'This is definitely my last TwitchCon': High-profile streamer Emiru was assaulted at the event, even as streamers have been sounding the alarm about stalkers and harassment
Wow. The fact this happened at all is just... Wow. Saying "Twitch dropped the ball" feels like an understatement. Her statement on Twitter recounts the whole thing and is pretty damning. I copied...
Wow. The fact this happened at all is just... Wow. Saying "Twitch dropped the ball" feels like an understatement. Her statement on Twitter recounts the whole thing and is pretty damning. I copied and pasted it here:
Yesterday, the man who assaulted me was allowed to cross multiple barriers at twitchcon and even in front of another creators meet and greet to grab me and my face and try to kiss me. Fortunately he wasn't able to, but a lot of people have pointed out it could have been a lot worse!
I'm obviously shaken up by what happened and it's not the first time I've dealt with something like this, but to tell you honestly, I am a lot more hurt and upset by how Twitch handled it during and after the fact.
Like I said, I don't understand how he was allowed to make it to me in the first place. The security in the clip who reacts is my own security (it's true my favorite and usual security guard was banned for holding a stalkers arm to bring him to police, at a past Twitchcon)
However, there were at least 3 or 4 other Twitchcon security staff in the area who did not react and let the guy walk away, as you can see in the clip since they don't even appear in the frame LOL
The woman who is walking me away is my own personal manager, and behind the booth, the only two people who were checking on me and comforting me were her and my friend. None of the Twitchcon staff came to ask what happened or if I was okay.
My friend who was present told me Twitch security were also behind the booth afterwards joking about how they didn't even see what happened and immediately laughing and moving on to talking about something else.
So if no one was checking if I was okay or if I needed anything and they let the guy run away initially, I have no idea what anyone hired to keep the event safe was doing LOL
In Twitch's statement they said that the guy was immediately caught and detained, I'm sorry but that is a blatant lie. He was allowed to walk away from my meet and greet and I didn't hear he was caught until hours after he attacked me, and it felt like this only happened because of my manager pressing for it, not because Twitchcon staff present thought it was a big deal.
I have a lot more I want to say but I will say it on stream later today instead of writing a book on here.
Thank you guys again, sorry you all had to see that. This is definitely my last Twitchcon, and it saddens me to say as a 10 year off and on attendee of Twitchcon, I think other creators should seriously consider not attending in the future. I did not feel cared for or protected, even bringing my own security and staff. I can't imagine how creators without those options would feel.
Stay safe y'all, everything is going to be okay
So to reiterate: Twitch not only has abhorrent security who did nothing, but they banned her guard for forcefully escorting someone. I'm guessing that was for liability reasons if the stalker tried to sue Twitch or something if he was too rough (similar to why retail workers are discouraged from confronting shoplifters), but I think escorting a stalker to proper authorities is a reasonable enough "risk" to hold up in court if it ever got that far.
If it wasn't for the bit about Twitch's security reportedly making jokes about the incident afterwards, I'd wonder if Twitch enforced a "hands off" policy for its security to avoid liability. But instead, it seems the official security is just lazy and incompetent.
This seriously should not have happened. As she said, it could have been much worse. He could have strangled her, pushed her down, stabbed her with a pen, done his best to kill her with his bare hands before security intervened... And if she didn't have her own security, the injuries would have been even worse by the time Twitch's security intervened. This is all under the assumption Twitchcon has metal detectors to keep out metal weapons, which would be even more lethal. But given this assault happened, I question how closely the security would check people's belongings so long as the metal detector doesn't go off...
I believe it was the venue that banned her security guard, not Twitch itself. It’s a tough situation IMO, there’s a lot of legal gray area. Without actually going through a judge and jury and...
I believe it was the venue that banned her security guard, not Twitch itself. It’s a tough situation IMO, there’s a lot of legal gray area. Without actually going through a judge and jury and lawyers, whether or not it’s OK for a private citizen to restrain another private citizen is very much up in the air in that situation. I can see why the venue would just want no part in it.
Obligatory I am not a lawyer, but I’m pretty sure that assualt and battery law is clear here in the U.S. (although each state has its own nuances). In general, one can use reasonable force to...
Obligatory I am not a lawyer, but I’m pretty sure that assualt and battery law is clear here in the U.S. (although each state has its own nuances). In general, one can use reasonable force to protect themselves or someone else from imminent harm. Here, reasonable meaning equal or lesser force that the attacker is using, or force to the extent necessary to protect (I think, and I forget which one takes precedence).
I’m less sure about what the precendents and laws are for restraining someone else for a long period of time, but I am fairly confident those precedents have been clearly established for quite some time.
Right, so the body guard was using excessive force, no? The stalker was just standing around at the time. This is not the situation in the video, which is clearly assault and battery, but a...
Here, reasonable meaning equal or lesser force that the attacker is using, or force to the extent necessary to protect
Right, so the body guard was using excessive force, no? The stalker was just standing around at the time.
This is not the situation in the video, which is clearly assault and battery, but a previous a case. A known stalker was loitering around her. While I think the "known stalker" part makes her discomfort understandable, legally whether or not her bodyguard, who isn't law enforcement, can restrain and move him just for standing is another question.
Said stalker could probably argue that the bodyguard was, legally speaking, kidnapping him.
It'd be a uphill battle to argue that being physically escorted from hanging around the person you're a known stalker of is kidnapping, especially when your alleged kidnapper is taking you...
It'd be a uphill battle to argue that being physically escorted from hanging around the person you're a known stalker of is kidnapping, especially when your alleged kidnapper is taking you straight to the cops.
It's more of an exaggeration, but it fits the definition In this case, the reality is most of the definitions are made outside of the law. The stalker was not tried and convicted as a stalker....
It's more of an exaggeration, but it fits the definition
Kidnapping is a crime at common law consisting of an unlawful restraint of a person's liberty by force or show of force. Under modern law, this crime usually only requires that the victim be taken to another location or concealed, but historical definitions required bringing the victim to another state or country.
In this case, the reality is most of the definitions are made outside of the law. The stalker was not tried and convicted as a stalker. Emiru did not obtain a restraining order against him. They are a stalker in common understanding, but that's not their legal status.
In the eyes of the law, there are two private citizens, who were both allowed to be in a space by the hosts of the space. One of those private citizens restrained the other against their will, and brought them to another area.
In practical terms, fairly unlikely a prosecutor would take that case up. But nonetheless, a venue wanting no part in this is fair imo. Private security needs to know the bounds of what they can and cannot do.
I see. I didn’t understand that it was a different incident. My best understanding is if the stalker sued, the bodyguard would have a legal defense if Emiru could show that she was legally...
This is not the situation in the video, which is clearly assault and battery, but a previous a case. A known stalker was loitering around her.
I see. I didn’t understand that it was a different incident.
My best understanding is if the stalker sued, the bodyguard would have a legal defense if Emiru could show that she was legally assaulted: in CA, this would require a visible attempt to touch or harm her. (In other states, I believe you only need to reasonably fear being harmed for it to be assault.)
I don’t think a stalker just “standing” would constitute an attempt to touch or harm, so I’d agree that the bodyguard would have a hard time making a legal defense.
I don't know if it was the venue or Twitch, but I figured the ban was due to the murkiness around the potential legal liability. Even if it wasn't a harmful hold, touching someone outside...
I don't know if it was the venue or Twitch, but I figured the ban was due to the murkiness around the potential legal liability. Even if it wasn't a harmful hold, touching someone outside clear-cut self defense situations (e.g. the person is clearly about to commit assault) can open liability and room for accusations. I would have thought that security, even private security, would have some leeway in that regard though, but since he wasn't hired by the venue or Twitchcon that does muddy things.
Still, the fact they permanently banned her guard for holding a stalker in place until authorities arrived to handle it properly, combined with this incident, really doesn't paint a good picture of Twitch's security practices. I don't think the bit about her guard being banned would bother me as much if this incident didn't prove how ineffective Twitch's security is and that private security is a necessity for people to be safe there. Banning him for doing his job, even if for understandable reasons, feels like they're endangering her and other streamers given their own guards do nothing.
...Though now I'm picturing security guards forming a ring around a stalker with hands interlocked to trap them in place without touching them. Pretty sure that would still fall under "unlawful detention" or something similar, but it's a funny mental image at least that would also be pretty effective.
Again, it was the venue that banned him. Twitch should have better security, no doubt, but the venue DGAF about who or what was doing what while someone is renting their space, they just don't...
Still, the fact they permanently banned her guard for holding a stalker in place until authorities arrived to handle it properly, combined with this incident, really doesn't paint a good picture of Twitch's security practices.
Again, it was the venue that banned him. Twitch should have better security, no doubt, but the venue DGAF about who or what was doing what while someone is renting their space, they just don't want people to do illegal things on their premise.
