Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Twitch removes every member of its Safety Advisory Council

engadget.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–89 of 89 posts

Re: Twitch removes every member of its Safety Advisory Council

#81

Post by mrweasel »

SXX wrote: post #74
nubinetwork wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a time and place for everything, I don't go to PH for gaming or programming content, and I don't think it's wrong to ask for the opposite.

Poster above wondered where are money coming from and this was the answer. There are people who pay to webcam models on Twitch and this is the reason why Amazon allow it to happen. Money. Anyway I feel like power users are just more likely affected here and see soft porn on Twitch more often. To be honest I only ocasionally use Twitch, but last month I've been watching Trackmania there a lot. Like every day for sever…

Well.. no I was wondering if that many people are actually paying for OnlyFans for it to be profitable for that many creators.

Parent comment got it right, I feel like it would be reasonable to expect the OnlyFans creators to keep their almost shameful self-promotion of platforms like Twitch or YouTube. I don't care what kind of content they produce, as long as it's consensual they can do whatever they want, and it's not the nature of the content that irritates me, it's the insane level of self-whoring, it's pretty cringe.

I can see it from the point of view of Twitch, it's content, it sells, it makes money so leave it.

Re: Twitch removes every member of its Safety Advisory Council

#82

Post by viraptor »

olsonjeffery wrote: post #80
viraptor wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twitch is losing money. Now it's losing less. (I'm not saying it makes sense or will make a dent or anything else, just putting the fact out there - twitch has limited time to figure out how to make things work)

“just putting the facts out there” while stating a truism devoid of context is not a constructive contribution. You make no comments on the impact of this choice beyond the nominal cost savings. Or does your lack of comment signal your perspective? What even is your point?

That it doesn't matter that the saving is trivial. I think it's a signal of one of two things: Either they want a popular committee dependent on their income and easy to manipulate. Or we're to see lots of savings at any cost at any opportunity. That's what I meant by "losing less" - not a truism, but a beginning of doing anything and everything to reach breakeven. And lots of it will be stupid and not make a difference apart from making things just a bit worse.

Re: Twitch removes every member of its Safety Advisory Council

#83

Post by viraptor »

zer00eyz wrote: post #67
viraptor wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're lucky - we have just the right study that already happened on another service! https://arxiv.org/html/2401.11254v1 Turns out that deplatforming works and has overall positive results. "The Great Ban: Efficacy and Unintended Consequences of a Massive Deplatforming Operation on Reddit" - worth a read and answers your questions. Apart from the one about whether they change.. we'll likely never really know, but at…

>> Turns out that deplatforming works and has overall positive results. Did you read this? "Horta Ribeiro et al. (2021) assessed the impact of deplatforming across multiple platforms, concentrating on the migration of users from banned subreddits to newly established platforms. Their findings indicated a significant decline in user activity on the new platforms. However, they also found a subset of users who increase…

> Your calling that effective? It's hardly a dent in reddit, and further more the people who left likely went off and got worse.

No, I said the result was overall positive and the study confirms that.

You've cherry picked what you got out of that text a bit:

> They specifically call out that departed users in past studies end up MORE Radicalized.

The text specifically says "found a subset of users". It's not "departed users", but a subset of them. Of course there's going to be a few that got worse... they're people.

The main point is: How did the whole system change? - Slightly positive. Where did the most toxic people go? - Away, where others won't easily find them by accident. We're not going to prevent the already evil from finding each other, but we can succeed in creating environments where they're not the normal group.

Re: Twitch removes every member of its Safety Advisory Council

#84

Post by danaris »

mariusor wrote: post #77
nubinetwork wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twitch seems quite content with being a front for onlyfans. They recently started blurring stream thumbnails, and have never cared about linktree/etc links despite them being used as a "hide it under the carpet" for onlyfans as well. (Direct links bad, a link to a link is okay though?) They may as well stop pretending and fully allow adult content, because it's pretty obvious that these streamers will keep pushing th…

Frankly I don't understand why all the naughty streams don't get moved to a sibling platform, call it Twitch Red that only deals with those. They can share 95% of legal and operational costs, but it has the benefit that it isolates the game streaming platform for any questionable content that might raise the eyebrow of sensitive jurisdictions and advertisers. There must be something obvious I'm missing otherwise this…

In part, I would guess, because if they did that, there would be a much higher likelihood that payment processors would decide to blacklist the Red version of the service—something they can't really do with just the adult streams on Twitch as it stands.

