Despite how strange this is for what Twitch is actually supposed to be, it's heartening to see a corporation defending NSFW content for once instead of succumbing to the puritan crusade and...
Despite how strange this is for what Twitch is actually supposed to be, it's heartening to see a corporation defending NSFW content for once instead of succumbing to the puritan crusade and locking it down for ad revenue or to appease payment processors as we've seen tons of websites do recently.
If a kid is on the internet unsupervised they're gonna get to what they're gonna get to regardless of the platform. It's probably possible for twitch to have restricted labelled content and at...
If a kid is on the internet unsupervised they're gonna get to what they're gonna get to regardless of the platform. It's probably possible for twitch to have restricted labelled content and at least the same degree of parental controls as any other service without striking the content out of the platform entirely.
But let's be real, they're doing this because this crowd was beginning to flee to competitor kick.com, which incidentally offers a much better revenue share. Twitch only ever moves when they have competition. When Mixer showed up, Twitch added channel points and interactions to get feature parity. When Mixer closed their doors Twitch immediately got rid of 70-30 revenue splits and forced everyone to 50-50. When kick showed up with a much better 95-5 revenue split Twitch brought back the 70-30 split. They're pretty awful.
I don't think that's the site's fault. It hosts a plethora of games not suitable for children either. I didn't hear the "but the kids" until the whole nudity thing started but if you look at the...
I don't think that's the site's fault. It hosts a plethora of games not suitable for children either. I didn't hear the "but the kids" until the whole nudity thing started but if you look at the site as a whole you can see that the games are also a problem for children. Why start this clamoring for child protections now?
Twitch has similar protections for 18+ streams as Pornhub does for porn, so I don't think the fault here is with Twitch, but rather the internet being incredibly easy for children to surf with lackadaisical parenting to boot.
Sadly, one side of me thinks this wouldn’t be possible if Amazon wasn’t the parent company behind them. I hope this doesn’t end up getting backtracked and we end up where we started
Sadly, one side of me thinks this wouldn’t be possible if Amazon wasn’t the parent company behind them.
I hope this doesn’t end up getting backtracked and we end up where we started
it's heartening to see a corporation defending NSFW content for once
Heh, celebrated too soon:
UPDATE DEC 15, 2023: Twitch has made a dramatic U-turn on its controversial decision to allow "artistic depictions of nudity" on its platform, blaming chaos caused by AI.
There's possibly been an update, as of the 15th. This reads like you applaud Twitch for allowing artistic nudity, but per the update in TFA, Twitch has "...made a dramatic U-turn on its...
There's possibly been an update, as of the 15th. This reads like you applaud Twitch for allowing artistic nudity, but per the update in TFA, Twitch has "...made a dramatic U-turn on its controversial decision to allow" artistic nudity - meaning it's back to banned.
Doesn’t really matter to me. 90% of my time on the site is spent watching a single channel. I don’t understand getting outraged over this content on Twitch. It has always felt like a misogynistic...
Doesn’t really matter to me. 90% of my time on the site is spent watching a single channel. I don’t understand getting outraged over this content on Twitch. It has always felt like a misogynistic crusade.
It's frustrating because of the favoritism shown. Many people gravitated towards twitch to play games, and they do their best to follow these rules. They will sometimes get dinged for what feels...
It's frustrating because of the favoritism shown.
Many people gravitated towards twitch to play games, and they do their best to follow these rules. They will sometimes get dinged for what feels like extremely minor infractions, and this can cost them their entire account, and maybe their lively hood. All because of the behavior of someone in their chat, or a song playing in the background that might be copyrighted, or a similar such issue.
Then, you have people literally showing off their genitals before it was ok'd by the TOS, and they get a slap on the wrist and make ZILLIONS from it. Further when those same people get similar infractions they seem to magically get resolved immediately, because of course they're making the platform a shitload of money.
Everyone has always known sex sells, but if you're not traditionally attractive enough for that to be an option, then you're not going to be important in the eyes of Twitch, because that's their real cash cow.
This does get extra concerning given the site's demographic trend towards minors, and LOTS of instances of them giving obscene amounts of money to streamers with very little recourse.
Edit-
I will add that while these are the legit arguments, there are dumb ones. Twitch is NOT a career, it's a gamble that in an super small % of the time, can turn into a career. Sadly there's a lot of people who think they can make it, and when they don't they lash out at anything and everything as the reason why, when the simple answer is "even if you had something unique going for you, there's 1000 other people out there doing the same thing".
Edit: They've rolled this all back 24 hours later so my comment no longer applies. Foolish of me to think artists could catch a break. Not sure if this is a minority opinion or not but this is an...
Not sure if this is a minority opinion or not but this is an amazing win for artists in particular. So many times artists had to censor their art/limit the type of art they could draw on stream because of guidelines, and many were always afraid to get banned. This must be a huge weight off their shoulders.
Welp that didn't take long, but they're already back-tracking on the change: https://safety.twitch.tv/s/article/Sexual-Content-Policy-Update?language=en_US Interesting that they particularly call...
Interesting that they particularly call out AI-generated imagery as potentially a concern fueling some of the reversal- that is an angle I had not considered and does make enforcement/etc more complex.
That said, add this to the long list of poorly thought-out policy changes that seems to be Twitch's M.O.
It does feel like a case of "a few bad apples spoil the barrel" in that, for all the AI "artists" abusing the rule to create realistic pornography, there were many more just doing their normal...
It does feel like a case of "a few bad apples spoil the barrel" in that, for all the AI "artists" abusing the rule to create realistic pornography, there were many more just doing their normal illustration work, who are being penalized all the same.
But I know the real reason is that Twitch absolutely wants to offset moderation costs and excluding one and not the other would just add to those costs, so they'd rather blanket ban it again.
I wonder if part of the concern isn't that AI generates realistic pornography, but that AI can automatically generate continuous content. Maybe twitch doesn't want to pay out to multiple 24/7...
I wonder if part of the concern isn't that AI generates realistic pornography, but that AI can automatically generate continuous content. Maybe twitch doesn't want to pay out to multiple 24/7 automatic porn generation streams.
How much money do you think an automated porn stream would rake in? Tens of thousands? Hundreds? "Bits, tips or subs choose the next prompt! $10 or more goes to the top of the queue!"
How much money do you think an automated porn stream would rake in? Tens of thousands? Hundreds? "Bits, tips or subs choose the next prompt! $10 or more goes to the top of the queue!"
I think the "twitch is dying" / "twitch content has gone downhill" narrative is a false one, tbh. And not necessarily in your case, but often I think it's some BS sometimes-misogynist gamer angle...
I think the "twitch is dying" / "twitch content has gone downhill" narrative is a false one, tbh. And not necessarily in your case, but often I think it's some BS sometimes-misogynist gamer angle that is taken on that. "They're just polluting our platform that's for GAMERS", "fake gamer girl this/that, because they show cleavage" blah blah blah. The idea that sexual content is low quality content I find annoying, even as someone that doesn't use Twitch for that at all
Where is this "nosedive"? Nearly all the streams I watch on the platform are gaming or music streams ranging from small streams with a couple hundred viewers, to big streams with thousands of viewers (if not tens of thousands) and if anything, they're doing just as good if not better than they ever have.
