Consistently enforcing the rules is absolutely the most important thing about having said rules. If people are punished for breaking a rule one time after already breaking said rule a bunch of times before, then it feels like they’re being targeted for something else. Twitch has to enforce their rules 100% of the time with every single content creator otherwise the enforcing the rules just feel like an excuse to ban people that twitch doesn’t like.
I think that also coincides for this weird and recent trend of girls hating guys who *love* video games and solely that. They realize guys don't like them anymore because of their bad attitudes so they turn look at what those guys like the most: Pop culture which includes video games and anime. So they shame guys who like games and anime because it's the easiest thing to do while refusing to be self-aware of what they're doing.
@luisiana1121 so basically it's some women going, "I don't like this thing, but I am going to destroy and ruin it for everyone and then shame and bully you for ever liking it instead of me and that'll make me feel better because that's what a emotionally mature and not at all insecure adult does!"
@gekirobo8720 yup. Thats what I'm saying. The irony is that they say video games aren't productive when it helps you learn a lot whereas those normie women obsess over reality TV, the Kardashians and other social media drivel they indulge in.
@@gekirobo8720 Not exclusively. It could be some stuff like kiwifarms going over things they don't like. It could be zealous fans of more idol-oriented vtubers (and corpos) who don't like western vtubing scene because it's not as strict. It could be unicorns that thtow a fit when vtuber collabs with men, or with fleshtubers It could be specific vtuber or corpo haters, or the political slacktivists of twitter (both leftwing and rightwing) Hell, a motivated enough harasser/stalker might do that. Or something similar to that group which now "trolls" youtube comments with some wild shit
Twitch at some point has to figure out what they want the identity of their website to be and stick to it. Otherwise people are just going to get tired of the changing rules and changing implementations and just leave the website.
the thing with "tap the sign" is twitch seems to only do that ... for vtubers ... for every 100 vtubers they "tap the sign" they do it to 1 fleshtuber ... so it does feel very hard to deny it being targeted
How do you know? Do you have statistics? Or do you, maybe, hear more about the vtubers that get hit than the fleshtubers? Half of the "twitch crackdown" is literally just warnings, do you have a comparable sample of fleshtubers who had similar behaviour but didn't get warnings? Obviously this is an unreasonable standard, but the point is that unless you follow the goings-on of IRL streamers (who are just as willing to skirt the line) just as closely, you just don't know.
@@charltonrodda Armcha1r Expert compiled the statistics and they said exactly that. On average vtubers get banned for longer periods than fleshtubers. On top of that fleshtubers are far more likely to re-offend while vtubers have a far lower re-offense rate, implying they always attempted to respect the rules, but get harsher punishments in spite of that. The data doesn't lie.
"Hold us accountable" - Just another forgotten lie from Twitch. We're still watching, Twitch. You just never bothered to even pretend you were listening. Okay, that's a bit harsh but the sentiment is still there. Followed now by layoffs slimming down the already slim moderation staff. Meanwhile, some content is just not able to be reported - IP or copyright infringement. So you can always find some lovely channel playing movies, anime, or other material that appears to be blatant unlicensed media. The reporting process is itself obnoxious... is this stream being reported more spam? harassment? Hate Speech? Just categorized incorrectly? There's a pretty hefty bit of filtering that I'm sure is intended to help direct reports get to whomever may be monitoring things, if anyone is - something that seems less and less likely every time a "human" reviews and upholds decisions in less than 10 seconds. For effective moderation, you need to have clear rules (at least internally) for how to handle situations and reported incidents. You need to have objective moderators with the ability to set their own biases aside and moderate consistently according to the rules. You need to enforce moderation actions clearly and consistently. You need a team of moderators that all sign on to enforce the rules clearly, and empower them to do so. I think Twitch has already removed the former policy that any staff member may ban a channel/user; and if not, to do so. Random people with different view sets and duties is a great way to fail. Training. Develop and require training for all moderators, management of moderators, or anyone else can place a ban on an account either directly or through a subordinate. For those who moderate in the deep mines of illegal content, reviewing the more heinous content, include therapy outside of whatever medical benefits you provide. Objectivity, consistency, transparency, objectivity, consistency, objectivity, TRAINING. Better software assistance in all that is only worthwhile in partnership with actual humans. Some of the above could be applied to channel moderation, and strangely there are streams that already do some of these things in chat moderation. Seems to work.
The last one was understandable. As she was talking about some very nono topics as I understand it and being intoxicated certainly didn't help that lol. Twitch handled it all very poorly however, making it 100x worse In the process. Glad to see her get unbanned in the end.
