play in the book
|
| This is the real sticking point. If they came down hard against
| titty streamers they would be destroying a large portion of
| their own viewer base.
|
| Not to mention how bad it would look from a "Twitch is being
| sexist" viewpoint. Top male streamers would continue to do
| extremely well, male streamers would be unaffected almost
| entirely ( I bet some stream shirtless or whatever sometimes
| and might get in trouble from that )
|
| But lets be real, such a crackdown would basically only effect
| women.
| viraptor wrote:
| Also any policy like that would hit women who are into
| positive body expression, without trying to use it as a
| popularity tool. I.e. they'd have to figure out how to tell
| apart those who work on being suggestive for money and that
| who just enjoy being suggestive in life. Kind of like the
| repeating issue for https://mobile.twitter.com/RealSexyCyborg
| who as far as I can tell is strongly in the second category.
|
| But that's in the mind reading area - they just can't do it
| reliably.
| bluefirebrand wrote:
| > they'd have to figure out how to tell apart those who
| work on being suggestive for money and that who just enjoy
| being suggestive in life
|
| I don't think they'd bother trying to tell them apart. The
| issue Twitch wants to police here isn't the willingness or
| coercion, it's the suggestiveness behaviour entirely.
| gabereiser wrote:
| I'm all about body positivity but the policies of twitch
| are really hit or miss with who they come down on and who
| they let off the hook. It's inconsistent. Super streamers
| get booted off for making a simple stupid side cuff rant
| yet violators of their policies continue to stream without
| recourse. It's like it's moderated by 16 year olds.
| rayrag wrote:
| > So, we're introducing a new category: Pools, Hot Tubs, and
| Beaches.
|
| So in one word - Softporn.
| tibbydudeza wrote:
| As long as they shove all those pool streamers into that specific
| category and don't show it at all on their main recommendation
| screen than I will be happy.
| gary_0 wrote:
| Aside from the "I know it when I see it"[0] angle, here are my
| thoughts.
|
| Long, long ago, I dabbled in content hosting, and still sometimes
| daydream about doing business along those lines. When it comes to
| the thought of my hypothetical service hosting purely sexual
| content it's not due to any puritanism that I'd prefer that my
| platform have rules against it.
|
| Sexual content (ie. porn) brings with it regulatory burdens,
| potential public scrutiny, a large revenue stream that might end
| up incentivizing product development detrimental to the service's
| original purpose, and from a marketing perspective it might cause
| the public to associate your service with certain kinds of
| content (see: Tumblr) which limits your growth options.
|
| It seems to me that Twitch so far isn't seeing the drawbacks I
| just listed when it comes to hot tub streams, hence their
| response.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it
| void_mint wrote:
| Twitch continues to pretend hot tub streams aren't intentionally
| sexually suggestive. What a joke.
|
| HN doesn't really do memes, but I made this because it seems
| relevant: https://imgflip.com/i/5ah3b7
| Causality1 wrote:
| It's the same unholy transformation every company goes through.
| Creating a company from nothing usually takes heart and soul.
| Once a company is established you stop needing the true
| believers. You stop needing the love. Love and maximizing
| profits are not compatible. I'll bet if you had data on the
| number of Twitch t-shirts sold over the last five years it
| would be a steady decline. Almost any company built on
| appealing to a specific demographic will choose to genericize
| itself if it can.
|
| It makes a lot of money but I find it terribly sad.
| nichochar wrote:
| They probably have ridiculously good engagement. Very tough for
| twitch to give that up more than likely.
| void_mint wrote:
| The joke is asserting that hot tub streams aren't sexually
| suggestive. The twitch community seems to love them, so of
| course Twitch will fight tooth and nail to keep them. But to
| suggest that they aren't sexually suggestive (and by proxy
| against Twitch ToS) is an absolute joke. They look like
| clowns.
| robbrown451 wrote:
| They don't say that. Did you actually read what they wrote?
| It is very nuanced.
|
| Their rule is that it can't be "overtly or explicitly
| sexually suggestive", and they acknowledge that it lies on
| a spectrum. They have to draw the line somewhere. To some
| people, for instance the Amish or fundamentalism Muslims,
| the line is very different from that of typical Westerners.