I think the idea that sexual content "pollutes" or otherwise "saturates" the platform is just false. It's just more variety, more options to choose from, appeals to more viewers. More choice, no one is forced to watch a stream with pole dancing or sexual content or whatever
The only "nosedive" I've seen at Twitch is purely on the company/staff side of things- where for a long time they've introduced features that streamers don't want, have done things to negatively affect income streamers get, have polluted the site heavily with ads to an unpleasant amount, and have unevenly applied their rules- so IMO this is one of the first "good" business/company direction decisions they've made in a long time
I agree with everything you said. Including the nose dive. (They did recently announce they are leaving South Korea for being too expensive to operate in) I personally just think they should pick...
I agree with everything you said. Including the nose dive. (They did recently announce they are leaving South Korea for being too expensive to operate in) I personally just think they should pick a lane and stop with the wishy-washy policies. I got no issues with sexual content, I think it’s a great time to be a sexy mf, there is real money to be made and it does not typically involve abuse or manipulation, just consent. BUT, I don’t think long term parasocial relationships are a good idea, I don’t have a clear solution for something like that.
100% agree on policies and applying them and that's actually an increasing worry the more they wade into different types of content- they're going to have more content they're going to have to...
100% agree on policies and applying them and that's actually an increasing worry the more they wade into different types of content- they're going to have more content they're going to have to scrutinize closer for TOS breaking, legality issues, and in their eyes, advertising also- i could care less about that angle because i hate advertisers/advertising anyway haha- but I can definitely see a lot of advertisers and their typical puritan ways not wanting to associate with Twitch after these kinds of changes. The closer you get to NSFW (particularly sexual) content, especially being a company watched internationally- the more complex that web gets, quick- and honestly, they do not have a proven track record when it comes to applying an even and consistent set of rules for streams and punishments for breaking those rules. The favoritism is a nightmare.
Yeah, there definitely are multiple facets/issues to the problem, that's for sure. Including Twitch's availability to minors (they are taking care not to recommend NSFW channels or show them front page, and hopefully are taking other measures to ensure only adults are consuming said content- that said that's more of an internet problem... tons of platforms suffer from it). There are various measures that can be taken but some of those aren't great (especially when they start to involve government surveillance and so forth).
As for parasocial relationships, I agree, but I also think that's another "bigger than Twitch" kind of problem. It's an internet problem for anyone that has an audience and can communicate with them. That's more of a social danger than a platform-specific one, and needs to be addressed outside of simply some internet policy.
As far as South Korea- to me that's more of a problem of the laws in that country and the ability for ISPs to not be neutral "pipes" but instead demand that certain sites that they serve over their lines pay them for that privilege- that's just an unfeasible type of anti-net-neutral legislation that is just poorly thought out. I'm all for regulation of companies and think we lack some of what we need in the US- but the double-edged sword of regulation is that poorly designed ones also end up hurting users/consumers and I think that's what's happening there.
But it sort of is in the sense that, at least until now, it was just skirting the rules. Twtich has never been onlyfans, but clearly a vast majority of the people making money on it would, at...
The idea that sexual content is low quality content I find annoying
But it sort of is in the sense that, at least until now, it was just skirting the rules.
Twtich has never been onlyfans, but clearly a vast majority of the people making money on it would, at least for a time, pretend to be doing something that was about gaming or talking to streamers, but anyone would say has a lot more in common with webcam stripping.
That's NOT to say that's easy. Just staying in that kind of shape is hard even with the right genetics for it, but if you're judging them on the content they claimed to be doing, well yeah it was low effort, because everyone knew it was an excuse to do what they were doing.
With this twitch has just owned up to the reality, which should they or shouldn't is a whole other conversation, so at least there isn't going to be "ok today we're going to be playing {current game} and i'll do 50 squats every time I see something blue or we hit a donation goal" nonsense going on.
And I will say there's sort of an odd/worrying trend in general in the last decade or so. It's no secret that gambling and sex are two of the easiest money makers in the world, but we have generally had laws so that every corner isn't a casino or strip club. Yes many of those laws are based in overly religious puritan style beliefs with all sorts of problems, but I think it can be agreed that having EVERYTHING just turn into that isn't ideal, and yet that seems to be something we're getting more and more ok with (on both fronts. Mobile gaming being a sea of "no it's not gambling" games where they're technically correct because if it was it'd be illegal for how predatory it is).
Unfortunately that seems to be the direction that all social media sites are heading. I can't scroll through Instagram reels without having a dozen OnlyFans models posting barely sfw videos.
Unfortunately that seems to be the direction that all social media sites are heading. I can't scroll through Instagram reels without having a dozen OnlyFans models posting barely sfw videos.
It's getting old. I don't mind seeing sexual content if that's what I'm looking for, but I'm annoyed that it's spilling over to all social media in existence. TikTok is overflowing with OnlyFans...
It's getting old. I don't mind seeing sexual content if that's what I'm looking for, but I'm annoyed that it's spilling over to all social media in existence. TikTok is overflowing with OnlyFans girls and you can select “not interested” a thousand times but they'll still pop up all the time.
Exactly how I feel. It seems like the only big social media company without a ton of accidental porn is Facebook. I'm no puritan, but the normalization of porn in everyday media is worrisome to me.
Exactly how I feel. It seems like the only big social media company without a ton of accidental porn is Facebook. I'm no puritan, but the normalization of porn in everyday media is worrisome to me.
Just to play devils advocate, I've heard others share that they've seen FB marketplace listings with porn images, reported them, and received a response saying it won't be removed. YouTube is...
Just to play devils advocate, I've heard others share that they've seen FB marketplace listings with porn images, reported them, and received a response saying it won't be removed.
YouTube is really the only "algorithm" based site I actively use. Tildes, Mastodon, and Lemmy are all very different in that they sort by recent in one way or another. And the "trending" section of mastodon at least feels like a true measure of recent user engagement, free of advertising or unfair sorting.
I haven't seen sexual stuff on marketplace so I can't comment on that. I'll occasionally get lingerie ads so I guess those could count. Facebook has a whole set of different problems, and they...
I haven't seen sexual stuff on marketplace so I can't comment on that. I'll occasionally get lingerie ads so I guess those could count. Facebook has a whole set of different problems, and they don't seem to care at all. Every Washington post article has spam/bot comments pushing shady crypto websites. Fake accounts are rampent and go around spreading false information, and I don't think I've ever gotten a message about something I reported actually being acted upon. Everything I report "doesn't go against community standards".
I haven't made my way to Lemmy or Mastodon really. But threads seems to have the same problems instagram had with suggesting OnlyFans models. I guess I am their target demographic, but I don't want that plastered all over every social media site I use. Reddit was bad enough with the cosplay girls pushing their porn.
One great thing about Mastodon is how easy it is to block things. I was getting annoyed with people explaining why they migrated from Twitter, so I made a filter for that content, and now I don't...