@@Arareemote It wasn't understandable, the ban was for "promoting" self harm, not just her talking about her struggles. Twitch staff interpreted that as her telling people to game over. And after the unban they had the gall to insist the action was correct. Which was wiping out almost all her paid subs (which is what a 30 day ban does) in addition to preventing her from earning income for a whole month.
@@fedweezy4976 Very few at most we can all tell you that much. Most of the time the platform claims that the person broke x rule and it's obviously not true. Also, double jeopardy is becoming more and more commonplace everywhere around the globe.
Sometimes you have people who do break rules and Twitch does enforce them. And then you have Shondo who did absolutely NOTHING that warrants this many bans.
Too bad about all those people Twitch banned for 'using illegal means to buy bits' when they haven't, at all, some haven't even bought any for years, receipts included... Twitch has a problem with all of their ai moderation. Most companies don't hire local people for support, they outsource it for cheap. Now that AI is a slightly ok possibility, they're almost all exclusively using it until it fails over to an outsourced human. If you're going to pretend that a TOS is a legal document to take away someone's job, you're going to have to make it precise, you're going to have to tell them what they did wrong, and you're going to have to enforce it equally across your entire platform, no exceptions. One day soon there's going to be a class action lawsuit against all content platforms over this nonsense tos crap and it's going to involve the FTC and the FCC.
@@Michael-bn1oi It's not that the owner shouldn't get final say, it's that they shouldn't be allowed to completely destroy someone's livelihood on the whims of a flawed automated system. If you are going to allow people to make money through your service, if you're going to let people rely on you for their source of income, then you have a responsibility to be reliable.
@@Michael-bn1oi And you yourself would be delusional if you think this means the platform doesn't have to abide by laws made by the government it runs under. Especially workers rights. A TOS may be a contract but it does not override Law. For instance you cannot sign a contract to steal something and expect the law to not still hammer you for theft. So yeah, If people managed to get the FCC, FTC or the DOL to do something about it, Twitch would have to abide by that. Now, is that going to happen, heck if I know. Laws don't change easily. So in short, no, they don't get final say on their site. The government does.
Like Ironmouse has like 200,000 subs and some losers are like "checked out who mouse is - 20 seconds i know all her fans are Pedos and weirdos" - and "simps dont even know what she looks like" - there is huge hate for vtubers.
I do agree that there are people that will jump through every loophole to get away with breaking the rules, we've seen it with "artistic nudity" thing but the issue is the (seeming) uneven enforcement. If it's a case of anti-vtuber people mass reporting then that makes sense. The other thing I don't get is tagging streams 18+, which most vtubers do. You get a warning about potential sexual content but all the rules still apply? The secret rules thing is referencing Shando's Twitch manager admitting there are other rules that apply to her, probably because she's a loli, that they won't tell her. Make of that what you will.
Sure the rules make sense on paper, for the most part. Whether or not they're being enforced properly or evenly? They're not. At all. Saying they are is outright delusional. That's what people are complaining about, not that the rules are bad, although a bunch of them are nonsense too. Like the arbitrary distinction between VR and 2D vtubers. The most popular female streamers are actively ignoring the rules as it is.
The CEO watches hot tub streams, like thats all he does, so its not surprisingly. Strangely rather than just change the rules he'd rather just ignore them when convenient.
There's no distinction between VRChat models and 3D Vtuber models. They are one and the same. That Rindo model Filian uses on VRChat? Comes with a VRM that works in VSeeFace, and FBX and Blender projects. You can literately use it in anything. The only wiggle room VRChat has/needs that doesn't apply to Vtubers is the fact that there are other participants that might intentionally flashbang a streamer in a public world. Hence there should be an internal rule against "taking action based on activities out of the streamer's control" And that same rule should also apply to Fugi chat images. The streamer won't know what that image is when they first pop into the stream.
@@TenshiKisai "Effective today, we are rolling back the change to the enforcement guidelines. Any strikes due to this change will be deprecated. That said, as stated in our policy, our attire policy guidelines still apply to Vtubers, but it does not apply to characters in games such as VRChat." They qualify VRChat as a game as opposed to the streamer's persona being projected onto the screen which makes no sense but means a vtuber with a croptop gets banned arbitrarily like Layna but someone barely clothed in VRchat or doing filian things is fine. You are either being disingenuous on purpose or woefully misinformed.
