this post was submitted on 27 Mar 2024
98 points (84.5% liked)
PC Gaming
8635 readers
286 users here now
For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules:
- Be Respectful.
- No Spam or Porn.
- No Advertising.
- No Memes.
- No Tech Support.
- No questions about buying/building computers.
- No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
- No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
- No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
- Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Twitch: "We're going to pay you to stream."
Also Twitch: "No, not like that, or that, or that, or that, or that..."
It's pretty well established that people go to twitch to watch people stream video games. There's occasionally game dev on it. But you know what it isn't intended for, porn, of any kind. And there's little kids on the platform, so I'd say it's a pretty good move to keep that crap off their.
Saw some of the sexually explicit stuff get suggested to me yesterday that up until now I didn't even know existed...seriously, a girl in a bathingsuit twirking her ass into the camera and asking people for money to keep doing it.
It's not a cam modeling site, it's not a porn site. If that's what you want to see, there are plenty of other platforms out there for that.
Maybe that was true once, but I'm pretty sure the "Just chatting" category is almost always accounting for a massive chunk of viewership. That being said I stopped watching Twitch regularly a long time ago, so IDK for sure.
True, I remember twitch was all for games, until last several times I went I was met with women with large cleavage on the front page.
That's been a thing for a long time. Maybe not on the front page, but there's been plenty of people using cleavage as major part of the appeal of their stream. I don't see any problem with it. If people choose to watch streams for that reason, so be it. Personally, I started using twitch for politics streams/just chatting years ago and then branched into watching video games and occasional art streams.
It’s telling that the two comments disagreeing with you are by one person who doesn’t use twitch and another person who hasn’t used it in years.
Needless to say I think you’re totally right. I don’t want to make it a prude platform but I also think treating it like Only Fans isn’t right either.
I thought it was pretty well established that Twitch was like a softcore OnlyFans that caters to lonely gamers seeking parasocial relationships, but that's just my impression as someone who doesn't pay attention or care about this stuff. The few times I've looked at it the sexualized content was obvious and unavoidable.
How? I'm on twitch basically every day watching my friends stream. I follow a hand full of others and never has it been "obvious" that twitch is softcover OnlyFans.
There's a handful of prominent streamers pushing the softcore meta hard but as a whole I agree with you. The people complaining about the children need to understand it's a private company and they can do whatever they want, if parents don't want their kids seeing that stuff then they should moderate them better instead of trying to push the responsibility of raising their kids onto others.
I hate this response. It is so canned, so dismissive and hand wavy, while also being completely incorrect. It’s the kind of useless argument the right likes to parade around when they want to justify a business being cruel or even acting illegally in some cases.
No, companies cannot do literally whatever they want. There are absolutely rules that govern the types of media that can be in certain spaces. There are different TOS’s for different kinds of access to content, different hurdle
and benchmarks that must be met for certain users to access certain content. Twitch cannot do whatever it wants with impunity.
I think there are a lot of valid arguments on both sides of this debate here, and I am also very much against “think of the children.” But no, again, twitch cannot do whatever it wants here. There are different laws in different countries that they have to consider.
Edit: let’s also not forget that I am within my rights to express my disdain for what a company does, regardless if they have the right to do it or not. And to imply it is somehow immoral or otherwise reflective of our (lack of) intelligence to critique a company is patently absurd.
When I say they can do whatever they want, I mean it in the 'they literally could just follow all those rules and regulations to just allow porn on there if they wanted to' sense. There's nothing stopping them from doing it besides money and the fact they're allowing what they currently do means money is winning.
There's nothing cruel or illegal on what's currently going on with twitch but I get what you're trying to say. I'm just tired of people forcing their views on me because of their kids. Mind you, I don't hate kids.
Why do you reduce it to “forcing their view on you because of their kids”? What’s this based on? How is your advocating for the opposite not you forcing your views on others by your definition? Why is your bar for what is appropriate more correct than anybody else’s?
That's the crux of it.
It's their platform and they can make the rules for what they want (and don't want) on their platform.
If they want it to be a porn-free gaming platform, that's their right.
If they say "you want porn, go to a porn platform", that's their right.
The reasons for those decisions could be many things, and probably are a combination of things. It doesn't have to be "they're just a bunch of nanny state prudes"...
Yep 100 percent agree.