One great thing about Mastodon is how easy it is to block things. I was getting annoyed with people explaining why they migrated from Twitter, so I made a filter for that content, and now I don't see it. It's also very easy to block people or hide their content. (I follow some hashtags, like #homelab, but don't care for some people who use it frequently.)
I haven't explored the content filtering settings much in Lemmy, but I'd assume they're similar to Mastodon.+
I just really appreciate that these platforms give the power back to the user. I refuse to be a slave to "the algorithm" when it comes to sites I frequent.
Honestly, that’s not even true. I don’t spend much time on Facebook, I just continue to have one because my family begged me to keep one to stay in touch. I was watching a (completely non sexual)...
Honestly, that’s not even true. I don’t spend much time on Facebook, I just continue to have one because my family begged me to keep one to stay in touch. I was watching a (completely non sexual) video one of them sent to me with my girlfriend, and immediately after the video I was bombarded with suggestions for “You won’t BELIEVE what happened to her bikini!!!” Or “you won’t guess what happened to her next after her dress got caught in the door!!!” style videos. It just strikes me as pseudo porn made for kids who aren’t allowed to go on other websites yet. Kinda gross.
Maybe that's the difference for us, I never watch videos on Facebook because then every video autoplays on full volume. I could totally see that happening though.
Maybe that's the difference for us, I never watch videos on Facebook because then every video autoplays on full volume. I could totally see that happening though.
I don't normally either, that's why this moment was so memorable. I had never seen video suggestions on facebook before. From what I saw, it was all the lowest possible denominator gutter trash.
I don't normally either, that's why this moment was so memorable. I had never seen video suggestions on facebook before. From what I saw, it was all the lowest possible denominator gutter trash.
The only videos I'll watch on Facebook are from Steven Mould. Not even sure he has an IG or Threads account. But I watch it, then go back to reading the drama comments on my local news articles.
The only videos I'll watch on Facebook are from Steven Mould. Not even sure he has an IG or Threads account. But I watch it, then go back to reading the drama comments on my local news articles.
I have a very long block list, and I have all of the most common tags blocked as well and it cleaned up my TikTok feed really well. I'm convinced "Not Interested" hasn't actually done anything on...
I have a very long block list, and I have all of the most common tags blocked as well and it cleaned up my TikTok feed really well. I'm convinced "Not Interested" hasn't actually done anything on Tiktok for awhile.
I don't get any only fans advert style content (I think a couple of people I follow may also have OF but I don't know which proves my experience I think) Tiktok is so wildly different for everyone...
I don't get any only fans advert style content (I think a couple of people I follow may also have OF but I don't know which proves my experience I think)
Tiktok is so wildly different for everyone which is fascinating to me.
This is because you engage with that content. If you go through the search area and mark stuff as something you aren’t interested in, you’ll stop seeing it.
This is because you engage with that content. If you go through the search area and mark stuff as something you aren’t interested in, you’ll stop seeing it.
That's how it is supposed to work, that's not how it actually works in practice. I try to alter my algorithm by saying "don't show me this stuff" on both IG and Facebook and I continue seeing it....
That's how it is supposed to work, that's not how it actually works in practice. I try to alter my algorithm by saying "don't show me this stuff" on both IG and Facebook and I continue seeing it. Facebook shows me so many conspiracy theory/flat earther stuff that I click hide on, and then keep showing me more.
Facebook was convinced for months that I really wanted to see thirst traps of Henry Cavil. I’m a straight middle aged man, and I’ve never seen a Henry cavil movie. I also said I wasn’t interested...
Facebook was convinced for months that I really wanted to see thirst traps of Henry Cavil. I’m a straight middle aged man, and I’ve never seen a Henry cavil movie. I also said I wasn’t interested in every one I saw. The “algorithm as god” paradigm has always seemed like complete BS to me.
I have pages they suggest to me that I block, then they show them again, so I have to unblock them before I can click block again. Spotify does it too. "Don't play this song" has to be unclicked...
I have pages they suggest to me that I block, then they show them again, so I have to unblock them before I can click block again.
Spotify does it too. "Don't play this song" has to be unclicked sometimes, even when I already told Spotify that I don't like that song and don't want to hear it.
Artificial intelligence is not either artificial or intelligent.
Well, maybe? Everyone says that, but these algorithms are complete black boxes that no one except the NDAed engineers who designed them understands. The common rebuttal to criticism of shitty...
Well, maybe? Everyone says that, but these algorithms are complete black boxes that no one except the NDAed engineers who designed them understands.
The common rebuttal to criticism of shitty content on algorithm based content hosts being “well that’s your fault because you’re obviously clicking on that stuff” always rings hollow to me because of that. For all we know, all of these sites just sprinkle sexual content in for certain demographics of users to try you to take the bait. There’s really no way of knowing.
I forgot if you follow your friends, they can also influence what you see. And sure they’ll throw whatever at you that your demographic sees but if you mark it and don’t engage it goes away....
I forgot if you follow your friends, they can also influence what you see. And sure they’ll throw whatever at you that your demographic sees but if you mark it and don’t engage it goes away. Especially if you tell it also the things you like. My insta feed and ads and search are almost 100% things I’m interested in. It didn’t start like that but I was able to filter it down. So it is possible to do.
My point is that you really don't know that's how it works. You have an assumption and some evidence, but there's no way to be sure how any of these algorithms work; they're black boxes. There's a...
My point is that you really don't know that's how it works. You have an assumption and some evidence, but there's no way to be sure how any of these algorithms work; they're black boxes. There's a good chance that me, as a middle aged straight white dude living in the south of the US, with x number of friends, y collected interests, z ad click through and so and and so forth have a completely different experience you do having your own points of data. There's also a good chance that even if we were exactly identical, we belong to different groups for a/b testing and we have totally different algorithms applied to us that show different things. There's also a good chance that even if you knew for sure all of that information and knew how the algorithm worked, that knowledge would only be valid for that single snapshot in time, because the algorithms are always changing and being tweaked.
I too would hope that we don’t end up losing more of the content that made me use the platform due to content creators grabbing all the viewers with their “talking “ streams. In their defense,...
I too would hope that we don’t end up losing more of the content that made me use the platform due to content creators grabbing all the viewers with their “talking “ streams.
In their defense, it’s a good business move to provide options but I could see this further saturating the platform.
Honestly, I think this was an unexpected but altogether pretty good move on Twitch's part. Now, people who want to see that sort of content can, and it's not forced onto unsuspecting people on the...
Honestly, I think this was an unexpected but altogether pretty good move on Twitch's part. Now, people who want to see that sort of content can, and it's not forced onto unsuspecting people on the homepage. People are always going to find ways to be juuuuust clothed enough to stay within the TOS because ultimately that's where the demand is. It's smarter to limit it like this rather than trying to have an NSFW arms race that just catches undeserving people in the crossfire.
I'm still seeing a ton of topless people when I check just chatting, is twitch planning on making their own category, or are they still going to be still in all the normal categories
I'm still seeing a ton of topless people when I check just chatting, is twitch planning on making their own category, or are they still going to be still in all the normal categories
It might not be on the homepage, but it is immediately visible in the “just chatting” category even when you're not logged in. Adult content should only be visible to logged in and adult users, or...
and it's not forced onto unsuspecting people on the homepage.