The original sin is that Twitch should a) more proactively ban people who are known issues, perhaps by asking the guests for blacklists, so that their presence is illegal b) hire their own private security and train them on what they can and cannot do.
Still, the fact they permanently banned her guard for holding a stalker in place until authorities arrived to handle it properly,
I mean, I can't imagine the authorities did anything either. Being somewhere isn't illegal. Core to this is that there is a mismatch between "things that are not OK socially" and "things that are illegal". Stalking can be illegal, if tried in a court of law, and restraining orders can be obtained to enforce them, but those are things that have to happen first. "Creepy guy is standing near you", a priori, is not an offense.
The bounds of private security is that you can't be proactive like that. You can call the police, you can stand and look intimidating, you can block people by standing in their way, you can retaliate if someone is attacking your client with equal or lesser force. But that's it.
I do get why they banned him, whether it was Twitch or the venue. Stalking is unfortunately very hard to prosecute or address with legal action unless the stalker actually does something because,...
I do get why they banned him, whether it was Twitch or the venue. Stalking is unfortunately very hard to prosecute or address with legal action unless the stalker actually does something because, as you said, just being in the same area isn't illegal.
While police and security couldn't arrest the stalker, they would still have the power to eject him from the premises, which I assume was the goal of keeping him in place. Her guard didn't have the power to eject him, and it sounds like he wanted to ensure the stalker didn't sneak away while waiting for someone who did to arrive. Touching him to physically restrain him was a step over the line though, so again, I get why they banned him.
It's just that incident, in conjunction with the recent assault, paints a bad image of Twitch's overall security practices. Whether the ban was issued by Twitch or the venue, the fact remains that the security they provide isn't sufficient. Justified as the ban was, it just serves to further highlight gaps in Twitch's security and make their inaction look even worse.
On one hand, you have a private guard banned for being too proactive by physically detaining someone. On the other hand, you have officially sanctioned guards who literally did nothing when a streamer was assaulted. When it comes to matters of physical safety, the proactive approach is the one people would prefer even if it's legally wrong.
To emphasize, I'm not saying banning the guard was wrong. But the dichotomy is striking, so it's no wonder people are latching onto it.
So I'm not security nor a lawyer but it's pretty obvious this all comes down to money. If the Twitch/venue had competent security the bodyguard could've just handed the stalker to them and stayed...
So I'm not security nor a lawyer but it's pretty obvious this all comes down to money. If the Twitch/venue had competent security the bodyguard could've just handed the stalker to them and stayed on task which is protection.
I'm pretty certain there are lots of professionals who can produce sufficient guides to keep everyone safe, both the casual audience and the celebrities. It's probably just cheaper to gamble on liabilities and people while pointing fingers than pay upfront for security etc.
The banning of her personal security staff of choice FOR DOING THEIR DAMN JOB is just inexcusable. Ugh. I already have sworn off paying for anything twitch for a while but this is just next level...
The banning of her personal security staff of choice FOR DOING THEIR DAMN JOB is just inexcusable. Ugh. I already have sworn off paying for anything twitch for a while but this is just next level disgusting. I don't even understand the motivation - it's not profit (she pays the security), it's not reputation (obviously lol). I guess it's just catering to the lowest common denominator of their viewers to 'maximize engagement' to the detriment of the long term community and product like every other fucking social media company. UGH.
Just because they’re doing their job doesn’t mean it’s legal, or hitmen would be legal. The case where her bodyguard got banned was a situation where a known stalker was, well, stalking her. But...
Just because they’re doing their job doesn’t mean it’s legal, or hitmen would be legal. The case where her bodyguard got banned was a situation where a known stalker was, well, stalking her. But without physically or verbally encroaching.
In that situation, your legal opportunities are a) to contact the venue, since it’s a private space, so the venue can eject the person and escalate to the police if necessary or b) to get a court issued restraining order and contact the police to enforce it.
The bodyguard grabbing the guy and dragging him away is not one of those.
This is a very complicated piece of law to navigate. As private security, you really have to be like a basketball defender - stand in the way, but you can’t initiate.
I'm not going to get into the vagaries of the past event - I don't have the facts and frankly I'm more inclined to believe the person who hired said security person (Emiru, linked above) than you...
Exemplary
I'm not going to get into the vagaries of the past event - I don't have the facts and frankly I'm more inclined to believe the person who hired said security person (Emiru, linked above) than you with no source provided otherwise.
To focus on the law itself, there absolutely is not a crime of kidnapping happening here. The crime of kidnapping, to be enforceable, must involve unreasonable restriction over a long period of time. Holding a person in the event of a dispute that could have escalated into harm (as a stalker would) would never get past a prosecutor, never mind a judge. The civil tort is false imprisonment, which again would require there to be real harm done. Based on the facts you describe the harm done would be... Perhaps missing his bus? Again, it'd be laughed out of court.
You are indeed correct that ultimately a private event held at a venue owned by a private establishment is within it's rights to ban a security member for what it unilaterally believes to be inappropriate conduct. You're way off base in saying it was at all justified even if the guy was 'only' stalking her. Escorting individuals off the premises is a routine part of security details at concerts, bars, museums, malls, etc. In an event where a celebrity hires their own private security, a competent organization would be happy to coordinate venue security protocol with the private security to remove disruptive individuals like a known stalker, instead of actively working against their own damn talent.
The key difference is that they work for the host of the event, and therefore implicitly the hosts invests in them the power of a private property to kick people out. In this case, the private...
Escorting individuals off the premises is a routine part of security details at concerts, bars, museums, malls, etc.
The key difference is that they work for the host of the event, and therefore implicitly the hosts invests in them the power of a private property to kick people out.
In this case, the private security has no association whatsoever with the event itself. There is no difference between them and anyone else in the event. This is just a private citizen who is assaulting another private citizen on premises.
In an event where a celebrity hires their own private security, a competent organization would be happy to coordinate venue security protocol with the private security to remove disruptive individuals like a known stalker, instead of actively working against their own damn talent.
Who is working against who? Twitch runs the event, and its security, and Twitch was not the one who banned the security guard.
This is an area where I know a bit about the industry through friends who work in it and around famous people. There is 0 chance Twitch pushed back. This is almost certainly some "well it was our...
Who is working against who? Twitch runs the event, and its security, and Twitch was not the one who banned the security guard.
This is an area where I know a bit about the industry through friends who work in it and around famous people.
There is 0 chance Twitch pushed back. This is almost certainly some "well it was our policy" from the venue, which in any professional manner would have been followed up with the event runner contacting the venue, discussing the situation, and getting it resolved.
There is NO WAY a venue dug their heels in on this one security guard doing something well within reasonable in an attempt to protect their client. The fact Twitch security, venue security, and the streamers private security aren't already in lock step is a MASSIVE red flag in how they run their events and total amateur hour.
As Aerrol already said this is something that is dealt with all the time for all sorts of celebrities and there are extremely well established guidelines. The only difference is that serious celebrities with established security details would've straight up said "fuck you we're not going until you get your shit together" long before the event.
Twitch is amateur hour incarnate in so many areas and this is yet another. There's industry standards for protecting talent that are extremely likely to attract dangerous attention and they aren't even doing the bare minimum, let alone handling this right. The "oops its the venue, oh well" excuse is just not how this works in any real world as the venue has very very very limited bargaining power to begin with, and, if its a venue that's ever hosted anything serious before has dealt with this exact situation about 1000x.
The only way this makes any sense is if the stalker was a saudi prince or some other level of "serious money" and i'm guessing that's not remotely the case.
It's a miracle someone hasn't already been hurt given there's all sorts of issues with these business models and it's very very clear to anyone who's been around the convention business that what twitch is doing isn't even close to professional.
Unlawful Restraint would probably be the charge, if one were to be issued in that kind of situation. At least in Illinois. (From the ILCS) But ymmv on the law elsewhere. And I agree probably...
Unlawful Restraint would probably be the charge, if one were to be issued in that kind of situation. At least in Illinois.
A person commits the offense of unlawful restraint when he or she knowingly without legal authority detains another.
(From the ILCS)
But ymmv on the law elsewhere. And I agree probably wouldn't be charged if there's sufficient evidence regarding the stalker and that whole situation, but might not be worth fighting depending on the plea deal
I just want to be clear that my only real participation here is in noting that there is a lesser charge than kidnapping that fits the described behavior if such a thing were charged. And it's...
I just want to be clear that my only real participation here is in noting that there is a lesser charge than kidnapping that fits the described behavior if such a thing were charged. And it's something I've seen charged quite a bit albeit in different contexts
Your situation seems like it was much better all around though
I do blame the convention for not coordinating their security with a VIP's security and agree that I wouldn't expect personal security to face charges in the normal course of affairs. For a number...
I do blame the convention for not coordinating their security with a VIP's security and agree that I wouldn't expect personal security to face charges in the normal course of affairs. For a number of reasons including those you described. Just that there was something between kidnapping and the nearest civil tort.