| void_mint wrote:
| > There has been confusion around whether streams from
| hot tubs are permissible under our current policies, and
| we understand why our rules as written have contributed
| to that confusion. Under our current Nudity & Attire and
| Sexually Suggestive Content policies, streamers may
| appear in swimwear in contextually appropriate situations
| (at the beach, in a hot tub, for example), and we allow
| creative expression like body writing and body painting,
| provided the streamer has appropriate coverage as
| outlined by our attire policy. Nudity or sexually
| explicit content (which we define as pornography, sex
| acts, and sexual services) are not allowed on Twitch.
|
| I again ask, is wearing a bikini, facing away from a
| camera and touching your toes for $5 not a sexual
| service?
| robbrown451 wrote:
| Did you ask that before? What is your point?
|
| Surely you recognize that these things lie on a spectrum.
| Is charging admission for beach volleyball a sexual
| service? No matter your level of prudishness, you will be
| able to find something that is right in the gray area.
| void_mint wrote:
| > Is charging admission for beach volleyball a sexual
| service?
|
| This question actually perfectly articulates the
| difference. When you pay $5 to watch a beach volleyball
| tournament, you're paying for volleyball, and may as a
| side effect experience content that _some_ may find
| sexual. By Twitch's ToS, this should totally be allowed.
|
| As for my example, is there a nonsexual reason to pay a
| woman 5 dollars to bend over in front of you? What is it?
| robbrown451 wrote:
| So you've come up with an example that is clearly on one
| side of the line. Ok, but not sure what that proves. I
| don't think anyone has argued that there aren't any clear
| cut cases.
|
| What you are missing is that whatever rule you make,
| people are going to try to push the limits, because it
| gets them viewers. If twitch says that someone bending
| over in a bikini has no non-sexual purpose and therefore
| is against the rules, the creators could change the
| stream very slightly.... just enough so they can claim to
| be about exercise, yoga, modeling fashion, or dance.
| They'd still have the same audience, with the exact same
| reason for watching, but now it sneaks by the rule.
|
| Pole dancing is an art and takes athletic skill, sure,
| but most people (at least in the US) consider it is
| purely viewed for sexual gratification. But creators
| could claim its "main" purpose is to enjoy the dancing
| for its artistic and athletic merit.
|
| Sports Illustrated has a swim suit issue, and it's not
| about swimming so how is that sports? It's just an
| excuse.
|
| The majority of art channels on twitch are people drawing
| sexy (often anime-style) girls and women. You can learn
| to draw from them, but the sexier they make them, the
| more viewers they get.
|
| So... I really don't get what you are trying to say. You
| seem to not understand that there is gray area.
| void_mint wrote:
| It seems that you think I'm referencing a contrived
| example to prove my point, when in reality I'm
| referencing the actual donation gifts for the vast
| majority of Hot Tub Streamers (which, please note, is not
| "people that sometimes stream in a hot tub", but is now a
| specific genre of stream of which many people exclusively
| stream).
|
| People have been sometimes streaming from hot tubs for
| years, and it's always been the exact grey area you're
| describing. Only very recently has it turned into a
| hypersexualized scenario, which is why Twitch is putting
| out more content condoning it.
|
| > You seem to not understand that there is gray area.
|
| I do. You don't seem to understand that the vast majority
| of the streams this change will encapsulate are not grey
| at all.
| [deleted]
| newacct583 wrote:
| Engagement doesn't pay the bills. In fact advertisers _don
| 't_ want to pay for this and don't want their advertising
| shown on these streams. Ultimately that's what the new policy
| is about. They're adding a new category so that advertisers
| can filter these things out.
| nemothekid wrote:
| > _Twitch continues to pretend hot tub streams aren 't
| intentionally sexually suggestive. What a joke._
|
| What do you want Twitch to do? Ban women from wearing anything
| than a Burqa? Or ban Twitch streamers from going to the beach?
| void_mint wrote:
| What a truly excellent strawman. Do you see no middle ground
| between obviously sexual content and a Burqa? Is there no
| middle ground between writing someone's name on your breasts
| for $5 and going to the beach to swim?
| nemothekid wrote:
| > _Is there no middle ground_
|
| What is that middle ground? Do you codify and say women
| can't write things on their chest? What about in a video
| game? Should streaming Cyberpunk 2077 be banned - it
| clearly has sexual content? I'm not making a straw man -
| I'm trying to point out your essentially saying "they
| should ban content I don't like", which means Twitch will
| apply the rules in anyway you fit - another complaint you
| have brought up.