It might not be on the homepage, but it is immediately visible in the “just chatting” category even when you're not logged in. Adult content should only be visible to logged in and adult users, or there should be a separate toggle.
I think the problem is how poorly twitch enforces its TOS. Sex workers basically treat TOS violations as publicity stunts, where the clip goes viral for 24 hours before it's taken down. Meanwhile...
I think the problem is how poorly twitch enforces its TOS. Sex workers basically treat TOS violations as publicity stunts, where the clip goes viral for 24 hours before it's taken down. Meanwhile some guy gets trolled by his chat and opens a TOS link and gets a more severe ban.
I know the whole thing has been reversed by now but I really just want to say something about the whole streaming scene, both the non-pornographic and otherwise. It is a platform that rewards...
I know the whole thing has been reversed by now but I really just want to say something about the whole streaming scene, both the non-pornographic and otherwise.
It is a platform that rewards performers taking advantage of their viewers. Is this true of other artist/fan relationships like say autograph signings? Yes, but never to this extent. A better analog would be prostitution, emotionally manipulating troubled people into giving large sums of money for social interaction and acceptance. I 100% believe in the right for these people to make money and sell a service, but something needs to be done to stop the incentive that is currently baked into these interactions.
You give me more money I give you more attention.
I do not know the answer to fix this, perhaps all donations become anonymous? All I know is this is the next big thing that is being overlooked by regulating bodies. 10 years ago it was lootboxes creating gambling addicts, in another 10 years we will look back at this and its mainstreamification as another example of creating addicts in the name of personal profit.
It's the same with any parasocial relationship. To them, you're just a face in the crowd, but to you, they are the hilarious/beautiful/talented creator that you aspire to be with. There's a power...
It's the same with any parasocial relationship. To them, you're just a face in the crowd, but to you, they are the hilarious/beautiful/talented creator that you aspire to be with.
There's a power imbalance and the powerful dictate how far to push on the money lever, which will always attract the most cynical to push it the farthest.
I know you're trying to find parallels, but to be clear, prostitution is not a relationship where the "performer" emotionally manipulates or takes advantage of people - it's a worker-client...
I know you're trying to find parallels, but to be clear, prostitution is not a relationship where the "performer" emotionally manipulates or takes advantage of people - it's a worker-client relationship. There are people who get emotionally taken into it, but that's true of waitresses' and bartenders' clients too.
As usual a significant problem is the scale the internet allows you to operate at. Someone emotionally manipulating someone else into giving them money is an asshole. Someone doing the same to get money from tens of thousands of people is ... something else.
I completely agree. The parallel I was trying to make was a performer taking advantage of their audience through manipulation. Going to a strip club, being with a prostitute, or watching a...
I completely agree. The parallel I was trying to make was a performer taking advantage of their audience through manipulation. Going to a strip club, being with a prostitute, or watching a streamer all have the ability to use those positions of power to prey on people to get more money. It is not specifically what the job is, but the job allows for it to be exploited and very lucrative.
I find it very, very odd that, in an interaction with a stripper or a prostitute, your take is that the client is the one who is at risk of being taken advantage of.
Going to a strip club, being with a prostitute, or watching a streamer all have the ability to use those positions of power to prey on people to get more money.
I find it very, very odd that, in an interaction with a stripper or a prostitute, your take is that the client is the one who is at risk of being taken advantage of.
Well, that goes right to the core of the question, doesn't it? You could use breasts, which is the correct terminology and less offensive imo than female-presenting nipples. I'm pretty sure Twitch...
Well, that goes right to the core of the question, doesn't it?
You could use breasts, which is the correct terminology and less offensive imo than female-presenting nipples. I'm pretty sure Twitch would ban "male-presenting" nipples if a trans man went topless and wouldn't ban "female-presenting" ones if a trans woman did.
But that's besides the point. Like, when does a pectoral become a breast? I'm not just talking about for example when a trans woman takes estrogen and her breast tissue grows. What about very flat-chested cis women or cis men with just big pecs or gynecomastia?
These are rhetorical questions. I think companies should craft their content policies to be neutral: no visible nipples. Done.
Pretty sure the difficulty with this is there are some situations where this would be non-neutral when it comes to enforcement. For example, poolside or at a beach etc. the custom is for those...
These are rhetorical questions. I think companies should craft their content policies to be neutral: no visible nipples. Done.
Pretty sure the difficulty with this is there are some situations where this would be non-neutral when it comes to enforcement. For example, poolside or at a beach etc. the custom is for those that are "male-presenting" to not wear a shirt. You could potentially argue that the hypothetical cis-male streamer has to wear a shirt which isn't necessarily against custom and everything else is neutral, though even in this scenario it does make some streams near off limits since the streamer can't control others. Beaches, public pools or just pool parties etc. where other people are present and following social customs would be off-limits with the rule you proposed.
Of course it's the case that the custom being that way is non-neutral in real life, but it's similar to other situations Twitch is dealing with which is partly why they keep having to modify the rules or disproportionately affecting one gender over another. I think there's a rule about wearing bikinis unless within a certain setting, which is seemingly how you get people blowing up kiddie pools in their living room so they can wear a bikini on stream.
I think the edge case you are speaking about is no worse than other edge cases they have to deal with.
Yeah, I get that. But that's the point, such rules and the phrase used are discriminatory. It's not twitch's fault for having to juggle it, but calling it "female presenting nipples" is bad...
Yeah, I get that. But that's the point, such rules and the phrase used are discriminatory. It's not twitch's fault for having to juggle it, but calling it "female presenting nipples" is bad because that is such an ambiguous phrase.
Yeah I agree that the rules are discriminatory, the standards for the social custom it is attempting to meet are discriminatory. But I haven't seen an alternative proposed that better balances...
Yeah I agree that the rules are discriminatory, the standards for the social custom it is attempting to meet are discriminatory.
But I haven't seen an alternative proposed that better balances meeting standards set by social customs or better phrasing that describes it. I doubt there is any better phrasing because any phrasing simply reveals the underlying double standard of the social custom.
I don't think the phrase is ambiguous as you make it seem, you seem to know pretty well what the phrase was intending which ultimately means it conveyed to you what they intended for it to convey.
Oh they aren't this consistent about it -- they absolutely do bang trans women with the ban hammer for showing nip, and sometimes trans men are safe. It's really just about whether you look...
. I'm pretty sure Twitch would ban "male-presenting" nipples if a trans man went topless and wouldn't ban "female-presenting" ones if a trans woman did.
Oh they aren't this consistent about it -- they absolutely do bang trans women with the ban hammer for showing nip, and sometimes trans men are safe. It's really just about whether you look sufficiently feminine or masculine to show nipples according to whatever random person or algorithm is checking the video. But trust me, trans women do NOT get a pass here, nor would it be possible to be consistent about that anyway (it's even harder to check someone's genitalia or birth certificate than it is to subjectively judge how much like your subjective idea of female breasts it looks).