"can they" yes, does it make the line go up? no. it's not a "do they have the money" question, it's a "what makes line go up for shareholders" question, and layoffs often make the line temporarily go up for the sake of a quarterly.
I think the main reason it might seem unfair for the Zen thing. I think it's mostly because Vtuber can change their costumes as a whim. It's not just not being in the right category. As a flesh tuber people can tell the intentions easier mostly because it has to be a conscious action then accidentally pressing the wrong button. All you need is a random person in chat wanting to make someone else's life miserable that day
Twitch has never turned in a profit and has been operating at a loss for 13 years. Much like websites like twitter, it worked on gaining users for years with hopes of monetizing it later.
@@TheSlithice Twitch has absolutely turned a profit. Don't confuse it with Social Media sites like Facebook and Twitter. Those haven't turned a profit because they have no monetisation outside of ads and the main way the companies that run them make their money (aggregating and selling data) isn't an official part of the way the website itself makes money. And this is an intentional accounting trick. So long as the social media website part of the business officially makes a loss because internet advertisement doesn't bring in much money these days, they can write that loss off on their taxes and reduce how much they have to pay on the 'data selling' part of the business. Twitch, however, has monetisation via subs and bits and rakes in a fair amount of money from sponsored content and the like, but through the magic of accounting, all that money disappears into the aether. In the sense that Twitch officially runs a constant loss because it's always spending more money than it made in any given financial quarter. And it doesn't matter that all that money it spends is in projects that make the company worth more money, so technically if the owners sold the company they would turn a massive profit on all that 'loss' they had for over a decade. Because they ('they' being Amazon) continue to own the company rather than selling it, they can continue to leverage that supposed loss as a tax write-off for the massive amounts of tax they would otherwise have to pay on the profit they make shipping cheap crap to people. This trick is particularly cheeky for Prime Video, one of Amazon's other companies, since Prime Video also constantly runs a loss (on paper) because it's constantly paying a company, a lot more money than it makes every quarter. to make new shows for it. The company it's paying so much money to produce these shows for it is itself. The money that it pays itself goes on the books as being spent the moment it orders a new show from itself, because that's when it goes in the budget. But it doesn't actually pay itself the money for its own services until the show is finished and delivered in the next financial quarter and then immediately pays itself that money (plus all the extra money it got from people's subscription fees, minus the dividends that go to the shareholders and the salaries of employees) to make more shows. That way it can make tons of money while at the same time running a loss on paper so that its parent company Amazon can also use it as a tax write-off.
When I worked in retail there were rules against having drinks by the cash registers. Thing is, they'd only enforce it until everyone was in compliance, and then they wouldn't enforce it at all for at least 6 months. Then another compliance crackdown would start. I nearly got written up for having an open soda at my register a few too many times. My guess is, the local managers didn't really care, but the corporate managers would crack down on the local ones every so often. Forcing the local management to crackdown on the rest of the employees. I wouldn't be surprised if Twitch is having a similar enforcement issue between levels of management.
Its gotten so bad with UA-cam and twitch it might be time to change from these platforms. It's not just vtubers either that have been having problems with youtube and twitch.
It might be a communication failure rather than targeting, but if it is a communication failure, whoever is responsible for it probably needs to be encouraged to find another job.
I have been wondering about this lately, Rules are Rules I suppose, but the "Copyright Strike" thing makes no sense. That seems like a stalkers paradise, to me, the recent Ironmouse VOD removal is very troubling.
Do you know how many models are similarly childlike like that, if not more so? Lmao. There are waaaay more egregious ones too that don't get any flack.
It seems like they're going after VTubers a lot more than they are their IRL streamers. Unfair targeting? Pretty sure that would get them something like a 15-yard penalty and automatic first down in football.
If only "just pressing the button" would work. I've reported a vtuber openly advertising for her 18+ patreon and other nswf content for 100+ days straight, on a very money grubby subathon nonetheless, without ever putting the appropriate tags on her stream
Me clicking onto this video: "This is about all the lewd outfits and 'flashbanging' that vtubers have been doing lately isn't it?" The video: "Yes, yes it is."
People thinking twitch has some algorithm targeting vrubers, please they're not UA-cam they are definitely not using computional power to single out anime people. Outside of their basic thing scanning for copyrighted music I don't think they have anything really. They have always relied on people reporting more than anything. Developing and finetuning an anti-vtuber MLA and running it constantly would cost a lot of money and it would reduce their overall income. It's really unlikely.
hosting data storage and streaming services isnt cheap. if you want to add live support as well, you should then be expected to charge the streamer to stream on twitch for those services. employing people is expensive, often the most expensive thing for any companys budget outside of COGS.