|
| Again, are you saying streamers shouldn't be allowed to go
| to the beach? Or are you saying they shouldn't be allowed
| to wear bikinis? And if another streamer watches a YouTube
| video that has a woman at the beach should they be banned?
| void_mint wrote:
| > Again, are you saying streamers shouldn't be allowed to
| go to the beach? Or are you saying they shouldn't be
| allowed to wear bikinis? And if another streamer watches
| a YouTube video that has a woman at the beach should they
| be banned?
|
| You should consider reading my post.
| Zoo3y wrote:
| Twitch put it succinctly here:
|
| >Prohibiting every form of content that could be interpreted as
| suggestive would also result in far more restrictions on the
| video games and premium content that we currently allow,
| especially considering the ways that female characters are
| sometimes objectified or presented in a sexualized manner.
| Jonanin wrote:
| I didn't know there were so many outraged prudes on twitch. Why
| should twitch have a sexually suggestive content rule in the
| first place?
|
| This rule actually seems reasonable:
|
| > Nudity or sexually explicit content (which we define as
| pornography, sex acts, and sexual services) are not allowed on
| Twitch.
|
| I don't see what the huge issue with showing off your own
| sexiness is. Sheesh!
| [deleted]
| overtonwhy wrote:
| Twitch has an audience that's largely children...
| ZephyrBlu wrote:
| I guess you think that Twitch should allow itself to become a
| cam site then.
|
| The issue is that Twitch is not supposed to be for this type
| of content.
|
| When you think of Twitch, do you think of hot tub streamers
| and cam girls? No, you think of things like gaming and IRL.
| void_mint wrote:
| > I didn't know there were so many outraged prudes on twitch.
| Why should twitch have a sexually suggestive content rule in
| the first place?
|
| If you're asserting that thinking hot tub streams break ToS,
| and Twitch's selective enforcement of that ToS causes
| problems very frequently on their platform, makes me an
| "outraged prude", well I'm sorry friend. Gaslighting an
| entire community doesn't seem like a good idea to me.
|
| > Nudity or sexually explicit content (which we define as
| pornography, sex acts, and sexual services) are not allowed
| on Twitch.
|
| Is wearing a bikini, facing away from a camera and touching
| your toes for $5 not sexually explicit?
|
| > I don't see what the huge issue with showing off your own
| sexiness is. Sheesh!
|
| The issue is inconsistency. I think they should update the
| ToS to support these streamers - they're some of the biggest
| streamers on the platform. To suggest that those streamers
| are not being sexually suggestive is, again, an absolute
| joke. Twitch themselves made the determination that sexually
| suggestive content is not welcome on their platform, not me.
| deanclatworthy wrote:
| Because there are other places for that. Many people browse
| twitch at work (let's not debate that) and don't want to see
| that kind of content. Or on machines visible at home around
| other family members.
|
| These women have every right to do as they please, and most
| likely will continue to push the boundaries of twitch's
| tolerance. I suspect we will have car washing streams or
| sauna streams next to get around the rule.
|
| But I don't want to see it.
| notJim wrote:
| Wouldn't a simple solution be to allow people to disable or
| hide NSFW streams? Reddit and Twitter both have this, IIRC.
| ZephyrBlu wrote:
| That doesn't fix the issue of ruining the Twitch brand.
| mrgreenfur wrote:
| Americans are still ashamed of sexuality and think it needs
| to be locked up. That said, it's clearly not 'just chatting'
| and probably belongs in a 'sexysexy' category.
| bluGill wrote:
| It isn't just Americans. Many cultures around the world
| have some form of it.
| crazypyro wrote:
| Because Twitch focuses largely on marketing directly to
| children? You cannot separate the fact that Twitch is trying
| to become the site for all gaming (including children) and
| also allowing nearly-softcore porn on the same site. Its
| literally a few clicks away. Now, they think because they
| made a separate category, advertisers will be fine with it.
|
| They are lucky that hot tub streamers haven't gotten
| mainstream news attention yet, I can't imagine the outrage of
| parents when they see some of the stuff thats allowed....
| nickysielicki wrote:
| These streams are closer to pornography than most people realize.