Thats certainly an option - but not one that matches US societal norms or the rules that US companies are aiming for. A trans man who has physically transitioned would be "male-presenting...
I think companies should craft their content policies to be neutral: no visible nipples.
Thats certainly an option - but not one that matches US societal norms or the rules that US companies are aiming for.
I'm pretty sure Twitch would ban "male-presenting" nipples if a trans man went topless and wouldn't ban "female-presenting" ones if a trans woman did.
A trans man who has physically transitioned would be "male-presenting nipples". A trans man who has not physically transitioned would be "female-presenting nipples". Same (but opposite) for trans women. Despite the weird-yet-clinical phrase, "female-presenting nipples" seems to be accurate.
Also, this specific case is referring to fictional/drawn art. Which opens of pandora's box for anatomy that doesn't exist in the real world. "Female-presenting nipples" seems to be the most accurate way to describe the content that the new rules cover (or covered, since the rules have been walked back).
lmao at what stage in physical transition do my nipples stop being "female presenting"? Is it when I start HRT? When I've been on HRT long enough that I'm visually masculine (say, I have a full...
A trans man who has not physically transitioned would be "female-presenting nipples". Same (but opposite) for trans women.
lmao at what stage in physical transition do my nipples stop being "female presenting"? Is it when I start HRT? When I've been on HRT long enough that I'm visually masculine (say, I have a full beard)? When I get top surgery? If your answer is top surgery, can a woman with a full mastectomy show nipples? If I can't show my nipples when I've been on T for years and have a full beard but haven't gotten top surgery, what about a fat cis man with big man boobs? How do you verify that my chest is the result of growing up with estrogen and his aren't, especially when we're both overweight men now? What if I was naturally flat chested and don't need top surgery -- what decides when my nipples become "female-presenting" then? If the situation is different based on size, is that also the case for cis women? What about trans women -- how big do their tits need to be to "count"?
There's a reason people made fun of this terminology when tumblr did it. Nipples on their own don't have a gender and aren't "female-presenting" or "male-presenting". People can be female- or male-presenting, but this isn't a particularly easy to establish binary to establish when trans people are in the mix. They absolutely are unable to do it based on either your gender assigned at birth or your current gender identity, because they can't identify that from looking at you. So it's really an impressionistic subjective view of how female or male you "look", which is not necessarily directly related to whether one "has transitioned" (something that is NOT a single thing that someone does in an instant, but rather a series of processes that someone may or may not even decide to start).
I don't see how forbidding everyone from showing nipples doesn't match US norms. Regardless, Twitch does business internationally, it's just good practice to be thorough. Trans people do not owe...
I don't see how forbidding everyone from showing nipples doesn't match US norms. Regardless, Twitch does business internationally, it's just good practice to be thorough.
Trans people do not owe society surgery, or even hrt. Many trans men choose not to get top surgery. Regardless, what about cis people?
Fictional/drawn art depicts people. That argument would be valid if all everyone ever drew were bishies and big titty anime girls.
The rules are stupid, is what I'm getting at, and regardless they've been rolled back. Lol.
I usually like Ludwig's take on meta (read: not creator, tend not to care about that stuff) Twitch controversy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLB5jRViDZU
Unrelated to this article, but when I click on the link, IGN sees that I'm in Belgium and decides to redirect me to the Dutch version of the article. Not only I find this incredibly aggressive and...
Unrelated to this article, but when I click on the link, IGN sees that I'm in Belgium and decides to redirect me to the Dutch version of the article. Not only I find this incredibly aggressive and unwanted, but also super unhelpful because Dutch is only one of the 3 official languages in Belgium, and not the one I speak...
From Soft's website always did this when I clicked on their updates for Elden Ring in steam. My steam is in English so the little preview there would be in English, but they'd switch to German...
From Soft's website always did this when I clicked on their updates for Elden Ring in steam. My steam is in English so the little preview there would be in English, but they'd switch to German when it opened the website since I'm in Germany. And my German is not good enough that I want to read articles about Elden Ring patches in it!
I get regional stuff when it's a site selling something, since that involves a lot of regional infrastructure and shit, but for shit I'm just going to read myself? Let me select the language myself from a list like wikipedia does! Not everyone speaks the majority language of the country they live in (plus the existence of countries like yours, where there isn't one obvious "right option" there either).
Despite how strange this is for what Twitch is actually supposed to be, it's heartening to see a corporation defending NSFW content for once instead of succumbing to the puritan crusade and locking it down for ad revenue or to appease payment processors as we've seen tons of websites do recently.
If a kid is on the internet unsupervised they're gonna get to what they're gonna get to regardless of the platform. It's probably possible for twitch to have restricted labelled content and at least the same degree of parental controls as any other service without striking the content out of the platform entirely.
But let's be real, they're doing this because this crowd was beginning to flee to competitor kick.com, which incidentally offers a much better revenue share. Twitch only ever moves when they have competition. When Mixer showed up, Twitch added channel points and interactions to get feature parity. When Mixer closed their doors Twitch immediately got rid of 70-30 revenue splits and forced everyone to 50-50. When kick showed up with a much better 95-5 revenue split Twitch brought back the 70-30 split. They're pretty awful.
That's insane, if not illegal it's teetering on there.
Illegal? Have you met Amazon?
I am no puritan but I think the issue is that the website attracts a very young crowd.
I don't think that's the site's fault. It hosts a plethora of games not suitable for children either. I didn't hear the "but the kids" until the whole nudity thing started but if you look at the site as a whole you can see that the games are also a problem for children. Why start this clamoring for child protections now?
Twitch has similar protections for 18+ streams as Pornhub does for porn, so I don't think the fault here is with Twitch, but rather the internet being incredibly easy for children to surf with lackadaisical parenting to boot.
Well, yeah, I'm not clamoring for anything. I just think that was the reasoning.
I didn't mean you personally though I understand why it sounded that way. I apologise for that.
Yep.
Sadly, one side of me thinks this wouldn’t be possible if Amazon wasn’t the parent company behind them.
I hope this doesn’t end up getting backtracked and we end up where we started
Heh, celebrated too soon:
Only partially. Artists can't create full nude art on twitch anymore, the other new rules are still in effect.
There's possibly been an update, as of the 15th. This reads like you applaud Twitch for allowing artistic nudity, but per the update in TFA, Twitch has "...made a dramatic U-turn on its controversial decision to allow" artistic nudity - meaning it's back to banned.
Doesn’t really matter to me. 90% of my time on the site is spent watching a single channel. I don’t understand getting outraged over this content on Twitch. It has always felt like a misogynistic crusade.
It's frustrating because of the favoritism shown.
Many people gravitated towards twitch to play games, and they do their best to follow these rules. They will sometimes get dinged for what feels like extremely minor infractions, and this can cost them their entire account, and maybe their lively hood. All because of the behavior of someone in their chat, or a song playing in the background that might be copyrighted, or a similar such issue.
Then, you have people literally showing off their genitals before it was ok'd by the TOS, and they get a slap on the wrist and make ZILLIONS from it. Further when those same people get similar infractions they seem to magically get resolved immediately, because of course they're making the platform a shitload of money.