It's something I've been thinking about too. Things like multi streaming and selling things like TTS on other sites damages the revenue sharing model that's in place rn. Placing the cost on the streamer would in some ways cause a less distorted market. With the YT/Twitch competition, the market _might_ be competitive enough for streaming costs to stay at a reasonable level. When one of them dies it would remove a big incentive to be cosy effective though.
Yeah but if people had to pay to stream on Twitch they wouldn't do it. Also Twitch is owned by one of the biggest companies in the world. If anything they should be investing into it but as we all know the one thing Amazon will never do is hire people when they can avoid it.
@@azamonra investing implies eventual return. Seeing as how twitch has never turned a profit, at some point it stops being investing and starts being throwing money away. People will only not pay to stream because it's been free for so long. Same reason people are upset about TOS. People got used to something, got spoiled, and now are crying foul. Eventually twitch will either evolve to a point where it's sustainable or it will collapse and everyone will need to go somewhere else.
@@TheSillyPepper True but how do you make Twitch profitable? Charging isn't realistic since casual streamers will switch to a free site mostly because it's a hobby and they don't want extra cost. Pros will switch because nobody is going to do a job you have to pay to do.
@@azamonra yea this is part of the problem. The only solution I can think of is for the platform to offer a free tier with ads and then cap the viewership at a certain number and streamer with bigger followings would need to pay for tiers of viewership but in exchange they get better service from the platform, more control over advertising or not having ads, etc.
Consistently enforcing the rules is absolutely the most important thing about having said rules. If people are punished for breaking a rule one time after already breaking said rule a bunch of times before, then it feels like they’re being targeted for something else. Twitch has to enforce their rules 100% of the time with every single content creator otherwise the enforcing the rules just feel like an excuse to ban people that twitch doesn’t like.
Yea some bans they did and some bans they didn''t do..... Twitch is for sure very special in this regard.
Yea, I also think there's someone or some group going around mass reporting vtubers. There are some super weird hate for vtubers out there.
I think that also coincides for this weird and recent trend of girls hating guys who *love* video games and solely that.
They realize guys don't like them anymore because of their bad attitudes so they turn look at what those guys like the most: Pop culture which includes video games and anime. So they shame guys who like games and anime because it's the easiest thing to do while refusing to be self-aware of what they're doing.
@luisiana1121 so basically it's some women going, "I don't like this thing, but I am going to destroy and ruin it for everyone and then shame and bully you for ever liking it instead of me and that'll make me feel better because that's what a emotionally mature and not at all insecure adult does!"
@@gekirobo8720 time is a flat circle. Just remember how it was when Melody showed up on that website.
@gekirobo8720 yup. Thats what I'm saying. The irony is that they say video games aren't productive when it helps you learn a lot whereas those normie women obsess over reality TV, the Kardashians and other social media drivel they indulge in.
@@gekirobo8720 Not exclusively.
It could be some stuff like kiwifarms going over things they don't like.
It could be zealous fans of more idol-oriented vtubers (and corpos) who don't like western vtubing scene because it's not as strict.
It could be unicorns that thtow a fit when vtuber collabs with men, or with fleshtubers
It could be specific vtuber or corpo haters, or the political slacktivists of twitter (both leftwing and rightwing)
Hell, a motivated enough harasser/stalker might do that.
Or something similar to that group which now "trolls" youtube comments with some wild shit
Twitch at some point has to figure out what they want the identity of their website to be and stick to it. Otherwise people are just going to get tired of the changing rules and changing implementations and just leave the website.
They can afford to do this nonsense because there is no other competition.
the thing with "tap the sign" is twitch seems to only do that ... for vtubers ... for every 100 vtubers they "tap the sign" they do it to 1 fleshtuber ... so it does feel very hard to deny it being targeted
How do you know? Do you have statistics? Or do you, maybe, hear more about the vtubers that get hit than the fleshtubers? Half of the "twitch crackdown" is literally just warnings, do you have a comparable sample of fleshtubers who had similar behaviour but didn't get warnings? Obviously this is an unreasonable standard, but the point is that unless you follow the goings-on of IRL streamers (who are just as willing to skirt the line) just as closely, you just don't know.
@@charltonrodda Armcha1r Expert compiled the statistics and they said exactly that. On average vtubers get banned for longer periods than fleshtubers. On top of that fleshtubers are far more likely to re-offend while vtubers have a far lower re-offense rate, implying they always attempted to respect the rules, but get harsher punishments in spite of that. The data doesn't lie.