I would further guess that this would only be one aspect of the broader marginalization of the Red version of the service—they wouldn't be promoting it openly on the main Twitch, because that would antagonize the "think-of-the-children" types, and it would no longer benefit from cross-recommendations and from people watching a Call of Duty stream until 11PM, and then noticing in the sidebar that their favorite adult streamer has come online and switching over to them. They would probably even suffer from the one quasi-legitimate excuse the payment processors have for banning adult sites: much higher rates of chargebacks, as people with overly judgmental and insufficiently communicative significant others try to hide them on their credit card statements (or any of a bunch of other reasons).

It would be great if we could collectively treat sex work as work, just like any other form of selling our bodies and minds to support ourselves—and, indeed, for the time being that is effectively what Twitch is doing, and in doing so benefits both themselves and these streamers, who otherwise would have to use more stigmatized platforms with much less reach.

Re: Twitch removes every member of its Safety Advisory Council

#85

Post by nozzlegear »

celdon25 wrote: post #75
newswasboring wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you complaining about people bullying nazis? I... I really want to be misunderstanding.

You are. I was vulgarly called a Nazi once by one of those people for saying the taxes should be lower.

I don't follow – we shouldn't bully nazis because people who want lower taxes might accidentally catch strays?

Re: Twitch removes every member of its Safety Advisory Council

#86

Post by mariusor »

danaris wrote: post #84
mariusor wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Frankly I don't understand why all the naughty streams don't get moved to a sibling platform, call it Twitch Red that only deals with those. They can share 95% of legal and operational costs, but it has the benefit that it isolates the game streaming platform for any questionable content that might raise the eyebrow of sensitive jurisdictions and advertisers. There must be something obvious I'm missing otherwise this…

In part, I would guess, because if they did that, there would be a much higher likelihood that payment processors would decide to blacklist the Red version of the service—something they can't really do with just the adult streams on Twitch as it stands. I would further guess that this would only be one aspect of the broader marginalization of the Red version of the service—they wouldn't be promoting it openly on the…

> doing so benefits both themselves and these streamers

And annoys the hell out of everyone else that just wants to watch people playing video games.

Re: Twitch removes every member of its Safety Advisory Council

#87

Post by worthless-trash »

threeseed wrote: post #27
worthless-trash wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks, this is something that I believe too. You rarely 'solve' an issue by making it hidden. At least in the open, you can see the danger.

This is simply not true. When you tolerate things such as child pornography, doxxing etc it makes the practice appear sanctioned and encourages others to join in. We saw this quite clearly with Reddit and Twitter.

At what point did i say tolerate ?

Re: Twitch removes every member of its Safety Advisory Council

#88

Post by danaris »

mariusor wrote: post #86
danaris wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In part, I would guess, because if they did that, there would be a much higher likelihood that payment processors would decide to blacklist the Red version of the service—something they can't really do with just the adult streams on Twitch as it stands. I would further guess that this would only be one aspect of the broader marginalization of the Red version of the service—they wouldn't be promoting it openly on the…

> doing so benefits both themselves and these streamers And annoys the hell out of everyone else that just wants to watch people playing video games.

Speak for yourself. It doesn't bother me, and I'm someone.

Re: Twitch removes every member of its Safety Advisory Council

#89

Post by celdon25 »

nozzlegear wrote: post #85
celdon25 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are. I was vulgarly called a Nazi once by one of those people for saying the taxes should be lower.

I don't follow – we shouldn't bully nazis because people who want lower taxes might accidentally catch strays?

That's not what I am saying. Nazis are bad, but the GP has a poor way with words and it looks obvious to me that the comment was made in a context that applied to "the anti-nazi crowd's MO of bullying" not applicable to just nazis, but anybody they disagree with. Basically cancel culture, whether you're a nazi, or just somebody they don't like. The point was specific to the bullying, not about Nazis. The GP clearly conflated these two ideas when responding.

You can be an opponent of both "cancel culture" and nazis at the same time. And you can be an opponent of cancel culture while still publicly calling out legitimate Neo-Nazis (even though I think it is a waste of time). But if you call somebody a Nazi for disagreeing with you, or voting for a republican, or having a viewpoint that isn't leftist, then that's crossing a line. This happens all the time, and the GP is obviously aware of it like many of us are.

Just because some people (like the GP) do a shitty job of criticizing cancel culture, that doesn't make cancel culture any more right or wrong. It is what it is.

Post reply on HN