Everyone has always known sex sells, but if you're not traditionally attractive enough for that to be an option, then you're not going to be important in the eyes of Twitch, because that's their real cash cow.
This does get extra concerning given the site's demographic trend towards minors, and LOTS of instances of them giving obscene amounts of money to streamers with very little recourse.
Edit-
I will add that while these are the legit arguments, there are dumb ones. Twitch is NOT a career, it's a gamble that in an super small % of the time, can turn into a career. Sadly there's a lot of people who think they can make it, and when they don't they lash out at anything and everything as the reason why, when the simple answer is "even if you had something unique going for you, there's 1000 other people out there doing the same thing".
Edit: They've rolled this all back 24 hours later so my comment no longer applies. Foolish of me to think artists could catch a break.
Not sure if this is a minority opinion or not but this is an amazing win for artists in particular. So many times artists had to censor their art/limit the type of art they could draw on stream because of guidelines, and many were always afraid to get banned. This must be a huge weight off their shoulders.
Welp that didn't take long, but they're already back-tracking on the change:
https://safety.twitch.tv/s/article/Sexual-Content-Policy-Update?language=en_US
Interesting that they particularly call out AI-generated imagery as potentially a concern fueling some of the reversal- that is an angle I had not considered and does make enforcement/etc more complex.
That said, add this to the long list of poorly thought-out policy changes that seems to be Twitch's M.O.
It does feel like a case of "a few bad apples spoil the barrel" in that, for all the AI "artists" abusing the rule to create realistic pornography, there were many more just doing their normal illustration work, who are being penalized all the same.
But I know the real reason is that Twitch absolutely wants to offset moderation costs and excluding one and not the other would just add to those costs, so they'd rather blanket ban it again.
I wonder if part of the concern isn't that AI generates realistic pornography, but that AI can automatically generate continuous content. Maybe twitch doesn't want to pay out to multiple 24/7 automatic porn generation streams.
How much money do you think an automated porn stream would rake in? Tens of thousands? Hundreds? "Bits, tips or subs choose the next prompt! $10 or more goes to the top of the queue!"
Man twitch really took a nosedive. Might as well just merge with onlyfans now since sexual content seems to be their bread winner these days.
I think the "twitch is dying" / "twitch content has gone downhill" narrative is a false one, tbh. And not necessarily in your case, but often I think it's some BS sometimes-misogynist gamer angle that is taken on that. "They're just polluting our platform that's for GAMERS", "fake gamer girl this/that, because they show cleavage" blah blah blah. The idea that sexual content is low quality content I find annoying, even as someone that doesn't use Twitch for that at all
Where is this "nosedive"? Nearly all the streams I watch on the platform are gaming or music streams ranging from small streams with a couple hundred viewers, to big streams with thousands of viewers (if not tens of thousands) and if anything, they're doing just as good if not better than they ever have.
I think the idea that sexual content "pollutes" or otherwise "saturates" the platform is just false. It's just more variety, more options to choose from, appeals to more viewers. More choice, no one is forced to watch a stream with pole dancing or sexual content or whatever
The only "nosedive" I've seen at Twitch is purely on the company/staff side of things- where for a long time they've introduced features that streamers don't want, have done things to negatively affect income streamers get, have polluted the site heavily with ads to an unpleasant amount, and have unevenly applied their rules- so IMO this is one of the first "good" business/company direction decisions they've made in a long time
I agree with everything you said. Including the nose dive. (They did recently announce they are leaving South Korea for being too expensive to operate in) I personally just think they should pick a lane and stop with the wishy-washy policies. I got no issues with sexual content, I think it’s a great time to be a sexy mf, there is real money to be made and it does not typically involve abuse or manipulation, just consent. BUT, I don’t think long term parasocial relationships are a good idea, I don’t have a clear solution for something like that.
100% agree on policies and applying them and that's actually an increasing worry the more they wade into different types of content- they're going to have more content they're going to have to scrutinize closer for TOS breaking, legality issues, and in their eyes, advertising also- i could care less about that angle because i hate advertisers/advertising anyway haha- but I can definitely see a lot of advertisers and their typical puritan ways not wanting to associate with Twitch after these kinds of changes. The closer you get to NSFW (particularly sexual) content, especially being a company watched internationally- the more complex that web gets, quick- and honestly, they do not have a proven track record when it comes to applying an even and consistent set of rules for streams and punishments for breaking those rules. The favoritism is a nightmare.
Yeah, there definitely are multiple facets/issues to the problem, that's for sure. Including Twitch's availability to minors (they are taking care not to recommend NSFW channels or show them front page, and hopefully are taking other measures to ensure only adults are consuming said content- that said that's more of an internet problem... tons of platforms suffer from it). There are various measures that can be taken but some of those aren't great (especially when they start to involve government surveillance and so forth).
As for parasocial relationships, I agree, but I also think that's another "bigger than Twitch" kind of problem. It's an internet problem for anyone that has an audience and can communicate with them. That's more of a social danger than a platform-specific one, and needs to be addressed outside of simply some internet policy.
As far as South Korea- to me that's more of a problem of the laws in that country and the ability for ISPs to not be neutral "pipes" but instead demand that certain sites that they serve over their lines pay them for that privilege- that's just an unfeasible type of anti-net-neutral legislation that is just poorly thought out. I'm all for regulation of companies and think we lack some of what we need in the US- but the double-edged sword of regulation is that poorly designed ones also end up hurting users/consumers and I think that's what's happening there.
But it sort of is in the sense that, at least until now, it was just skirting the rules.
Twtich has never been onlyfans, but clearly a vast majority of the people making money on it would, at least for a time, pretend to be doing something that was about gaming or talking to streamers, but anyone would say has a lot more in common with webcam stripping.
That's NOT to say that's easy. Just staying in that kind of shape is hard even with the right genetics for it, but if you're judging them on the content they claimed to be doing, well yeah it was low effort, because everyone knew it was an excuse to do what they were doing.
With this twitch has just owned up to the reality, which should they or shouldn't is a whole other conversation, so at least there isn't going to be "ok today we're going to be playing {current game} and i'll do 50 squats every time I see something blue or we hit a donation goal" nonsense going on.
And I will say there's sort of an odd/worrying trend in general in the last decade or so. It's no secret that gambling and sex are two of the easiest money makers in the world, but we have generally had laws so that every corner isn't a casino or strip club. Yes many of those laws are based in overly religious puritan style beliefs with all sorts of problems, but I think it can be agreed that having EVERYTHING just turn into that isn't ideal, and yet that seems to be something we're getting more and more ok with (on both fronts. Mobile gaming being a sea of "no it's not gambling" games where they're technically correct because if it was it'd be illegal for how predatory it is).
Unfortunately that seems to be the direction that all social media sites are heading. I can't scroll through Instagram reels without having a dozen OnlyFans models posting barely sfw videos.
It's getting old. I don't mind seeing sexual content if that's what I'm looking for, but I'm annoyed that it's spilling over to all social media in existence. TikTok is overflowing with OnlyFans girls and you can select “not interested” a thousand times but they'll still pop up all the time.