| There's a reason that these streams get so much attention: 14
| year old young men love watching video games, so they go to sites
| where they can watch video games. If you start serving softcore
| pornography on the same website, well gee wiz, who could have
| guessed that it would be pretty lucrative?
|
| You don't have to be a prude to have a problem with this. It's
| not a matter of stigmatizing sex work or being anti-women, it's
| about profiting by serving porn-lite on the same site where
| children are likely to be.
|
| I don't personally care, but I'm _floored_ that a company like
| Twitch /Amazon, with hundreds of people in HR and PR, would not
| play it safe and just ban it.
| meheleventyone wrote:
| Given the sheer amounts of money being flung at streamers of
| all stripes by their audience directly I doubt the majority of
| the audience is 14!
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| That doesn't follow; maybe the oldest 10% of people are 90%
| of donations.
| ZephyrBlu wrote:
| Twitch has no spine. If it was up to Amazon they'd probably ban
| it though.
| kibwen wrote:
| I can go on Amazon right now and buy a 55-gallon drum of
| sexual lubricant and a ten-inch, anatomically-correct
| silicone horse dildo. If it's making them money, they won't
| complain.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| If your kid is on the internet, it's on you to manage that.
| Full stop.
| fancifalmanima wrote:
| Sure, and it's reasonable for parents to express to twitch
| that if they don't actively control sexualized content (or
| provide parental controls), that they will lose the eyes of
| their child. It's reasonable for advertisers to do the same.
| Unless your concept of that is control the mouse and keyboard
| for the child at all moments, what's the issue?
| [deleted]
| xboxnolifes wrote:
| Becomes hard to manage when soft-core porn is allowed to co-
| mingle with "safe" content without the ability to filter out.
| nprz wrote:
| > being found to be sexy by others is not against our rules
|
| Phew! Glad I'll still be able to host my twitch stream!
| Manuel_D wrote:
| I think there's a significant amount of nuance in this situation.
| On the one hand, I don't object to people steaming and monetizing
| suggestive (or even explicit) content. These content creators
| should be able to produce and monetize this content without
| stigma.
|
| On the other hand, I do think the _juxtaposition_ of this content
| with the rest of Twitch content is problematic. I think putting
| this content in the same category as gaming content
| unintentionally conveys the message, "Men garner popularity by
| exhibiting their skills, women garner popularity by exhibiting
| their bodies." I suspect this juxtaposition of the most popular
| male streamers' content with that of some of the most popular
| women's content on the platform and exposing this young people
| ends up fostering non-productive attitudes among boys and young
| men. Other women on the platform have complained about their
| audiences pressuring them into producing similar content. I've
| also heard from women and girls that it's off-putting to see the
| prevalence of women in bikinis, not playing any games, on a
| platform that ostensibly about gaming. I think Twitch is in the
| right to see this as a problem.
|
| But what's the solution here? On the one hand, I think it's
| giving these streamers the short end of the stick to have
| ambiguous policies and issue unexpected demonetizations or bans.
| Maybe a more effective approach would be to have stronger
| separation between "just chatting" content and gaming content, to
| retain this content but mitigate the problem of that
| juxtaposition. I suspect this is what the "Pools, Hot Tubs, and
| Beaches" category will probably be, but maybe it'd be better to
| spin this off into sister platform that isn't explicitly tied
| into gaming.
| TchoBeer wrote:
| >Other women on the platform have complained about their
| audiences pressuring them into producing similar content.
|
| I'm not at all in touch with twitch stuff, so I'm just reading
| about this now. That's horrible. Would making stricter bans
| help?
| KapKap55 wrote:
| Twitch does not see it as a problem. Advertisers (the actual
| important group in this discussion) and the gaming side of the
| Twitch community do care, for different reasons.
|
| This situation has been ongoing for awhile with individuals
| pushing the boundary of sexual content, but this response from
| Twitch only occurred after a partner who creates this type of
| content pissed off Twitch's advertisers.
| ZephyrBlu wrote:
| > _" Men garner popularity by exhibiting their skills, women
| garner popularity by exhibiting their bodies."_
|
| In what way does this foster non-productive attitudes in boys
| and young men?
| Manuel_D wrote:
| I suspect it reinforces the stereotype that women who enter
| "nerdy" spaces like gaming are more interested in attracting
| the attention of men, than actually engaging with gaming. It
| plays into the trope of a "gamer girl that sucks at games,
| but succeeds because she's hot". This leads to women's
| abilities being doubted, and their intentions often mistaken.