I'm glad that the Dropout crew were good people IRL too (I'm going to imagine Erika Ishii was one of them given their recent headlining of a game and my being a fan girl of his.).
The streamer having to hire a personal bodyguard is a direct consequence of Twitch's failure to enforce any sort of boundaries and security. They get the venue, they should be able to ban people...
The streamer having to hire a personal bodyguard is a direct consequence of Twitch's failure to enforce any sort of boundaries and security. They get the venue, they should be able to ban people from it for the duration of the con, and keep that banlist up for future cons, so that those people do not get to enter again.
I get that being private security is a thin rope to follow, but the only reason she had to resort to it was because Twitch didn't give a fuck, and then also banned her security, directly exposing her to danger likely because their legal department got afraid of a lawsuit. This is exactly the sort of corporate process I detest, where decisions get made so far removed from the actual humans on the ground that the only thing the people making those decisions see are profit graphs, and they decided that it's cheaper to throw streamers into the meatgrinder, because new innocent fresh faces with a dream will always be pouring in.
I’m not saying Twitch is faultless, I’m saying it’s understandable why the venue banned her old bodyguard, considering by some argument he committed illegal kidnapping on their premises. Twitch...
I’m not saying Twitch is faultless, I’m saying it’s understandable why the venue banned her old bodyguard, considering by some argument he committed illegal kidnapping on their premises. Twitch doesn’t have say in that one.
Twitch should probably provide security of their own, and be more proactive in banning known bad actors from various Twitch streamer fanbases. But the detail about “oh Twitch banned her old bodyguard for doing his job!” is silly.
Sure they do. Let the billion dollar company argue in court if a stalker wants to try to skirt the rules of stalking. I bet you they go to small claims for much more frivolous stuff. It's only...
Twitch doesn’t have say in that one.
Sure they do. Let the billion dollar company argue in court if a stalker wants to try to skirt the rules of stalking. I bet you they go to small claims for much more frivolous stuff.
But the detail about “oh Twitch banned her old bodyguard for doing his job!” is silly.
It's only silly if safety isn't a priority for your venue over minimizing liability. This PR event here will cost them more money than any lawsuit being aggressive with aggressive people. This is something of an art lost as Amazon dehumanizes the idea of labor.
Billion dollar or not, it doesn't matter - the people who own the venue get to decide who can and cannot be in the venue. I can ban people from my house, and Amazon has no recourse. That's private...
Billion dollar or not, it doesn't matter - the people who own the venue get to decide who can and cannot be in the venue. I can ban people from my house, and Amazon has no recourse. That's private property laws. Amazon cannot sue the venue to get them to unban someone. What would they even sue for?
you they go to small claims for much more frivolous stuff.
That's civil, not criminal cases.
It's only silly if safety isn't a priority for your venue over minimizing liability.
It's silly if you care about the truth, because it's incorrect. Twitch didn't ban him, the owners of the space the convention was at banned him. They banned him because he went well above what a private citizen can do to another private citizen, and that's their right as the property owner. To the venue, this is someone who doesn't know what they can and cannot do. The bounds of private security is that you can't be proactive like that. You can call the police, you can stand and look intimidating, you can block people by standing in their way, you can retaliate if someone is attacking your client with equal or lesser force. But that's it.
Twitch should do more on the security front if they want to invest guests to host panels. But that incident is entirely separate from that.
And they are responsible for people harmed in their venue, especially during a public ebent. For a lawsuit, youd sue ahy and every party involved so it'd be up to the coirts to determine who's...
the people who own the venue get to decide who can and cannot be in the venue.
And they are responsible for people harmed in their venue, especially during a public ebent. For a lawsuit, youd sue ahy and every party involved so it'd be up to the coirts to determine who's liable. IANAL so I won't assume who's truly involved.
Still, there's a possibility Amazon presses the charges instead to get ahead of being sued. It's not really a black and white problem of who has how much blame.
's silly if you care about the truth, because it's incorrect
Let's just say I'm tired of my government only acting when it's too late. Putting out fires instead of preventing them in the first place
This was easily predictable from past events and incidents and the resulting lawsuits will inevitably cost more than simply banning such instigators to begin wit. What's "correct" isn't always "right", as much of history to women have shown.
But that incident is entirely separate from that.
Only if your job is to deflect liability and not prevent future incident. Again, a very endemic mentality of my entire country. Let's just keep waiting for the fires to burn instead of taking preventative measures.
Exactly, which is why they banned the only person who actually broke a law in that situation: the bodyguard. The venue doesn't care about the context of who is doing what; all kinds of weirdos...
And they are responsible for people harmed in their venue
Exactly, which is why they banned the only person who actually broke a law in that situation: the bodyguard.
The venue doesn't care about the context of who is doing what; all kinds of weirdos rent out the space. Break law = get banned.
Let's just say I'm tired of my government only acting when it's too late. Putting out fires instead of preventing them in the first place
What does that have to do with anything? Whether or not the venue bans one private security guy has no bearing on being proactive or reactive.
Yes, Twitch should be proactive, and in particular they should do a more thorough blacklist and hire better security, since the security there didn't intervene physically when they had enough time to do so. Note that allowing private security to do whatever they want is not part of that list.
The part you say And that's what missing in modern society: care. The venue doesn't care until they get sued, Amazon doesn't care until there's a PR disaster to respond to. The security detail...
Exemplary
What does that have to do with anything?
The part you say
The venue doesn't care about the context of who is doing what
And that's what missing in modern society: care. The venue doesn't care until they get sued, Amazon doesn't care until there's a PR disaster to respond to. The security detail didn't care until it was too late and damage was done.
We clearly abandoned "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure” quite a while ago. It's all reactionary now with bread crumbs we pretend is prevention.
You can talk legal all you want. I think its useless becsuse I assume neither of us are lawyers, so i personally dont care. My only response to that is "I hope all parties get a lawyer".
It's orthogonal to my main point here of "whose job is it to care?" If that's not a discussion worth having over this, then thank you for proving my point about the culture of reaction.
The question as to "who should care" is pretty clear - it's Twitch, Twitch is supposed to care. Twitch also isn't the one who banned the bodyguard. That was the whole point. No one is saying that...
The question as to "who should care" is pretty clear - it's Twitch, Twitch is supposed to care. Twitch also isn't the one who banned the bodyguard. That was the whole point.
No one is saying that Twitch shouldn't care, they should, and it's their responsibility (and the dereliction thereof when these kinds of incidents occur) to do so.
And they weren't the ones that banned the bodyguard. To be honest, I don't even know what you're trying to say anymore.
That's fine. I can't explain it anymore clearly, and I'm tired of trying to at this point. I don't have the literacy to explain an alternative lens of culture to someone who's otherwise spent...
To be honest, I don't even know what you're trying to say anymore.
That's fine. I can't explain it anymore clearly, and I'm tired of trying to at this point. I don't have the literacy to explain an alternative lens of culture to someone who's otherwise spent their life under a different lens.
It sounds like the venue didn't get sued though. They banned the bodyguard to prevent themselves from being sued. From their standpoint, banning someone who holds someone for standing around is...
It sounds like the venue didn't get sued though. They banned the bodyguard to prevent themselves from being sued. From their standpoint, banning someone who holds someone for standing around is prevention
I wouldn't be surprised if this was cold, hard cost-benefits analysis. The person expected out made more money than the security detail, so they get banned while the stalker gers a slap on the...
I'm guessing that was for liability reasons if the stalker tried to sue Twitch or something if he was too rough (similar to why retail workers are discouraged from confronting shoplifters), but I think escorting a stalker to proper authorities is a reasonable enough "risk" to hold up in court if it ever got that far.
I wouldn't be surprised if this was cold, hard cost-benefits analysis. The person expected out made more money than the security detail, so they get banned while the stalker gers a slap on the wrist.
Amazon should definitely get the book thrown at them for gross negligence. That would be the only way they really listen
Another fumble at Twitchcon this year is a continued lack of accessibility at MineCraft Champions (MCC). For several years, they have invited GoodTimesWithScar to compete, who it is public...
Another fumble at Twitchcon this year is a continued lack of accessibility at MineCraft Champions (MCC). For several years, they have invited GoodTimesWithScar to compete, who it is public knowledge that he is in a wheelchair. Yet they never put ramps to the stage. This caused several issues this year, which are:
Each team entered through the front onto the stage, and then down to their stations. Scar can not do that since they did not add a wheelchair ramp, so the solution was to just have his team enter from the back (why not change all teams to enter from the back?)
Mojang did a special awards ceremony as part of this, and gave Hermitcraft members an award (which Scar is a part of). However, he can not walk onto the stage, so they awkwardly did it off to the side, where there was no lighting.