I'm an adult and I don't want to see softcore anything on twitch. That's not what I use twitch for. As for the, you should just watch your kids better argument. Sexualization of anything to children is traumatizing.
That's good to hear, I don't use it. As I said, I've only checked it out a few times and that was not recent. My impression of it is apparently outdated, or doesn't reflect a common experience. The times I looked at it there were half naked women in bathtubs and shit like that.
It's not even just girls in bikinis.
They put a camera underneath a clear chair, or kneel over it, zoomed in on their butt crack and gooch, with a tiny bikini barely obscuring the naughty bits. Perhaps another one focused entirely on their feet, and the third camera, from the front, adjusted in such as way as to clip off the bottom of their clothing at the edge of their bust so they appear topless, and then lick an ear-shaped microphone while a vibrating pad makes them jiggle.
It is as close to porn as you can get. Which, also, they have links in their bio to their "list of social media" - the top one of which is usually actual porn of them..
I'm not saying it's wrong, but it is unsuitable for children and most people would consider it a form of porn or erotica, especially as it's a forward bastion for their actual literal porn.
Yeah, I don't have anything against that kind of stuff, but there's a forum for that stuff. And it's not twitch.
It's hilarious to me when people argue for more censorship, especially when they do the 'everyone should be treated like children' argument. It's just so dumb especially as it's coming from people who'll cry if they ban violent video games or any of the other equally problematic things that they like.
Omg a woman is wearing a bikini, it'll melt children's brains if they see that! They should only be watching murder and crime and delusion political takes from manipulative liars and idiots...
Banning violent video games is government censorship and is a 1st amendment issue.
Banning certain behaviors on their own platform is entirely the perogative of the platform owners.
The two are not alike whatsoever.
Your argument is akin to saying that not allowing strangers to fill your home and smoke crack is "censorship" and is "just so dumb."
Disagreeing with the rule or the underlying reasoning is anyone's right, but disagreeing with a private owner's right to decide who and what is allowed on their property is insincere at best as you would never agree to your own rights being infringed.
You're confused, you muddled your taking points - the 1st amendment applies to the us governments but the word censorship has no relation to that
So no I'm not talking about the first ammendment at all I'm talking about whiney babies crying that twitch doesn't censor things they don't like and if the topic is twitch banning content then I'm entirely accurate in doing so
Please try to focus and think through what you're saying in future
You made it a 1st amendment topic by comparing private platform censorship to banning violent video games, which would be a government action that eventually gets a lawsuit seen before the supreme court.
I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I make it a point not argue with people who resort to name calling and shaming others - these people aren't here to debate facts or allow their opinions to be changed.
I'm providing a counterpoint to your erroneous logic for other people to see and choose for themselves.
I'm very clearly talking about banning them on twitch, you really need to follow along. I never mentioned governments once.
You think it's OK for twitch to show gta6 to children as long as they don't go in the strip club? A lot of people would argue that murder, drug dealing, theft, and all the other crime and immorality is actually worse. You might end up with a platform that only allows Nintendo's most family-friendly shit.
I think it's ok for the owners of a privately owned platform to make decisions for that platform. If they want to exclusively show nudity, GTA6, or drying paint, I'm all for their autonomy.
Your autonomy allows you to utilize their platform or not based on their choices. If the absence of a focus on the groin, butt, and breasts on a green screen offends your values, I would suggest not visiting Twitch.
To bring it back your original comment, enjoying a platform's decision to desexualize content while also being opposed to a government ban on violent video games is perfectly reasonable. The two scenarios are entirely different in scope and and context.
So you've totally changed your tone, why would you have commented what you did instead of saying 'valid opion, I'm sure they'll choose to do whatever they want based on public sentiment so you expressing your opion is a totally normal and acceptable thing to do'?
You seem to want only people who agree with you to express their opinion, I'm not shocked of course that's how censorship lovers slways think.
The first paragraph of this is brilliant projection.
You've also made up a lot of weird lies and confusion simply to get around the fact that your assertion that only governments can do censorship is wrong and all this to defend a totally meaningless point because my argument is still 100% as valid if we use a more cumbersome word or phrase instead of censorship.
Seriously read your own comment history and work on your issues.
Oh and anyone interested in how deceptive he's being in this rant, his statement about me being into conspiracies is from a post talking about knowledge fight and the absurdity of conspiracy theories. This is not someone that even understands the concept of arguing in good faith.
