[HN Gopher] Twitch U-turns on 'artistic nudity' policy
___________________________________________________________________
Twitch U-turns on 'artistic nudity' policy
Author : edward
Score : 28 points
Date : 2023-12-19 21:41 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bbc.co.uk)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bbc.co.uk)
| jimmaswell wrote:
| Happened the instant male streamers/subjects were involved.
| Typical double standard.
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| The article says the main issue had nothing to do with any
| prurient concerns, it was more about art communities getting
| spammed due to allowing "drawings" of nudity which were
| indistinguishable from photos:
|
| > Digital depictions of nudity present a unique challenge -
| artificial intelligence can be used to create realistic images,
| and it can be hard to distinguish between digital art and
| photography
|
| > The decision came after an outpouring of concern online from
| Twitch's art community about the volume of AI-generated nudes
| which began to bombard Twitch's art category since the policy
| change.
| SeanAnderson wrote:
| The person you're responding to has an element of fairness in
| the point they're making, though.
|
| Straight from Twitch:
|
| > Much content that was previously prohibited is now allowed
| with proper Content Classification labels: Content that
| 'deliberately highlighted breasts, buttocks or pelvic
| region,' even when fully clothed, fictionalized (drawn,
| animated, or sculpted) fully exposed female-presenting
| breasts and/or genitals or buttocks regardless of gender,
| body writing on female-presenting breasts and/or buttocks
| regardless of gender and erotic dances that involve disrobing
| or disrobing gestures, such as strip teases.
|
| "female-presenting breasts and/or genitals" were acceptable
| forms of artistic nudity, but male-presenting genitals were
| not.
| unpopularopp wrote:
| And now we have this instead
|
| NSFW
| https://old.reddit.com/r/LivestreamFail/comments/18lvnez/new...
|
| The whole thing is just embarrassing. OF girls and pornstars
| using the site as a softcore promo. Amazon of course won't do
| anything (like spinning up a proper porn site) casue literally
| this grey area is the best market. No content filter (kids can
| watch it) and advertisers don't leave (it's not porn)
| ronsor wrote:
| > New meta
|
| I'm sorry, what? The old meta is only ~3 days old, isn't it?
| whalesalad wrote:
| The OG twitch was justin.tv, a live streaming service. It began
| with literally streaming every aspect of your personal life. It
| eventually transitioned into game streaming, but it was
| originally for anyone who wanted to stream.
|
| I don't really understand why anyone cares what is streamed
| there. I believe in the idea that anything should be possible,
| and allow the commons/people to dictate whether they like it or
| not. If people want to see a naked chick sitting in a gaming
| chair giggling why stop them? Who cares?
| eropple wrote:
| I care, because I don't want to see it when I'm looking to
| watch a video game stream--there are places for porn. And
| "well we'll just have opt-in categories" sounds great, except
| that these categories are thin and (on Twitch especially) not
| composable; as the purveyors are looking for more clicks, it
| means trying to rules-lawyer the categories to get in front
| of eyeballs who are _not_ looking for mature content, because
| maybe they 'll catch more who are.
|
| If their categorization was perfect--sure, go nuts. It's not
| and it won't be, so it makes for a worse site for me.
| whalesalad wrote:
| Yeah so it could be handled like virtually every other site
| on the earth (ie, google, reddit) where you can check a box
| in your account to show/hide NSFW content. Easy peasy.
| haunter wrote:
| >I don't really understand why anyone cares what is streamed
| there.
|
| >Who cares?
|
| Just like why people _do care_ what's posted on HN?
|
| Why do we have guidelines and rules?
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
|
| Maybe we should post some porn here too, I don't really
| understand why anyone cares what posted here am I rite?
| whalesalad wrote:
| Terrible stuff gets posted here all the time and the
| community flags/moderates it.
| sneak wrote:
| Advertisers care, and large conglomerates care about PR
| backlash, because invariably if you let 18/19yo stream boobs
| (legal and extremely popular) then 17.9yo will also do it and
| suddenly you're trafficking in child pornography and a threat
| to the very fabric of society.
| whalesalad wrote:
| Advertisers want eyeballs. You're not trafficking child
| porn if an underage kid happens to see your ad alongside a
| stream of a naked woman. Give me a break.
| insanitybit wrote:
| It's more that credit card providers care, for some weird
| reason, and therefor everyone cares.