Scar's team won the championship, but then again, he can not get onto the stage. There was also some awkwardness apparently in presenting the awards, since the presenter did not account for Scar's height difference due to being in a chair, but that is more just an awkward social blunder.
So not only does Twitchcon fail at protecting the creators, but also fail to make their events accessible to creators. And with Scar, this has happened multiple years now
I didn’t realise MCC was part of twitchcon, I’d heard about GoodTimesWithScar having difficulty because of no accessibility stuff from previous years and therefore just assumed MCC was a tiny...
I didn’t realise MCC was part of twitchcon, I’d heard about GoodTimesWithScar having difficulty because of no accessibility stuff from previous years and therefore just assumed MCC was a tiny low-budget event - totally abysmal that the organisers have dropped the ball on this one year after year!
How do you not learn from the first time Scar turns up and then fix it for future years?!? “Oh maybe next year he won’t be in a wheelchair and it was just a one-off thing this year, no need to make this obvious public blunder into an actual learning and accessibility moment”
So I don't really watch MCC but am aware of it, but had to do some research. MCC is organized by SMajor. However, during Twitchcon there is an MCC Twitch Rivals collaboration that has occurred for...
I didn’t realise MCC was part of twitchcon
So I don't really watch MCC but am aware of it, but had to do some research. MCC is organized by SMajor. However, during Twitchcon there is an MCC Twitch Rivals collaboration that has occurred for several years now. It is a collaborative event when at Twitchcon between MCC (Smajor) and Twitch Rivals (Twitch) and this year Mojang. It is hard to tell exactly where the responsibilities fall for each thing, but since other MCC events are virtual and much lower production, my guess would be that MCC handles the competition (competitors, team configs, and games) and Twitch Rivals handles all the production components (stage design, A/V needs for live event, and related things). So where the blame falls between MCC and Twitch is a bit hard to tell. Did MCC fail to communicate that Scar was participating and needed wheelchair accessibility? Did MCC communicate but Twitch ignored it? It does feel like though once they realized the situation, Twitch did fail to adapt considering the different walk outs (all teams should have walked from the back, rather than single out Scar's team).
This was originally posted on reddit and sparked some interesting discussion there, so I wanted to relay it here. It's just another entry in a long series of entries of Twitch not really giving a...
This was originally posted on reddit and sparked some interesting discussion there, so I wanted to relay it here.
It's just another entry in a long series of entries of Twitch not really giving a damn about moderation. I suppose that's in line with literally every other social media site. I'm just surprised that they're letting this happen to Twitch partners. I guess with most kids nowadays wanting to become youtubers and streamers, maybe the company thinks its supply of fresh streamer meat is safe. Maybe they're not even thinking that far ahead and I'm giving them too much credit.
Either way, places like this need better security, I absolutely agree with the points of the streamers there. Obviously they foster these parasocial relationships to some extent to make a living, but that doesn't make what happens on the regular to them okay.
It is terrible that this happened. I have never seen twitch or any other streaming platform attempt to address the fault lines that exist in parasocial relationships. Of course these things have...
It is terrible that this happened. I have never seen twitch or any other streaming platform attempt to address the fault lines that exist in parasocial relationships. Of course these things have been happening ever since famous people have existed but the “streaming influencer” trend has amplified the effects of those fault lines in my opinion.
I'm not at all in the streaming space so I don't know much about these people, but it seems to me that there's this genre of female streamer who deals with this kind of thing more than anyone...
I'm not at all in the streaming space so I don't know much about these people, but it seems to me that there's this genre of female streamer who deals with this kind of thing more than anyone else.
It's that type of streamer who is attractive, but their attractiveness isn't the main thing they focus on, like they're not in a hot tub in a bikini or spinning a wheel or something. They're good looking, and focus on their appearance, maybe do some cosplay, but most of their stream is just talking or playing games. The only other one I'm familiar with is Pokimane, but I think that genre is pretty popular.
It feels like men without social lives who live on twitch tend to treat these women like para social girlfriends in a way that they don't with the hot tub titty streamers.
Maybe it's easier to convince yourself that this pretty girl who doesn't know your name actually loves you and cares about you if she's being a normal person instead of bouncing up and down and doing squats on camera for gifted subs.
Once people have that sort of delusion, then it leads to stuff like this.
I'm talking out of my ass of course, but I always hear about harassment of these types of streamers more than any other kind.
Accepting the danger of sounding like someone just telling people to go touch grass, a lot of these internet communities are just weird. I'm in a few of them, though I never got into streaming...
Accepting the danger of sounding like someone just telling people to go touch grass, a lot of these internet communities are just weird. I'm in a few of them, though I never got into streaming because it seemed pointless to me. Either you're watching a tiny streamer because with the 7 people in chat, they actually have the time and capacity to interact with you, or you might as well go watch Youtube, where editing magic cuts out all the dead space you usually have on a stream. And that's just interesting streamers that do actually interesting stuff, and not people like xQc that somehow make millions for producing boring reaction content all day every day.
There's just something strange that happens to people that spend all their time online like this, inhabiting various personas that just aren't real beyond the realm of the digital. Small real life communities tend to file off the rough edges of people like that because they're forced to interact with people in a way that online communities never do. I think it's a mix of attracting outsiders and the global scale of an online community.
Like every social platform, Twitch does the barest amount of moderation that it can get away with, and it culminates into shit like this every time these online communities descend into real life for a convention. I think attractive women in public spaces have always had this issue, I mean everyone knows the type of "journalism" that exists in Hollywood, exposing the private lives of movie stars like parasites, but there was still some distance. People who read that sort of stuff treated the real people involved in that drama like animals in a zoo. Streamer stalkers confuse positive interactions on a stream as something that isn't there. That's new.
I think the answer is much simpler: the hot tub streamers will get banned much faster than the ones simply playing games. The games ones will thus grow much bigger over time. The Tub streamers are...
It feels like men without social lives who live on twitch tend to treat these women like para social girlfriends in a way that they don't with the hot tub titty streamers.
I think the answer is much simpler: the hot tub streamers will get banned much faster than the ones simply playing games. The games ones will thus grow much bigger over time. The Tub streamers are always playing with fire, and I'm sure at some point some crazy donation is worth taking a suspension or ban for. Channels like those often are used to drive to other channels anyway (and THAT's where the real parasocial relationships form).
Those channels also probably wouldn't bother much with TwichCon or other public appearancess anyway. The screen is a feature and benefit of their work, not a limitation. It's just a completely differnet meta compared to streaming games.
I don't think Twitch actually bans the hot tub streamers that often anymore, they haven't for a while. Unless they're doing something really egregious, they are very rare permabanned. I'm not very...
I don't think Twitch actually bans the hot tub streamers that often anymore, they haven't for a while. Unless they're doing something really egregious, they are very rare permabanned. I'm not very current with the twitch meta though, so that could be outdated information.
A little bit of parasocial behavior is fine for a mentally healthy individual. But at a large enough scale you’re guaranteed to have some unwell people latch on. I watch a streamer who does a good...
A little bit of parasocial behavior is fine for a mentally healthy individual. But at a large enough scale you’re guaranteed to have some unwell people latch on. I watch a streamer who does a good job of fending off parasocial behavior from viewers. Anyone acting that way in chat gets called out. He’ll remind people he’s not their friend, just an entertainer. He never uses a camera. This guy still manages to get thousands of concurrent viewers and has the highest average viewer count for his game (about 3,000).
It’s ultimately up to each streamer to decide if they want to lean into the psychology of parasociality.
Unfortunately, I think there's significant overlap between "things that lead to and/or enable parasociality" and "things that cause a streamer to grow and/or maintain their popularity". Regarding...
Unfortunately, I think there's significant overlap between "things that lead to and/or enable parasociality" and "things that cause a streamer to grow and/or maintain their popularity".
Regarding your example streamer - did they start streaming that game earlier than most other people? Do they produce good educational content? Are they exceptionally skilled at the game? If any of those things are true, then those are probably big factors as to why they are popular without engaging in things that enable parasociality. In other words, they seem like an anomaly to me.
But a lot of streamers without those factors will be incentivized to engage with their audience on a personal level. Use a camera. Get to know the regulars. Expose parts of their personal life. Because these are all things that generally make viewers more interested and invested in the stream. Which helps the streamer become more popular.
So I'm not saying this was your message, but I don't think we can just tell streamers "don't engage personally with your audience" when that runs counter to a lot of incentives.
He has both tenure and skill on his side. I was just mentioning him to show you can have tremendous success without parasocial content. In creative pursuits the most important tool you have is...
He has both tenure and skill on his side. I was just mentioning him to show you can have tremendous success without parasocial content. In creative pursuits the most important tool you have is your set of constraints. Restricting parasocial behavior is an uncommon constraint among streamers trying to go full time, which could make it a large advantage.