Censorship is something the government does, and I have a problem with that. What a private business allows and does not allow is not censorship.
As for, it'll melt children's brains crap. I happen to be a very fucked up person from sexualization as a child. I can tell you first hand, that being exposed to sex as a little kid is not something you want.
Now, when the government starts doing shit in the name of 'protecting the children', you know that's not the reason, and that's much more dangerous.
I think you're getting the two confused.
No you're confused, go read the Wikipedia article or a dictionary, you're making the same mistake as the other guy trying to shoe horn in the '1stA only applies to government' talking point where it doesn't fit
If I'm mistaken, you should provide a source for that not just tell me to go read a dictionary. But, I'm not.
It's pretty well established case law that private companies are more or less free to enforce their own platform rules as long as it doesn't discriminate.
Yeah that is the law, it has nothing to do with anything I said. I am very aware the first amendment doesn't apply to private companies and it certainly doesn't here because my country doesn't even have a constitution let alone amendments to it.
I was talking about people asking a private company for more censorship - if you read the Wikipedia article you'll see in the first paragraph it explains your misconception that censorship is only something governments can do. Private companies can and do do it, I think it's silly when people ask twitch to increase censorship because you'll all be crying when people can't stream gta6 because society got so slap happy on the censorship that murder, drug taking and crime got caught up in your crusade against seeing the human body.
I don't think you understand what the definition of censorship is. In either case, I'm not gonna keep arguing with you bcz its not really a fruitful discussion for either of us.
I believe they've completely lost the plot. They invoked the word "Wikipedia" as a cited source, they were unable to follow any point being made, but their comment in a different thread from a couple hours ago actually helped me start to understand what's going on:
They started calling everyone a misogynist for no obvious reason. They were unable to communicate their thoughts in a meaningful way or interpret information presented to them.
Further, 17 hours ago, on a post that was clearly pro-piracy and not AI related at all, they commented, "AntiAI bros raging at this." There's zero relationship to the post.
I'm seeing a trend where they have their own opinions (censorship is always bad, misogyny is bad, AI is good) and then decide to share those opinions with tangential or no connection to that which they're replying. They're also fond of personal attacks and several common argument fallacies. Their comment history reads like a tribute to /r/im13andthisisdeep.
I hope it's merely age and maturity-related and not something more permanent.
I used Wikipedia and the dictionary as a source for the established usage of a word, a totally reasonable usage of the resources.
Yes in another thread entirely I made an observation that a joke is misogynistic and got upvoted by people who agree. I also made a joke that people saying ai learning from images it viewed is theft from artists would be angry at the statement made in post that piracy is not they because the original owner doesn't get deprived of the original - none of this had anything to do with the topic at hand.
Your effort to dismiss my options with (incorrect) semantics and now whatever this weird display is make it very clear you're simply against the conclusion I come to but are incapable of coming up with am actual argument against them, very typical emotional response tbh but digging into my comment history is a bit of an obsessive act and hints to me that you're not seeking truth especially as you refuse to spend less effort reading the first paragraph of a Wikipedia article and learning your already meaningless argument on word definition is wrong.
But again pro censorship person tries to use methods to silence someone or divert from their original point rather than address the actual argument is par for the course.
There shouldn't be kids as a lot of the games aren't suitable such as gta, etc
If they must have kids on the site they should be restricted to only viewing suitable content.
The rest of us shouldn't have to be restricted to kids stuff
There's a tag for 18+ streams. But it's about violence, etc. not nudity.
I'm not often on twitch anymore, but the last time one of my suggested channels was a girl in a bikini lying down on a massage table gaming, with the feed split screen with a camera on her oiled ass.
I mean technically she was gaming but that was a level of blatant I couldn't even.
If their model was simply, "were going to pay you to stream," then it would instantly be another egirl cam site which is not inherently right or wrong.
They don't want that. It's their platform, their server space, and their rules. Similar to who you allow in your home and what you allow them to do, they decide who and what if allowed on their platform.
The "why" doesn't even matter. Maybe it's run by a far right Christian. Maybe they don't want the liability. Maybe they have a vision for what their platform is and isn't. It doesn't matter. It's their property and they decide what's allowed.
I think a lot of people are under the false impression that when a private entity becomes ubiquitous enough it somehow magically becomes a public service, because I keep seeing them spout first amendment claims whenever someone gets banned or demonetized off youtube ...