| elephanlemon wrote:
| Twitch has already been morphing into Chaturbate and the change
| last week doubled down there. I don't think a website with a
| large audience of children should have been brushing up against
| pornography. I don't even know what was going on with the AI art
| stuff, but there were numerous streams where females appeared
| topless, stopping just short of visible nipples.
| ipaddr wrote:
| The human body is something to be ashamed of.
| voidfunc wrote:
| Meh if you're old enough to be online by yourself you're old
| enough to see some titties.
|
| The puritan approach to sex in America is ridiculous.
| haunter wrote:
| Or maybe not every site should be about porn?
|
| Why don't we post here on HN then too?
| lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote:
| > Why don't we post here on HN then too?
|
| Twitch's audience wants it and HN's audience doesn't.
| Perhaps more accurately, HN specifically doesn't want that.
| malfist wrote:
| HN isn't an image or video sharing site?
| haunter wrote:
| >HN isn't an image or video sharing site?
|
| Not with that attitude
| pierat wrote:
| And somehow, seeing Palestineans' parts of bodies on the
| front page of CNN is fine.
|
| It's the puritanical idiocracy of "woman body bad, death and
| dismemberment good".
|
| (I don't mind seeing topless people. Indifferent really. But
| seeing people blown up is akin to a snuff film. And this
| world needs less violence.)
| peyton wrote:
| I mean, I dunno, the Puritans were upset at tolerance. It's
| not really puritanical if Amazon doesn't want to run an
| internet brothel. Besides, any time you let new content on
| a social site you risk getting flooded and people leaving.
| Retr0id wrote:
| Old enough to _see_ titties perhaps, but not to parasocially
| live-chat about them, or send cash tips.
| kgwxd wrote:
| Are there a lot of kids on there? My oldest never watched it
| once and my youngest only knows it as the place we can feed
| cats treats with channel points while old people talk about old
| video games.
| blueblimp wrote:
| I don't know what Twitch's goals are here, but if they want to
| get rid of the right-up-against-the-line content, then maybe
| clear, consistently-enforced rules are actually detrimental,
| because it just invites rules lawyering like we see here. If
| Twitch staff just went around arbitrarily banning anything they
| don't like, the affected streamers would hate it (because they
| wouldn't know what they can get away with), which, if you want to
| drive them off the platform, is a good thing.
| insanitybit wrote:
| Users get _really_ bothered by arbitrary banning, irrationally
| so I think. I 've been on sites with moderators who could
| basically just enforce the rules as they liked and it's so much
| better. No "well _technically_ I 'm not rule breaking" - a
| human makes a judgment and bans them.
|
| For some reason these "professional" Websites (ie: the modern
| web of company-run forums) seem to resist this idea, and
| unfortunately it's hard to do it later in the game because the
| userbases can be very easily riled up.
| pyrophane wrote:
| They really didn't think that through! "Artistic nudity?" They
| thought defining and enforcing rules around what constitutes
| "art" in the context of nudity was a good plan? Even without AI
| (which seems to be the in vogue thing to blame for everything
| that doesn't go well) this was a horrible idea.
| makomk wrote:
| As far as I could tell, the new artistic nudity policy never
| existed in practice and Twitch doesn't seem to have been serious
| about it. Basically _everyone_ who drew art with genitals or
| female nipples got their account suspended aside from one or two
| exceptions that seem to have slipped through the cracks. This
| wasn 't just limited to AI art or anything even vaguely
| photorealistic either, and it included Twitch partners whose bans
| are supposedly are handled in house. Also, whilst the Twitch CEO
| did say that some people had been accidentally banned who were
| following the rules, Twitch conspicously didn't unban any of them
| until comfortably after the U-turn. There was also nothing
| stopping the full, uncensored thumbnails showing up on the Art
| category page, including for users whose accounts were marked as
| under-18.
| happytiger wrote:
| Why don't they just add a filter that is off by default and
| requires opting in and age verification? Is it purely legal
| liability and brand perception here, because the technical
| hurdles are fairly trivial.
| SeanAnderson wrote:
| Credit card processing is split between normal and high risk
| merchant accounts.
|
| Major CC companies tend to be significantly less interested in
| dealing with high risk accounts.
|
| If Twitch introduces content segregation then they're making it
| explicitly clear that they consider an aspect of their business
| higher risk. They don't want that.
| mise_en_place wrote:
| What's always been strange to me is that these kinds of streamers
| are not judged as harshly as real sex workers. On the status
| hierarchy, they seem to be close to the top.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-12-19 23:01 UTC)