It's possible, but harder and it's already so hard to get off the ground. If you don't have a personality to latch to you need something else, be it skill, presentation, education, or charisma...
It's possible, but harder and it's already so hard to get off the ground. If you don't have a personality to latch to you need something else, be it skill, presentation, education, or charisma (without a face, to boot).
Even outside of videos, there's been experiments where, for example, posts showing a face on Reddit will get more votes than ones without. Be it male or female (women do of course get a much larger boost, though). Doesn't mean there aren't well established posters who don't show their face, but it's inevitably a big factor in this attention economy.
On the bright side, the rise of vtubers made it easier than ever to bridge this gap if you're comfortable using some sort of animated rig. Won't work for all content, but I can see how giving an avatar is much preferable than your own face.
Parasocial relationships are a good portion of what makes them money for, I’d guess, the majority of non-gaming streamers, so why would they ever address anything there?
Parasocial relationships are a good portion of what makes them money for, I’d guess, the majority of non-gaming streamers, so why would they ever address anything there?
Why am I not surprised to see this kind of behaviour from a subsidiary of Amazon? They make warehouse and delivery workers piss in bottles to avoid disciplinary action for taking toilet breaks....
Why am I not surprised to see this kind of behaviour from a subsidiary of Amazon?
I would've said that Emiru needs to seriously consider moving to another streaming platform in protest, but YouTube is a shit platform for livestreaming, Rumble is full of far-right bigots and Kick is just a hotbed for streamers that had been banned from Twitch, i.e. the kind of degenerates who harass people in the street.
I deeply apologize to all the vtubers and the fans who had meet and greets at the vtuber booth this year. It breaks my heart to know staff threw out all the gifts. I should have known better than to trust them and taken care of everything ahead of time. I am so sorry everyone.
Oof. Staff throwing away gifts is always infuriating. Worth noting one of the top comments thinks the motivation may have been this incident last year where a stalker planted a tracking device...
Oof. Staff throwing away gifts is always infuriating.
Still, even if that is the motivation, throwing the gifts out is just wrong. There are professional services that can check for trackers. Even if Twitch didn't want to pay for that or there were too many gifts to reasonably perform that service in a timely manner, they could have just given Vtubers a warning about the potential risks and encouraged them to check the gifts themselves. There's really no excuse to just throw them all away.
Also, the Twitch staff could have just told the fans that they aren't accepting gifts for the streamers instead of taking the gifts then throwing them away. One fan said that a staffer accepted...
Also, the Twitch staff could have just told the fans that they aren't accepting gifts for the streamers instead of taking the gifts then throwing them away.
One fan said that a staffer accepted their gift then tossed it in a trash can right in front of them, saying it could be an explosive so they have to dispose of it. https://x.com/TingleRotunda/status/1979781770095841608
Ah yes, trashcans, a bomb's greatest weakness. I'm sure a bomb won't go off once it's inside a trash can, potential crisis averted! Seriously though, that excuse feels so flimsy. If something WAS...
Ah yes, trashcans, a bomb's greatest weakness. I'm sure a bomb won't go off once it's inside a trash can, potential crisis averted!
Seriously though, that excuse feels so flimsy. If something WAS explosive, throwing it away won't make it inert. Actually, the fact that the security for entering the convention apparently can't catch bombs feels like a much bigger issue. They really need to up security on every front.
I know you are joking. Blast-resistant trash cans are a thing, though. They are used in crowded places (like subway stations). I wouldn't be too surprised if they used them for conventions. Just a...
Ah yes, trashcans, a bomb's greatest weakness. I'm sure a bomb won't go off once it's inside a trash can, potential crisis averted!
I know you are joking. Blast-resistant trash cans are a thing, though. They are used in crowded places (like subway stations). I wouldn't be too surprised if they used them for conventions. Just a fun fact.
Also, just the reality of small improvised explosives is that they usually can't do a lot of damage outside of a small range, and it's usually all damage from shrapnel. Any metal trash can is...
Also, just the reality of small improvised explosives is that they usually can't do a lot of damage outside of a small range, and it's usually all damage from shrapnel. Any metal trash can is going to significantly limit the impact something that small could create.
Not that it makes something like this situation any better obviously, but it's not like it does nothing.
The very understandable consequence of that kind of incident is simply saying "no, we don't accept gifts from fans" or that gifts need to be unwrapped or only be something like paper (where you...
Still, even if that is the motivation, throwing the gifts out is just wrong.
The very understandable consequence of that kind of incident is simply saying "no, we don't accept gifts from fans" or that gifts need to be unwrapped or only be something like paper (where you can't put a tracker on it).
I don't really see the motivation here to just... lie. It's even more effort to lie and throw stuff away than say no outright. I'm so baffled.
FYI, it's now looking like IronMouse's gifts were actually handled by her manager so they are fine. There were gifts to other VTubers that were thrown out by Twitch staff....
FYI, it's now looking like IronMouse's gifts were actually handled by her manager so they are fine.
There were gifts to other VTubers that were thrown out by Twitch staff.
VTuber Heavenly Father says https://xcancel.com/HeavenlyyFather/status/1980310566419017798#m
VTuber Heavenly Father says
TWITCHCON OVER. THANK YOU TO EVERYONE I MET AND HUNG OUT WITH. HUGE SHOUT OUT TO ANY VIEWERS I MET BECAUSE MEETING YOU GUYS ALWAYS INSPIRES ME TO STREAM MORE.
THAT BEING SAID: FUCK TWITCHCON FOREVER. I AINT NEVER COMING BACK TO THIS BULLSHIT AGAIN. ITS SO FUCKING ASS
ONLY REASON I CAME THIS YEAR WAS BECAUSE BADDA AND SKULLKER GOT PARTNER. THIS CONVENTION HAS BULLSHIT SECURITY, I GOT FOLLOWED AROUND FOR A WHOLE DAY, PEOPLE DONT KNOW HOW TO BE CURTIOUS, AND FUCK THE DICKHEADS SHOVING CAMERAS IN PEOPLES FACE
Um, just looked this story up because I did know of her, but somehow had never heard about this horrific event. You may want to edit this particular phrase....
...
Um, just looked this story up because I did know of her, but somehow had never heard about this horrific event. You may want to edit this particular phrase.
I don't have a problem with the expression per se. I just figured you hadn't learned of that complication and might have chosen a different expression if you had.
I don't have a problem with the expression per se. I just figured you hadn't learned of that complication and might have chosen a different expression if you had.
Wow. The fact this happened at all is just... Wow. Saying "Twitch dropped the ball" feels like an understatement. Her statement on Twitter recounts the whole thing and is pretty damning. I copied and pasted it here:
So to reiterate: Twitch not only has abhorrent security who did nothing, but they banned her guard for forcefully escorting someone. I'm guessing that was for liability reasons if the stalker tried to sue Twitch or something if he was too rough (similar to why retail workers are discouraged from confronting shoplifters), but I think escorting a stalker to proper authorities is a reasonable enough "risk" to hold up in court if it ever got that far.
If it wasn't for the bit about Twitch's security reportedly making jokes about the incident afterwards, I'd wonder if Twitch enforced a "hands off" policy for its security to avoid liability. But instead, it seems the official security is just lazy and incompetent.
This seriously should not have happened. As she said, it could have been much worse. He could have strangled her, pushed her down, stabbed her with a pen, done his best to kill her with his bare hands before security intervened... And if she didn't have her own security, the injuries would have been even worse by the time Twitch's security intervened. This is all under the assumption Twitchcon has metal detectors to keep out metal weapons, which would be even more lethal. But given this assault happened, I question how closely the security would check people's belongings so long as the metal detector doesn't go off...
I believe it was the venue that banned her security guard, not Twitch itself. It’s a tough situation IMO, there’s a lot of legal gray area. Without actually going through a judge and jury and lawyers, whether or not it’s OK for a private citizen to restrain another private citizen is very much up in the air in that situation. I can see why the venue would just want no part in it.
Obligatory I am not a lawyer, but I’m pretty sure that assualt and battery law is clear here in the U.S. (although each state has its own nuances). In general, one can use reasonable force to protect themselves or someone else from imminent harm. Here, reasonable meaning equal or lesser force that the attacker is using, or force to the extent necessary to protect (I think, and I forget which one takes precedence).
I’m less sure about what the precendents and laws are for restraining someone else for a long period of time, but I am fairly confident those precedents have been clearly established for quite some time.
Right, so the body guard was using excessive force, no? The stalker was just standing around at the time.
This is not the situation in the video, which is clearly assault and battery, but a previous a case. A known stalker was loitering around her. While I think the "known stalker" part makes her discomfort understandable, legally whether or not her bodyguard, who isn't law enforcement, can restrain and move him just for standing is another question.
Said stalker could probably argue that the bodyguard was, legally speaking, kidnapping him.