|
| To be clear, there's nothing _wrong_ with doing suggestive
| cosplay or things like that. I also doubt that the average
| person is going to watch Amouranth, and then immediately
| assume that all the women interested in gaming are curating
| the same kind of appeal - this kind of influence is more
| subtle than that. But I do believe that the juxtaposition of
| male streamers ' content, and many of the most popular
| women's content likely fosters these stereotypes.
| bombcar wrote:
| Camsites already exist, and there's nothing stoping you from
| streaming games on them.
|
| The "pools, hot tubs, beaches" exception was a (stupid)
| loophole and they should just close it (I suspect that this is
| the end result moving forward, eventually). The hard part for
| Twitch is figuring how to do this with out appearing sexist.
| goatcode wrote:
| Bring back the Thot Audit.
| logicslave wrote:
| My real question is all the young men that will have to marry all
| these women exposing themselves online for money. Three times in
| the past week I drove by a car where a girl put her venmo on the
| window. On dating apps its now common for girls to have a venmo
| in their profile. This culture is far more widespread than just
| twitch.
| an_opabinia wrote:
| > especially considering the ways that female characters are
| sometimes objectified or presented in a sexualized manner
|
| Probably the most interesting and persuasive case they have. What
| if a human being dressed like League's Evelynn, a succubus? Would
| they be banned from Twitch? No, of course not. Would it be
| sexually suggestive? They've illuminated how disingenuous of a
| question that is, because Evelynn is a _character in a game
| people stream_.
| grodes wrote:
| man throwing money to hot tub: . twitch: I like money
| Ekaros wrote:
| Twitch is truly a mess... The enforcement is all over the
| place...
|
| Not that Youtube isn't also "interesting" in some content
| moderation. Outright nudity is possible with thin veil of
| "educational" content.
|
| I wish the platforms just applied rules equally and had clear
| rules. And not punish past content with new rules. But maybe that
| is too much to ask these days...
| system2 wrote:
| Hah every girl streaming in tubs have pornhub channels as well as
| onlyfans. If we know it, twitch knows it too. This is such a
| bullshit post.
| parsimo2010 wrote:
| They claim that they only prohibit things that are intentionally
| suggestive, but every streamer is afraid to accidentally show
| their feet because they get a ban. Twitch has inconsistencies in
| the way they apply their policies, and they sometimes don't even
| tell a streamer why they got a ban. Creating a beach and hot tub
| category is the least of their worries. But at least it makes it
| easier for me to intentionally find attractive women in swimsuits
| who are streaming their sexiness unintentionally, and filter them
| out when I'm not looking for it.
| Semaphor wrote:
| every streamer? Hard disagree, I see feet commonly and never
| never even heard of this.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| I've seen multiple streamers, especially women, who are
| playing games or normal twitch things and end up modifying
| their behavior because of fear of this rule. A whole bunch of
| twitch streamers are wearing slippers in case their feet end
| up on camera for a second.
|
| The whole rule started because people were monetizing feet
| content which obviously leans lewd, but the poor rule
| targeting has ended up with all kinds of weird consequences.
| Semaphor wrote:
| I watch an aussie food streamer, she's always barefoot in
| summer. She's been streaming for around 3 years, the only
| problems she had were related to excessive swearing. Not
| even spanking her partner was a problem.
| autocorr wrote:
| > Community and advertiser feedback made clear that we need to
| offer more ways to control the content that's recommended as well
| as where ads appear. So, we're introducing a new category: Pools,
| Hot Tubs, and Beaches. If you have chosen swimwear that is
| allowed under the "Swim and Beaches" contextual exception to our
| standard Nudity and Attire policy, you should stream into the
| Pools, Hot Tubs and Beaches category.
|
| People set up kiddy-pools in their room with a bit of water to
| get this "contextual exception" for the express purpose of
| streaming suggestive content. Why not just remove the exception
| and let people stream sexually suggestive content and make a
| separate category for that without a ridiculous "beaches and
| pools" euphemism?
| Traster wrote:
| They don't want to be a porn site. The problem they have is
| that the porn content drives away advertisers and non-porn
| related contant. So they have to steer away from porn, but
| wherever they draw the line there are going to be people
| testing the line, and there's an audience for it. So the
| compromise they've clearly come up with is they don't allow
| porn, but if you happen to be sexy wearing practically nothing,
| that's fine - as long as it's got some pretext of not being
| porn, because porn is what will kill their non-porn related
| business.