Exactly how I feel. It seems like the only big social media company without a ton of accidental porn is Facebook. I'm no puritan, but the normalization of porn in everyday media is worrisome to me.
Just to play devils advocate, I've heard others share that they've seen FB marketplace listings with porn images, reported them, and received a response saying it won't be removed.
YouTube is really the only "algorithm" based site I actively use. Tildes, Mastodon, and Lemmy are all very different in that they sort by recent in one way or another. And the "trending" section of mastodon at least feels like a true measure of recent user engagement, free of advertising or unfair sorting.
I haven't seen sexual stuff on marketplace so I can't comment on that. I'll occasionally get lingerie ads so I guess those could count. Facebook has a whole set of different problems, and they don't seem to care at all. Every Washington post article has spam/bot comments pushing shady crypto websites. Fake accounts are rampent and go around spreading false information, and I don't think I've ever gotten a message about something I reported actually being acted upon. Everything I report "doesn't go against community standards".
I haven't made my way to Lemmy or Mastodon really. But threads seems to have the same problems instagram had with suggesting OnlyFans models. I guess I am their target demographic, but I don't want that plastered all over every social media site I use. Reddit was bad enough with the cosplay girls pushing their porn.
One great thing about Mastodon is how easy it is to block things. I was getting annoyed with people explaining why they migrated from Twitter, so I made a filter for that content, and now I don't see it. It's also very easy to block people or hide their content. (I follow some hashtags, like #homelab, but don't care for some people who use it frequently.)
I haven't explored the content filtering settings much in Lemmy, but I'd assume they're similar to Mastodon.+
I just really appreciate that these platforms give the power back to the user. I refuse to be a slave to "the algorithm" when it comes to sites I frequent.
Honestly, that’s not even true. I don’t spend much time on Facebook, I just continue to have one because my family begged me to keep one to stay in touch. I was watching a (completely non sexual) video one of them sent to me with my girlfriend, and immediately after the video I was bombarded with suggestions for “You won’t BELIEVE what happened to her bikini!!!” Or “you won’t guess what happened to her next after her dress got caught in the door!!!” style videos. It just strikes me as pseudo porn made for kids who aren’t allowed to go on other websites yet. Kinda gross.
Maybe that's the difference for us, I never watch videos on Facebook because then every video autoplays on full volume. I could totally see that happening though.
I don't normally either, that's why this moment was so memorable. I had never seen video suggestions on facebook before. From what I saw, it was all the lowest possible denominator gutter trash.
The only videos I'll watch on Facebook are from Steven Mould. Not even sure he has an IG or Threads account. But I watch it, then go back to reading the drama comments on my local news articles.
I have a very long block list, and I have all of the most common tags blocked as well and it cleaned up my TikTok feed really well. I'm convinced "Not Interested" hasn't actually done anything on Tiktok for awhile.
I don't get any only fans advert style content (I think a couple of people I follow may also have OF but I don't know which proves my experience I think)
Tiktok is so wildly different for everyone which is fascinating to me.
This is because you engage with that content. If you go through the search area and mark stuff as something you aren’t interested in, you’ll stop seeing it.
That's how it is supposed to work, that's not how it actually works in practice. I try to alter my algorithm by saying "don't show me this stuff" on both IG and Facebook and I continue seeing it. Facebook shows me so many conspiracy theory/flat earther stuff that I click hide on, and then keep showing me more.
Facebook was convinced for months that I really wanted to see thirst traps of Henry Cavil. I’m a straight middle aged man, and I’ve never seen a Henry cavil movie. I also said I wasn’t interested in every one I saw. The “algorithm as god” paradigm has always seemed like complete BS to me.
I have pages they suggest to me that I block, then they show them again, so I have to unblock them before I can click block again.
Spotify does it too. "Don't play this song" has to be unclicked sometimes, even when I already told Spotify that I don't like that song and don't want to hear it.
Artificial intelligence is not either artificial or intelligent.
I’ve managed on IG to only get things I’m interested in. No thots. Dunno about FB.
Well, maybe? Everyone says that, but these algorithms are complete black boxes that no one except the NDAed engineers who designed them understands.
The common rebuttal to criticism of shitty content on algorithm based content hosts being “well that’s your fault because you’re obviously clicking on that stuff” always rings hollow to me because of that. For all we know, all of these sites just sprinkle sexual content in for certain demographics of users to try you to take the bait. There’s really no way of knowing.
I forgot if you follow your friends, they can also influence what you see. And sure they’ll throw whatever at you that your demographic sees but if you mark it and don’t engage it goes away. Especially if you tell it also the things you like. My insta feed and ads and search are almost 100% things I’m interested in. It didn’t start like that but I was able to filter it down. So it is possible to do.
My point is that you really don't know that's how it works. You have an assumption and some evidence, but there's no way to be sure how any of these algorithms work; they're black boxes. There's a good chance that me, as a middle aged straight white dude living in the south of the US, with x number of friends, y collected interests, z ad click through and so and and so forth have a completely different experience you do having your own points of data. There's also a good chance that even if we were exactly identical, we belong to different groups for a/b testing and we have totally different algorithms applied to us that show different things. There's also a good chance that even if you knew for sure all of that information and knew how the algorithm worked, that knowledge would only be valid for that single snapshot in time, because the algorithms are always changing and being tweaked.
I too would hope that we don’t end up losing more of the content that made me use the platform due to content creators grabbing all the viewers with their “talking “ streams.
In their defense, it’s a good business move to provide options but I could see this further saturating the platform.
Honestly, I think this was an unexpected but altogether pretty good move on Twitch's part. Now, people who want to see that sort of content can, and it's not forced onto unsuspecting people on the homepage. People are always going to find ways to be juuuuust clothed enough to stay within the TOS because ultimately that's where the demand is. It's smarter to limit it like this rather than trying to have an NSFW arms race that just catches undeserving people in the crossfire.
I'm still seeing a ton of topless people when I check just chatting, is twitch planning on making their own category, or are they still going to be still in all the normal categories
Yeah an NSFW mode would make sense.
It might not be on the homepage, but it is immediately visible in the “just chatting” category even when you're not logged in. Adult content should only be visible to logged in and adult users, or there should be a separate toggle.
I think the problem is how poorly twitch enforces its TOS. Sex workers basically treat TOS violations as publicity stunts, where the clip goes viral for 24 hours before it's taken down. Meanwhile some guy gets trolled by his chat and opens a TOS link and gets a more severe ban.
I know the whole thing has been reversed by now but I really just want to say something about the whole streaming scene, both the non-pornographic and otherwise.
It is a platform that rewards performers taking advantage of their viewers. Is this true of other artist/fan relationships like say autograph signings? Yes, but never to this extent. A better analog would be prostitution, emotionally manipulating troubled people into giving large sums of money for social interaction and acceptance. I 100% believe in the right for these people to make money and sell a service, but something needs to be done to stop the incentive that is currently baked into these interactions.
You give me more money I give you more attention.
I do not know the answer to fix this, perhaps all donations become anonymous? All I know is this is the next big thing that is being overlooked by regulating bodies. 10 years ago it was lootboxes creating gambling addicts, in another 10 years we will look back at this and its mainstreamification as another example of creating addicts in the name of personal profit.