It'd be a uphill battle to argue that being physically escorted from hanging around the person you're a known stalker of is kidnapping, especially when your alleged kidnapper is taking you straight to the cops.
It's more of an exaggeration, but it fits the definition
In this case, the reality is most of the definitions are made outside of the law. The stalker was not tried and convicted as a stalker. Emiru did not obtain a restraining order against him. They are a stalker in common understanding, but that's not their legal status.
In the eyes of the law, there are two private citizens, who were both allowed to be in a space by the hosts of the space. One of those private citizens restrained the other against their will, and brought them to another area.
In practical terms, fairly unlikely a prosecutor would take that case up. But nonetheless, a venue wanting no part in this is fair imo. Private security needs to know the bounds of what they can and cannot do.
I see. I didn’t understand that it was a different incident.
My best understanding is if the stalker sued, the bodyguard would have a legal defense if Emiru could show that she was legally assaulted: in CA, this would require a visible attempt to touch or harm her. (In other states, I believe you only need to reasonably fear being harmed for it to be assault.)
I don’t think a stalker just “standing” would constitute an attempt to touch or harm, so I’d agree that the bodyguard would have a hard time making a legal defense.
I don't know if it was the venue or Twitch, but I figured the ban was due to the murkiness around the potential legal liability. Even if it wasn't a harmful hold, touching someone outside clear-cut self defense situations (e.g. the person is clearly about to commit assault) can open liability and room for accusations. I would have thought that security, even private security, would have some leeway in that regard though, but since he wasn't hired by the venue or Twitchcon that does muddy things.
Still, the fact they permanently banned her guard for holding a stalker in place until authorities arrived to handle it properly, combined with this incident, really doesn't paint a good picture of Twitch's security practices. I don't think the bit about her guard being banned would bother me as much if this incident didn't prove how ineffective Twitch's security is and that private security is a necessity for people to be safe there. Banning him for doing his job, even if for understandable reasons, feels like they're endangering her and other streamers given their own guards do nothing.
...Though now I'm picturing security guards forming a ring around a stalker with hands interlocked to trap them in place without touching them. Pretty sure that would still fall under "unlawful detention" or something similar, but it's a funny mental image at least that would also be pretty effective.
Again, it was the venue that banned him. Twitch should have better security, no doubt, but the venue DGAF about who or what was doing what while someone is renting their space, they just don't want people to do illegal things on their premise.
The original sin is that Twitch should a) more proactively ban people who are known issues, perhaps by asking the guests for blacklists, so that their presence is illegal b) hire their own private security and train them on what they can and cannot do.
I mean, I can't imagine the authorities did anything either. Being somewhere isn't illegal. Core to this is that there is a mismatch between "things that are not OK socially" and "things that are illegal". Stalking can be illegal, if tried in a court of law, and restraining orders can be obtained to enforce them, but those are things that have to happen first. "Creepy guy is standing near you", a priori, is not an offense.
The bounds of private security is that you can't be proactive like that. You can call the police, you can stand and look intimidating, you can block people by standing in their way, you can retaliate if someone is attacking your client with equal or lesser force. But that's it.
I do get why they banned him, whether it was Twitch or the venue. Stalking is unfortunately very hard to prosecute or address with legal action unless the stalker actually does something because, as you said, just being in the same area isn't illegal.
While police and security couldn't arrest the stalker, they would still have the power to eject him from the premises, which I assume was the goal of keeping him in place. Her guard didn't have the power to eject him, and it sounds like he wanted to ensure the stalker didn't sneak away while waiting for someone who did to arrive. Touching him to physically restrain him was a step over the line though, so again, I get why they banned him.
It's just that incident, in conjunction with the recent assault, paints a bad image of Twitch's overall security practices. Whether the ban was issued by Twitch or the venue, the fact remains that the security they provide isn't sufficient. Justified as the ban was, it just serves to further highlight gaps in Twitch's security and make their inaction look even worse.
On one hand, you have a private guard banned for being too proactive by physically detaining someone. On the other hand, you have officially sanctioned guards who literally did nothing when a streamer was assaulted. When it comes to matters of physical safety, the proactive approach is the one people would prefer even if it's legally wrong.
To emphasize, I'm not saying banning the guard was wrong. But the dichotomy is striking, so it's no wonder people are latching onto it.
So I'm not security nor a lawyer but it's pretty obvious this all comes down to money. If the Twitch/venue had competent security the bodyguard could've just handed the stalker to them and stayed on task which is protection.
I'm pretty certain there are lots of professionals who can produce sufficient guides to keep everyone safe, both the casual audience and the celebrities. It's probably just cheaper to gamble on liabilities and people while pointing fingers than pay upfront for security etc.
The banning of her personal security staff of choice FOR DOING THEIR DAMN JOB is just inexcusable. Ugh. I already have sworn off paying for anything twitch for a while but this is just next level disgusting. I don't even understand the motivation - it's not profit (she pays the security), it's not reputation (obviously lol). I guess it's just catering to the lowest common denominator of their viewers to 'maximize engagement' to the detriment of the long term community and product like every other fucking social media company. UGH.
Just because they’re doing their job doesn’t mean it’s legal, or hitmen would be legal. The case where her bodyguard got banned was a situation where a known stalker was, well, stalking her. But without physically or verbally encroaching.
In that situation, your legal opportunities are a) to contact the venue, since it’s a private space, so the venue can eject the person and escalate to the police if necessary or b) to get a court issued restraining order and contact the police to enforce it.
The bodyguard grabbing the guy and dragging him away is not one of those.
This is a very complicated piece of law to navigate. As private security, you really have to be like a basketball defender - stand in the way, but you can’t initiate.
I'm not going to get into the vagaries of the past event - I don't have the facts and frankly I'm more inclined to believe the person who hired said security person (Emiru, linked above) than you with no source provided otherwise.
To focus on the law itself, there absolutely is not a crime of kidnapping happening here. The crime of kidnapping, to be enforceable, must involve unreasonable restriction over a long period of time. Holding a person in the event of a dispute that could have escalated into harm (as a stalker would) would never get past a prosecutor, never mind a judge. The civil tort is false imprisonment, which again would require there to be real harm done. Based on the facts you describe the harm done would be... Perhaps missing his bus? Again, it'd be laughed out of court.
You are indeed correct that ultimately a private event held at a venue owned by a private establishment is within it's rights to ban a security member for what it unilaterally believes to be inappropriate conduct. You're way off base in saying it was at all justified even if the guy was 'only' stalking her. Escorting individuals off the premises is a routine part of security details at concerts, bars, museums, malls, etc. In an event where a celebrity hires their own private security, a competent organization would be happy to coordinate venue security protocol with the private security to remove disruptive individuals like a known stalker, instead of actively working against their own damn talent.
The key difference is that they work for the host of the event, and therefore implicitly the hosts invests in them the power of a private property to kick people out.
In this case, the private security has no association whatsoever with the event itself. There is no difference between them and anyone else in the event. This is just a private citizen who is assaulting another private citizen on premises.
Who is working against who? Twitch runs the event, and its security, and Twitch was not the one who banned the security guard.
This is an area where I know a bit about the industry through friends who work in it and around famous people.
There is 0 chance Twitch pushed back. This is almost certainly some "well it was our policy" from the venue, which in any professional manner would have been followed up with the event runner contacting the venue, discussing the situation, and getting it resolved.
There is NO WAY a venue dug their heels in on this one security guard doing something well within reasonable in an attempt to protect their client. The fact Twitch security, venue security, and the streamers private security aren't already in lock step is a MASSIVE red flag in how they run their events and total amateur hour.
As Aerrol already said this is something that is dealt with all the time for all sorts of celebrities and there are extremely well established guidelines. The only difference is that serious celebrities with established security details would've straight up said "fuck you we're not going until you get your shit together" long before the event.
Twitch is amateur hour incarnate in so many areas and this is yet another. There's industry standards for protecting talent that are extremely likely to attract dangerous attention and they aren't even doing the bare minimum, let alone handling this right. The "oops its the venue, oh well" excuse is just not how this works in any real world as the venue has very very very limited bargaining power to begin with, and, if its a venue that's ever hosted anything serious before has dealt with this exact situation about 1000x.
The only way this makes any sense is if the stalker was a saudi prince or some other level of "serious money" and i'm guessing that's not remotely the case.
It's a miracle someone hasn't already been hurt given there's all sorts of issues with these business models and it's very very clear to anyone who's been around the convention business that what twitch is doing isn't even close to professional.
Unlawful Restraint would probably be the charge, if one were to be issued in that kind of situation. At least in Illinois.
(From the ILCS)
But ymmv on the law elsewhere. And I agree probably wouldn't be charged if there's sufficient evidence regarding the stalker and that whole situation, but might not be worth fighting depending on the plea deal
I just want to be clear that my only real participation here is in noting that there is a lesser charge than kidnapping that fits the described behavior if such a thing were charged. And it's something I've seen charged quite a bit albeit in different contexts
Your situation seems like it was much better all around though
I do blame the convention for not coordinating their security with a VIP's security and agree that I wouldn't expect personal security to face charges in the normal course of affairs. For a number of reasons including those you described. Just that there was something between kidnapping and the nearest civil tort.