| oliwarner wrote:
| No, they don't want to _admit to_ being a porn site. Tying
| themselves in knots with silly rules like this means they 're
| just a gateway for people to promote their OnlyFans pages.
|
| If they want to be a game streaming site, why allow player
| video at all? Pare it back to what it was actually for.
| ludamad wrote:
| They don't want to be whatever the market calls a porn
| site. Advertising a porn site is a lesser taboo
|
| I love the weird twitch content BTW, so I wouldn't want to
| pare down for the sake of risque entertainers
| tolbish wrote:
| What happens when advertisers do not care about
| pornographic content?
| danso wrote:
| They aren't just a game streaming site. "Just Chatting" is
| a huge category, as is live music
| SubiculumCode wrote:
| I'd say that is more true of tiktok et al than twitch.
| wvenable wrote:
| Seems like there's an opportunity to just split the site,
| create a new brand for adult content, and send that content
| over to that brand.
| mcherm wrote:
| Yes, but it is more effective to let someone else own the
| second site that offers adult content. Then, for
| advertisers, there is no brand confusion caused by a common
| owner.
| belval wrote:
| There is not enough money in it for Amazon to start ramping
| up in pornographic material. The chances of brand
| degradation, possible boycotts due to women looking
| young/revenge porn is much much too high to be worth it.
| dna_polymerase wrote:
| They are talking about moving the existing lewd stuff out
| onto a new platform, not starting a PornHub alternative.
| There is obviously enough in it for Amazon, otherwise
| they would just ban the pools outright.
| patmcc wrote:
| There are already lots of adult content sites; the reason
| these streamers exist on twitch specifically is because
| they can reach an audience that isn't on adult sites.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| nickysielicki wrote:
| Not an option, Amazon doesn't want to own a porn company.
| jedimastert wrote:
| You say that like there isn't already a massive amount of
| adult live streaming sites. They led the way!
| bombcar wrote:
| Isn't it obvious? The advertisers don't want to advertise on a
| camsite, those are available elsewhere.
|
| Trying to document and define "I'll know it when I see it" is
| an NP-complete problem, and this won't be the end of it.
| wincy wrote:
| Last time I was looking through streams I saw a woman in a
| bikini in a kiddie pool riding on a giant inflatable hot dog. I
| think her normal stream is painting herself with body paints?
| It's hard to avoid and that plus the super coarse language make
| it seem insane to me that people let their kids watch Twitch
| streams. I'm sure there's good content somewhere but it's just
| not for me, if I want that stuff I'll just go to Pornhub. Feels
| more honest.
| belltaco wrote:
| You're missing the point of Twitch and also its culture.
| Twitch is closer to cable TV than anything else, even the
| terminology is the same, with 'channels'. Except that anyone
| can create a channel and stream it within the rules. The fact
| that there's some content you don't like on other channels
| being does not mean you shouldn't watch the streamers that
| you like.
|
| Just like there's a wide variety in content thats broadcast
| on TV channels at different times of the day. There is even a
| Science and Technology channel with some developers streaming
| their coding. There are some game developers that only code
| their game while streaming the IDE.
|
| Here's Stephen Wolfram streaming right now.
| https://www.twitch.tv/stephen_wolfram
|
| Why should a Wolfram viewer care if there is some risque
| content on other categories? Even if you're looking around
| after the stream, you can just scroll past it like you do on
| Netflix.
|
| I personally mostly watch only the few streamers that I have
| followed. I rarely come across the streamers mentioned in the
| article except when there's some Twitch drama that I hear
| about on Reddit or from friends.
| michaelt wrote:
| Imagine a household where the parents run a porn blocker, while
| a teenager wants to view risque things.
|
| Twitch wants to keep them both happy: Not so much censorship as
| to drive the teenager away, but enough prudishness that porn
| blockers don't censor their entire domain.
| cortesoft wrote:
| Many advertisers don't want their ads on sites that show sexual
| content, even if their particular ads are not shown on the
| sexually suggestive section of the site. Twitch must have
| decided that it wasn't worth risking those advertisers.