It's the same with any parasocial relationship. To them, you're just a face in the crowd, but to you, they are the hilarious/beautiful/talented creator that you aspire to be with.
There's a power imbalance and the powerful dictate how far to push on the money lever, which will always attract the most cynical to push it the farthest.
I know you're trying to find parallels, but to be clear, prostitution is not a relationship where the "performer" emotionally manipulates or takes advantage of people - it's a worker-client relationship. There are people who get emotionally taken into it, but that's true of waitresses' and bartenders' clients too.
As usual a significant problem is the scale the internet allows you to operate at. Someone emotionally manipulating someone else into giving them money is an asshole. Someone doing the same to get money from tens of thousands of people is ... something else.
I completely agree. The parallel I was trying to make was a performer taking advantage of their audience through manipulation. Going to a strip club, being with a prostitute, or watching a streamer all have the ability to use those positions of power to prey on people to get more money. It is not specifically what the job is, but the job allows for it to be exploited and very lucrative.
I find it very, very odd that, in an interaction with a stripper or a prostitute, your take is that the client is the one who is at risk of being taken advantage of.
I see we're still going with the "female-presenting" phrase, because that is a clear descriptor with no ambiguity whatsoever 🙄
What would be better terminology to use?
Well, that goes right to the core of the question, doesn't it?
You could use breasts, which is the correct terminology and less offensive imo than female-presenting nipples. I'm pretty sure Twitch would ban "male-presenting" nipples if a trans man went topless and wouldn't ban "female-presenting" ones if a trans woman did.
But that's besides the point. Like, when does a pectoral become a breast? I'm not just talking about for example when a trans woman takes estrogen and her breast tissue grows. What about very flat-chested cis women or cis men with just big pecs or gynecomastia?
These are rhetorical questions. I think companies should craft their content policies to be neutral: no visible nipples. Done.
Pretty sure the difficulty with this is there are some situations where this would be non-neutral when it comes to enforcement. For example, poolside or at a beach etc. the custom is for those that are "male-presenting" to not wear a shirt. You could potentially argue that the hypothetical cis-male streamer has to wear a shirt which isn't necessarily against custom and everything else is neutral, though even in this scenario it does make some streams near off limits since the streamer can't control others. Beaches, public pools or just pool parties etc. where other people are present and following social customs would be off-limits with the rule you proposed.
Of course it's the case that the custom being that way is non-neutral in real life, but it's similar to other situations Twitch is dealing with which is partly why they keep having to modify the rules or disproportionately affecting one gender over another. I think there's a rule about wearing bikinis unless within a certain setting, which is seemingly how you get people blowing up kiddie pools in their living room so they can wear a bikini on stream.
I think the edge case you are speaking about is no worse than other edge cases they have to deal with.
Yeah, I get that. But that's the point, such rules and the phrase used are discriminatory. It's not twitch's fault for having to juggle it, but calling it "female presenting nipples" is bad because that is such an ambiguous phrase.
Yeah I agree that the rules are discriminatory, the standards for the social custom it is attempting to meet are discriminatory.
But I haven't seen an alternative proposed that better balances meeting standards set by social customs or better phrasing that describes it. I doubt there is any better phrasing because any phrasing simply reveals the underlying double standard of the social custom.
I don't think the phrase is ambiguous as you make it seem, you seem to know pretty well what the phrase was intending which ultimately means it conveyed to you what they intended for it to convey.
Oh they aren't this consistent about it -- they absolutely do bang trans women with the ban hammer for showing nip, and sometimes trans men are safe. It's really just about whether you look sufficiently feminine or masculine to show nipples according to whatever random person or algorithm is checking the video. But trust me, trans women do NOT get a pass here, nor would it be possible to be consistent about that anyway (it's even harder to check someone's genitalia or birth certificate than it is to subjectively judge how much like your subjective idea of female breasts it looks).
Thats certainly an option - but not one that matches US societal norms or the rules that US companies are aiming for.
A trans man who has physically transitioned would be "male-presenting nipples". A trans man who has not physically transitioned would be "female-presenting nipples". Same (but opposite) for trans women. Despite the weird-yet-clinical phrase, "female-presenting nipples" seems to be accurate.
Also, this specific case is referring to fictional/drawn art. Which opens of pandora's box for anatomy that doesn't exist in the real world. "Female-presenting nipples" seems to be the most accurate way to describe the content that the new rules cover (or covered, since the rules have been walked back).
lmao at what stage in physical transition do my nipples stop being "female presenting"? Is it when I start HRT? When I've been on HRT long enough that I'm visually masculine (say, I have a full beard)? When I get top surgery? If your answer is top surgery, can a woman with a full mastectomy show nipples? If I can't show my nipples when I've been on T for years and have a full beard but haven't gotten top surgery, what about a fat cis man with big man boobs? How do you verify that my chest is the result of growing up with estrogen and his aren't, especially when we're both overweight men now? What if I was naturally flat chested and don't need top surgery -- what decides when my nipples become "female-presenting" then? If the situation is different based on size, is that also the case for cis women? What about trans women -- how big do their tits need to be to "count"?
There's a reason people made fun of this terminology when tumblr did it. Nipples on their own don't have a gender and aren't "female-presenting" or "male-presenting". People can be female- or male-presenting, but this isn't a particularly easy to establish binary to establish when trans people are in the mix. They absolutely are unable to do it based on either your gender assigned at birth or your current gender identity, because they can't identify that from looking at you. So it's really an impressionistic subjective view of how female or male you "look", which is not necessarily directly related to whether one "has transitioned" (something that is NOT a single thing that someone does in an instant, but rather a series of processes that someone may or may not even decide to start).
I don't see how forbidding everyone from showing nipples doesn't match US norms. Regardless, Twitch does business internationally, it's just good practice to be thorough.
Trans people do not owe society surgery, or even hrt. Many trans men choose not to get top surgery. Regardless, what about cis people?
Fictional/drawn art depicts people. That argument would be valid if all everyone ever drew were bishies and big titty anime girls.
The rules are stupid, is what I'm getting at, and regardless they've been rolled back. Lol.
I usually like Ludwig's take on meta (read: not creator, tend not to care about that stuff) Twitch controversy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLB5jRViDZU
Unrelated to this article, but when I click on the link, IGN sees that I'm in Belgium and decides to redirect me to the Dutch version of the article. Not only I find this incredibly aggressive and unwanted, but also super unhelpful because Dutch is only one of the 3 official languages in Belgium, and not the one I speak...
From Soft's website always did this when I clicked on their updates for Elden Ring in steam. My steam is in English so the little preview there would be in English, but they'd switch to German when it opened the website since I'm in Germany. And my German is not good enough that I want to read articles about Elden Ring patches in it!
I get regional stuff when it's a site selling something, since that involves a lot of regional infrastructure and shit, but for shit I'm just going to read myself? Let me select the language myself from a list like wikipedia does! Not everyone speaks the majority language of the country they live in (plus the existence of countries like yours, where there isn't one obvious "right option" there either).