I'm glad that the Dropout crew were good people IRL too (I'm going to imagine Erika Ishii was one of them given their recent headlining of a game and my being a fan girl of his.).
The streamer having to hire a personal bodyguard is a direct consequence of Twitch's failure to enforce any sort of boundaries and security. They get the venue, they should be able to ban people from it for the duration of the con, and keep that banlist up for future cons, so that those people do not get to enter again.
I get that being private security is a thin rope to follow, but the only reason she had to resort to it was because Twitch didn't give a fuck, and then also banned her security, directly exposing her to danger likely because their legal department got afraid of a lawsuit. This is exactly the sort of corporate process I detest, where decisions get made so far removed from the actual humans on the ground that the only thing the people making those decisions see are profit graphs, and they decided that it's cheaper to throw streamers into the meatgrinder, because new innocent fresh faces with a dream will always be pouring in.
I’m not saying Twitch is faultless, I’m saying it’s understandable why the venue banned her old bodyguard, considering by some argument he committed illegal kidnapping on their premises. Twitch doesn’t have say in that one.
Twitch should probably provide security of their own, and be more proactive in banning known bad actors from various Twitch streamer fanbases. But the detail about “oh Twitch banned her old bodyguard for doing his job!” is silly.
Sure they do. Let the billion dollar company argue in court if a stalker wants to try to skirt the rules of stalking. I bet you they go to small claims for much more frivolous stuff.
It's only silly if safety isn't a priority for your venue over minimizing liability. This PR event here will cost them more money than any lawsuit being aggressive with aggressive people. This is something of an art lost as Amazon dehumanizes the idea of labor.
Billion dollar or not, it doesn't matter - the people who own the venue get to decide who can and cannot be in the venue. I can ban people from my house, and Amazon has no recourse. That's private property laws. Amazon cannot sue the venue to get them to unban someone. What would they even sue for?
That's civil, not criminal cases.
It's silly if you care about the truth, because it's incorrect. Twitch didn't ban him, the owners of the space the convention was at banned him. They banned him because he went well above what a private citizen can do to another private citizen, and that's their right as the property owner. To the venue, this is someone who doesn't know what they can and cannot do. The bounds of private security is that you can't be proactive like that. You can call the police, you can stand and look intimidating, you can block people by standing in their way, you can retaliate if someone is attacking your client with equal or lesser force. But that's it.
Twitch should do more on the security front if they want to invest guests to host panels. But that incident is entirely separate from that.
And they are responsible for people harmed in their venue, especially during a public ebent. For a lawsuit, youd sue ahy and every party involved so it'd be up to the coirts to determine who's liable. IANAL so I won't assume who's truly involved.
Still, there's a possibility Amazon presses the charges instead to get ahead of being sued. It's not really a black and white problem of who has how much blame.
Let's just say I'm tired of my government only acting when it's too late. Putting out fires instead of preventing them in the first place
This was easily predictable from past events and incidents and the resulting lawsuits will inevitably cost more than simply banning such instigators to begin wit. What's "correct" isn't always "right", as much of history to women have shown.
Only if your job is to deflect liability and not prevent future incident. Again, a very endemic mentality of my entire country. Let's just keep waiting for the fires to burn instead of taking preventative measures.
Exactly, which is why they banned the only person who actually broke a law in that situation: the bodyguard.
The venue doesn't care about the context of who is doing what; all kinds of weirdos rent out the space. Break law = get banned.
What does that have to do with anything? Whether or not the venue bans one private security guy has no bearing on being proactive or reactive.
Yes, Twitch should be proactive, and in particular they should do a more thorough blacklist and hire better security, since the security there didn't intervene physically when they had enough time to do so. Note that allowing private security to do whatever they want is not part of that list.
The part you say
And that's what missing in modern society: care. The venue doesn't care until they get sued, Amazon doesn't care until there's a PR disaster to respond to. The security detail didn't care until it was too late and damage was done.
We clearly abandoned "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure” quite a while ago. It's all reactionary now with bread crumbs we pretend is prevention.
You can talk legal all you want. I think its useless becsuse I assume neither of us are lawyers, so i personally dont care. My only response to that is "I hope all parties get a lawyer".
It's orthogonal to my main point here of "whose job is it to care?" If that's not a discussion worth having over this, then thank you for proving my point about the culture of reaction.
The question as to "who should care" is pretty clear - it's Twitch, Twitch is supposed to care. Twitch also isn't the one who banned the bodyguard. That was the whole point.
No one is saying that Twitch shouldn't care, they should, and it's their responsibility (and the dereliction thereof when these kinds of incidents occur) to do so.
And they weren't the ones that banned the bodyguard. To be honest, I don't even know what you're trying to say anymore.
That's fine. I can't explain it anymore clearly, and I'm tired of trying to at this point. I don't have the literacy to explain an alternative lens of culture to someone who's otherwise spent their life under a different lens.
It sounds like the venue didn't get sued though. They banned the bodyguard to prevent themselves from being sued. From their standpoint, banning someone who holds someone for standing around is prevention
I wouldn't be surprised if this was cold, hard cost-benefits analysis. The person expected out made more money than the security detail, so they get banned while the stalker gers a slap on the wrist.
Amazon should definitely get the book thrown at them for gross negligence. That would be the only way they really listen
Another fumble at Twitchcon this year is a continued lack of accessibility at MineCraft Champions (MCC). For several years, they have invited GoodTimesWithScar to compete, who it is public knowledge that he is in a wheelchair. Yet they never put ramps to the stage. This caused several issues this year, which are:
Each team entered through the front onto the stage, and then down to their stations. Scar can not do that since they did not add a wheelchair ramp, so the solution was to just have his team enter from the back (why not change all teams to enter from the back?)
Mojang did a special awards ceremony as part of this, and gave Hermitcraft members an award (which Scar is a part of). However, he can not walk onto the stage, so they awkwardly did it off to the side, where there was no lighting.
Scar's team won the championship, but then again, he can not get onto the stage. There was also some awkwardness apparently in presenting the awards, since the presenter did not account for Scar's height difference due to being in a chair, but that is more just an awkward social blunder.
So not only does Twitchcon fail at protecting the creators, but also fail to make their events accessible to creators. And with Scar, this has happened multiple years now
I didn’t realise MCC was part of twitchcon, I’d heard about GoodTimesWithScar having difficulty because of no accessibility stuff from previous years and therefore just assumed MCC was a tiny low-budget event - totally abysmal that the organisers have dropped the ball on this one year after year!
How do you not learn from the first time Scar turns up and then fix it for future years?!? “Oh maybe next year he won’t be in a wheelchair and it was just a one-off thing this year, no need to make this obvious public blunder into an actual learning and accessibility moment”
So I don't really watch MCC but am aware of it, but had to do some research. MCC is organized by SMajor. However, during Twitchcon there is an MCC Twitch Rivals collaboration that has occurred for several years now. It is a collaborative event when at Twitchcon between MCC (Smajor) and Twitch Rivals (Twitch) and this year Mojang. It is hard to tell exactly where the responsibilities fall for each thing, but since other MCC events are virtual and much lower production, my guess would be that MCC handles the competition (competitors, team configs, and games) and Twitch Rivals handles all the production components (stage design, A/V needs for live event, and related things). So where the blame falls between MCC and Twitch is a bit hard to tell. Did MCC fail to communicate that Scar was participating and needed wheelchair accessibility? Did MCC communicate but Twitch ignored it? It does feel like though once they realized the situation, Twitch did fail to adapt considering the different walk outs (all teams should have walked from the back, rather than single out Scar's team).
This was originally posted on reddit and sparked some interesting discussion there, so I wanted to relay it here.
It's just another entry in a long series of entries of Twitch not really giving a damn about moderation. I suppose that's in line with literally every other social media site. I'm just surprised that they're letting this happen to Twitch partners. I guess with most kids nowadays wanting to become youtubers and streamers, maybe the company thinks its supply of fresh streamer meat is safe. Maybe they're not even thinking that far ahead and I'm giving them too much credit.
Either way, places like this need better security, I absolutely agree with the points of the streamers there. Obviously they foster these parasocial relationships to some extent to make a living, but that doesn't make what happens on the regular to them okay.
It is terrible that this happened. I have never seen twitch or any other streaming platform attempt to address the fault lines that exist in parasocial relationships. Of course these things have been happening ever since famous people have existed but the “streaming influencer” trend has amplified the effects of those fault lines in my opinion.
I'm not at all in the streaming space so I don't know much about these people, but it seems to me that there's this genre of female streamer who deals with this kind of thing more than anyone else.