| [deleted]
| qsort wrote:
| Because many people like softcore pornography but they are too
| much of a prude to admit they do, in fact, enjoy watching
| softcore pornography.
|
| Also, advertisers wouldn't like it.
| DaedPsyker wrote:
| I doubt the type of people that watch this stuff are really
| just prudes that can't handle porn.
| qsort wrote:
| It's a game of numbers, and toeing the line between porn
| and non-porn is the local optimum.
|
| It's like a TV channel. They'd never show actual porn but
| they try to get as close as possible while retaining
| plausible deniability.
| crazypyro wrote:
| I wouldn't doubt that a large percentage of the viewers are
| underaged users who actually do not have any experience
| with adult material.
|
| Twitch is a gaming site. Kids watch youtube videos of
| people playing games, they get funneled to check out the
| minecraft/fortnite/etc. category on twitch then they get
| curious and check out the large streamers on the site. What
| do you know? There's a streamer who is sitting in a hot tub
| with 20k viewers (enough to put her in the top streams). It
| doesn't matter that twitch has a "mature audience warning".
|
| Anyone who has used the site for any amount of time knows
| Twitch is providing a clear on-ramp to underaged kids
| accessing nearly-softcore porn.
|
| They can't have their cake (young, gaming advertisers) and
| eat it too (allow nearly naked young women in kiddie pools)
| on the same site... Only reason they are even being forced
| to make a change is because of advertisers. I can only
| imagine if parents actually knew the extent of the hot tub
| streams, twitch wouldn't be allowed in a lot of households,
| but since its a "gaming" site first, its under the radar.
| darkhorse22 wrote:
| > underaged users who actually do not have any experience
| with adult material.
|
| A vanishingly small group. Most people aggressively seek
| that shit out as soon as they hit puberty.
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| The advertisers won't like it. Anything they don't like gets
| banned because they're the ones with the money.
| acidbaseextract wrote:
| Probably the lost ad revenue. No company wants to advertise on
| those streams. By breaking them out in way where advertisers
| could opt out of that stream category, suggestive streamers (a
| huge segment of traffic) would lose money for Twitch.
| belinder wrote:
| But isn't that already exactly what they're doing by breaking
| it into hot tub category and letting advertisers opt out of
| that category? So the question is if they let advertisers opt
| out anyway, why this hot tub category instead of an explicit
| suggestive category.
| Ekaros wrote:
| Payment processors? Not that Amazon don't have opportunity
| to run their own, but still the whole thing on that side is
| a mess. So they choose to not try to cross the line...
| agogdog wrote:
| Is being at a beach sexually suggestive? I think they're making
| a good point here by making this distinction include _overtly_
| and _explicitly_.
|
| We've grown into a society where nudity (or near nudity) is
| equated with sexual suggestiveness by default... and it seems
| strange.
| didibus wrote:
| > Sexually suggestive content-and where to draw the line-is an
| area that is particularly complex to assess, as sexual
| suggestiveness is a spectrum that involves some degree of
| personal interpretation of where the line falls
|
| This is just in general why I have an issue with prudeness in our
| society. I have no idea where prudeness comes from, is it innate
| to some people? Is it a taught trait? But it seems to cause so
| much discord and disagreement yet is inherently safe and
| peaceful.
| overtonwhy wrote:
| Because as you get older over time you can observe how this
| kind of "content" messes up young peoples' expectations about
| the average human body, instills a shallow and superficial
| mindset about relationships, and generally does absolutely
| nothing of value for anyone except the parasite who is
| manipulating ignorant or desperate people using sexuality for
| profit.
| evandale wrote:
| > I have no idea where prudeness comes from, is it innate to
| some people?
|
| This Vsauce video is one of my favorites. It's titled "Why Do
| We Wear Clothes?" and Michael explains why cultures may
| encourage modesty.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4HGfagANiQ
| robbrown451 wrote:
| Probably it comes from the fact that humans are so naturally
| attracted to things sexual in nature, that without controls the
| whole world would look like the seediest red light district you
| can imagine. With everyone competing to be more and more
| extreme to get attention.
| msbarnett wrote:
| citation needed
| smbv wrote:
| > Second, while we have guidelines about sexually suggestive
| content, being found to be sexy by others is not against our
| rules, and Twitch will not take enforcement action against women,
| or anyone on our service, for their perceived attractiveness.