It's that type of streamer who is attractive, but their attractiveness isn't the main thing they focus on, like they're not in a hot tub in a bikini or spinning a wheel or something. They're good looking, and focus on their appearance, maybe do some cosplay, but most of their stream is just talking or playing games. The only other one I'm familiar with is Pokimane, but I think that genre is pretty popular.
It feels like men without social lives who live on twitch tend to treat these women like para social girlfriends in a way that they don't with the hot tub titty streamers.
Maybe it's easier to convince yourself that this pretty girl who doesn't know your name actually loves you and cares about you if she's being a normal person instead of bouncing up and down and doing squats on camera for gifted subs.
Once people have that sort of delusion, then it leads to stuff like this.
I'm talking out of my ass of course, but I always hear about harassment of these types of streamers more than any other kind.
Accepting the danger of sounding like someone just telling people to go touch grass, a lot of these internet communities are just weird. I'm in a few of them, though I never got into streaming because it seemed pointless to me. Either you're watching a tiny streamer because with the 7 people in chat, they actually have the time and capacity to interact with you, or you might as well go watch Youtube, where editing magic cuts out all the dead space you usually have on a stream. And that's just interesting streamers that do actually interesting stuff, and not people like xQc that somehow make millions for producing boring reaction content all day every day.
There's just something strange that happens to people that spend all their time online like this, inhabiting various personas that just aren't real beyond the realm of the digital. Small real life communities tend to file off the rough edges of people like that because they're forced to interact with people in a way that online communities never do. I think it's a mix of attracting outsiders and the global scale of an online community.
Like every social platform, Twitch does the barest amount of moderation that it can get away with, and it culminates into shit like this every time these online communities descend into real life for a convention. I think attractive women in public spaces have always had this issue, I mean everyone knows the type of "journalism" that exists in Hollywood, exposing the private lives of movie stars like parasites, but there was still some distance. People who read that sort of stuff treated the real people involved in that drama like animals in a zoo. Streamer stalkers confuse positive interactions on a stream as something that isn't there. That's new.
I think the answer is much simpler: the hot tub streamers will get banned much faster than the ones simply playing games. The games ones will thus grow much bigger over time. The Tub streamers are always playing with fire, and I'm sure at some point some crazy donation is worth taking a suspension or ban for. Channels like those often are used to drive to other channels anyway (and THAT's where the real parasocial relationships form).
Those channels also probably wouldn't bother much with TwichCon or other public appearancess anyway. The screen is a feature and benefit of their work, not a limitation. It's just a completely differnet meta compared to streaming games.
I don't think Twitch actually bans the hot tub streamers that often anymore, they haven't for a while. Unless they're doing something really egregious, they are very rare permabanned. I'm not very current with the twitch meta though, so that could be outdated information.
A little bit of parasocial behavior is fine for a mentally healthy individual. But at a large enough scale you’re guaranteed to have some unwell people latch on. I watch a streamer who does a good job of fending off parasocial behavior from viewers. Anyone acting that way in chat gets called out. He’ll remind people he’s not their friend, just an entertainer. He never uses a camera. This guy still manages to get thousands of concurrent viewers and has the highest average viewer count for his game (about 3,000).
It’s ultimately up to each streamer to decide if they want to lean into the psychology of parasociality.
Unfortunately, I think there's significant overlap between "things that lead to and/or enable parasociality" and "things that cause a streamer to grow and/or maintain their popularity".
Regarding your example streamer - did they start streaming that game earlier than most other people? Do they produce good educational content? Are they exceptionally skilled at the game? If any of those things are true, then those are probably big factors as to why they are popular without engaging in things that enable parasociality. In other words, they seem like an anomaly to me.
But a lot of streamers without those factors will be incentivized to engage with their audience on a personal level. Use a camera. Get to know the regulars. Expose parts of their personal life. Because these are all things that generally make viewers more interested and invested in the stream. Which helps the streamer become more popular.
So I'm not saying this was your message, but I don't think we can just tell streamers "don't engage personally with your audience" when that runs counter to a lot of incentives.
He has both tenure and skill on his side. I was just mentioning him to show you can have tremendous success without parasocial content. In creative pursuits the most important tool you have is your set of constraints. Restricting parasocial behavior is an uncommon constraint among streamers trying to go full time, which could make it a large advantage.
It's possible, but harder and it's already so hard to get off the ground. If you don't have a personality to latch to you need something else, be it skill, presentation, education, or charisma (without a face, to boot).
Even outside of videos, there's been experiments where, for example, posts showing a face on Reddit will get more votes than ones without. Be it male or female (women do of course get a much larger boost, though). Doesn't mean there aren't well established posters who don't show their face, but it's inevitably a big factor in this attention economy.
On the bright side, the rise of vtubers made it easier than ever to bridge this gap if you're comfortable using some sort of animated rig. Won't work for all content, but I can see how giving an avatar is much preferable than your own face.
Parasocial relationships are a good portion of what makes them money for, I’d guess, the majority of non-gaming streamers, so why would they ever address anything there?
Why am I not surprised to see this kind of behaviour from a subsidiary of Amazon?
They make warehouse and delivery workers piss in bottles to avoid disciplinary action for taking toilet breaks. They also had the gall to pay Foo Fighters millions to book them for a private gig exclusive to their senior business leaders whilst workers lower down the food chain have had to suffer from waves of mass layoffs and RTO mandates. So seeing them allow a creepy "fan" to come up to Emiru and forcefully kiss her at one of their conventions, then pathologically lie about how they "dealt with" the incident doesn't even remotely shock me.
I would've said that Emiru needs to seriously consider moving to another streaming platform in protest, but YouTube is a shit platform for livestreaming, Rumble is full of far-right bigots and Kick is just a hotbed for streamers that had been banned from Twitch, i.e. the kind of degenerates who harass people in the street.
Since this thread is now a running list of TwitchCon issues from this year...
Posted by ironmouse on twitter/x:
Oof. Staff throwing away gifts is always infuriating.
Worth noting one of the top comments thinks the motivation may have been this incident last year where a stalker planted a tracking device into a gift for the Vtubers Camila and tried to break into her house during a stream. She even advised other Vtubers to check gifts from conventions.
Still, even if that is the motivation, throwing the gifts out is just wrong. There are professional services that can check for trackers. Even if Twitch didn't want to pay for that or there were too many gifts to reasonably perform that service in a timely manner, they could have just given Vtubers a warning about the potential risks and encouraged them to check the gifts themselves. There's really no excuse to just throw them all away.
Also, the Twitch staff could have just told the fans that they aren't accepting gifts for the streamers instead of taking the gifts then throwing them away.
One fan said that a staffer accepted their gift then tossed it in a trash can right in front of them, saying it could be an explosive so they have to dispose of it. https://x.com/TingleRotunda/status/1979781770095841608
Ah yes, trashcans, a bomb's greatest weakness. I'm sure a bomb won't go off once it's inside a trash can, potential crisis averted!
Seriously though, that excuse feels so flimsy. If something WAS explosive, throwing it away won't make it inert. Actually, the fact that the security for entering the convention apparently can't catch bombs feels like a much bigger issue. They really need to up security on every front.
I know you are joking. Blast-resistant trash cans are a thing, though. They are used in crowded places (like subway stations). I wouldn't be too surprised if they used them for conventions. Just a fun fact.
Also, just the reality of small improvised explosives is that they usually can't do a lot of damage outside of a small range, and it's usually all damage from shrapnel. Any metal trash can is going to significantly limit the impact something that small could create.
Not that it makes something like this situation any better obviously, but it's not like it does nothing.
There's the Louis CK bit where a TSA agent takes his modeling clay from him and throws it in the trash because it could be a plastic explosive:
The very understandable consequence of that kind of incident is simply saying "no, we don't accept gifts from fans" or that gifts need to be unwrapped or only be something like paper (where you can't put a tracker on it).
I don't really see the motivation here to just... lie. It's even more effort to lie and throw stuff away than say no outright. I'm so baffled.
Surely a tracker would be easier to hide in the gift itself than the packaging?
FYI, it's now looking like IronMouse's gifts were actually handled by her manager so they are fine.
There were gifts to other VTubers that were thrown out by Twitch staff.
https://old.reddit.com/r/VShojo/comments/1ocdf5k/no_one_can_steal_from_roxy/
VTuber Heavenly Father says
https://xcancel.com/HeavenlyyFather/status/1980310566419017798#m
Twitch has a sterling track record.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezMZwCgc4lM
Um, just looked this story up because I did know of her, but somehow had never heard about this horrific event. You may want to edit this particular phrase.
https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/viral/adriana-chechik-pregnant-twitchcon-injury-rcna54899
I don't have a problem with the expression per se. I just figured you hadn't learned of that complication and might have chosen a different expression if you had.