|
| I can't believe that this has to be spelled out.
| sillysaurusx wrote:
| The context here is that one of the most prolific twitch
| streamers recently had her advertising cut with no warning. (They
| still run ads on her stream, but she doesn't get any of the
| proceeds, if I understand it.)
|
| Lots of these streamers have an Onlyfans link in their Twitter
| bio, though, and they make it pretty obvious that you should join
| "to see the good stuff."
| https://twitter.com/amouranth/status/1395192511958851585?s=2...
|
| Someone put it like "she's doing the equivalent of holding a
| finger in front of your face and saying 'not touching you! Not
| touching you!' for a no-touching policy."
| Afforess wrote:
| > _(They still run ads on her stream, but she doesn't get any
| of the proceeds, if I understand it.)_
|
| In what universe is this an acceptable outcome for a TOS
| violation?
| mcherm wrote:
| It wasn't a TOS violation until today's announcement... at
| the time her revenue stream was cut off her content was in
| compliance with the letter (if not the spirit) of twitch's
| published policy.
| notJim wrote:
| I'm not sure why it's relevant that they have OnlyFans links,
| unless Amazon's position is that no one who has an OnlyFans or
| who makes adult content on other platforms is allowed on
| Twitch.
|
| > "she's doing the equivalent of holding a finger in front of
| your face and saying 'not touching you! Not touching you!' for
| a no-touching policy."
|
| In other words, she's in compliance with the policy?
| ad404b8a372f2b9 wrote:
| It's relevant because it makes it clear what their intent is:
| To advertise their porn through twitch, half the audience of
| which is underage. It's the same reason some casual nudity
| subreddits banned people with onlyfans from posting, they
| infiltrate communities with the single purpose of getting
| customers.
| sillysaurusx wrote:
| She's in compliance with the policy. And her channel isn't
| banned -- she's free to stream.
|
| But apparently when she streams, she doesn't earn advertising
| revenue. That's not really a ToS issue; twitch's advertising
| partners get the final say there.
|
| (It seems nuts that they still run ads on her channel at all,
| though. If they're showing ads, it makes no sense that she
| doesn't get a cut.)
| theonlyklas wrote:
| Go outside and touch grass instead of watching these streams or
| caring about them. It's 10x more fulfilling and productive.
| speedgoose wrote:
| Grass usually doesn't make people horny.
| sol_invictus wrote:
| "I don't need your fantasy women!"
|
| - William T. Riker
| cool_dude85 wrote:
| And risk seeing someone in a bikini? No thanks.
| eertami wrote:
| So no changes really, except they've made it a distinct category
| so that people can find this content easily without leaving the
| site and going to something like booba.tv for discovery (nsfw I
| guess, it is curated links to "sexually suggestive" twitch
| streamers).
| mcherm wrote:
| > So no changes really, except they've made it a distinct
| category so that people can find this content easily
|
| Making it a distinct category also means that both advertisers
| and viewers can AVOID the content easily.
| throwkeep wrote:
| Here's the new category:
|
| https://www.twitch.tv/directory/game/Pools%2C%20Hot%20Tubs%2...
| emilfihlman wrote:
| Nobody cares about hottub streamers.
|
| We care about your idiotic double standards and banning of
| streamers.
| thinkingemote wrote:
| The main thing is these are not "hot tubs" they are indoors, in a
| normal room, an apartment, in a kiddies play pool, with kiddies
| inflatable equipment. The water is, additionally, cold and a few
| inches deep. No-one in the world does this type of activity
| privately or in public.
|
| It's so obviously soft core pornography and way away from the
| sensible "appropriate behaviour and clothing rules" that it's
| absurd.
|
| Now there is the debate about sexuality and sex work. This is not
| applicable here. Amazon's Twitch is saying it's not sex work. One
| sure fire thought experiment is that, if it's not porn, would you
| be okay with a 13 yr old (the age limit on twitch) doing it?
|
| To give credit to Amazon's Twitch they are dammned whatever they
| do.
| soared wrote:
| Twitch is certainly aware of your argument because it's true.
| Twitch doesn't think there are actually hot tubs in peoples
| living rooms.
|
| They know it's basically soft core porn. They're definitely not
| going to call it that. But they'll separate it out from the
| rest of their content and let users and advertisers opt out of
| it.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-05-21 23:01 UTC)