@@charltonrodda
The data doesn’t lie
"Hold us accountable" - Just another forgotten lie from Twitch. We're still watching, Twitch. You just never bothered to even pretend you were listening.
Okay, that's a bit harsh but the sentiment is still there. Followed now by layoffs slimming down the already slim moderation staff. Meanwhile, some content is just not able to be reported - IP or copyright infringement. So you can always find some lovely channel playing movies, anime, or other material that appears to be blatant unlicensed media. The reporting process is itself obnoxious... is this stream being reported more spam? harassment? Hate Speech? Just categorized incorrectly? There's a pretty hefty bit of filtering that I'm sure is intended to help direct reports get to whomever may be monitoring things, if anyone is - something that seems less and less likely every time a "human" reviews and upholds decisions in less than 10 seconds.
For effective moderation, you need to have clear rules (at least internally) for how to handle situations and reported incidents. You need to have objective moderators with the ability to set their own biases aside and moderate consistently according to the rules. You need to enforce moderation actions clearly and consistently. You need a team of moderators that all sign on to enforce the rules clearly, and empower them to do so. I think Twitch has already removed the former policy that any staff member may ban a channel/user; and if not, to do so. Random people with different view sets and duties is a great way to fail. Training. Develop and require training for all moderators, management of moderators, or anyone else can place a ban on an account either directly or through a subordinate. For those who moderate in the deep mines of illegal content, reviewing the more heinous content, include therapy outside of whatever medical benefits you provide.
Objectivity, consistency, transparency, objectivity, consistency, objectivity, TRAINING. Better software assistance in all that is only worthwhile in partnership with actual humans.
Some of the above could be applied to channel moderation, and strangely there are streams that already do some of these things in chat moderation. Seems to work.
The two bans Shondo got don't make sense.
The last one was understandable. As she was talking about some very nono topics as I understand it and being intoxicated certainly didn't help that lol.
Twitch handled it all very poorly however, making it 100x worse In the process. Glad to see her get unbanned in the end.
@@Arareemote It wasn't understandable, the ban was for "promoting" self harm, not just her talking about her struggles. Twitch staff interpreted that as her telling people to game over. And after the unban they had the gall to insist the action was correct. Which was wiping out almost all her paid subs (which is what a 30 day ban does) in addition to preventing her from earning income for a whole month.
It's not that they were skirting a line, a lot of the time they are being harassed, blackmailed, and falsely reported, like Taiga and now Ironmouse...
Some of them were def skirting a line
@@fedweezy4976 Very few at most we can all tell you that much. Most of the time the platform claims that the person broke x rule and it's obviously not true. Also, double jeopardy is becoming more and more commonplace everywhere around the globe.
Sometimes you have people who do break rules and Twitch does enforce them.
And then you have Shondo who did absolutely NOTHING that warrants this many bans.
Too bad about all those people Twitch banned for 'using illegal means to buy bits' when they haven't, at all, some haven't even bought any for years, receipts included... Twitch has a problem with all of their ai moderation. Most companies don't hire local people for support, they outsource it for cheap. Now that AI is a slightly ok possibility, they're almost all exclusively using it until it fails over to an outsourced human.
If you're going to pretend that a TOS is a legal document to take away someone's job, you're going to have to make it precise, you're going to have to tell them what they did wrong, and you're going to have to enforce it equally across your entire platform, no exceptions. One day soon there's going to be a class action lawsuit against all content platforms over this nonsense tos crap and it's going to involve the FTC and the FCC.
bro there are vague laws out there.
Is that Job streaming on Twitch? Because you arw delusional if you think the owner of a platform doesn't get final say on their platform.
I want to add TOS is not a law it is part of a contract. Don't like them don't use the platform.
@@Michael-bn1oi It's not that the owner shouldn't get final say, it's that they shouldn't be allowed to completely destroy someone's livelihood on the whims of a flawed automated system. If you are going to allow people to make money through your service, if you're going to let people rely on you for their source of income, then you have a responsibility to be reliable.
@@Michael-bn1oi And you yourself would be delusional if you think this means the platform doesn't have to abide by laws made by the government it runs under. Especially workers rights. A TOS may be a contract but it does not override Law. For instance you cannot sign a contract to steal something and expect the law to not still hammer you for theft. So yeah, If people managed to get the FCC, FTC or the DOL to do something about it, Twitch would have to abide by that. Now, is that going to happen, heck if I know. Laws don't change easily. So in short, no, they don't get final say on their site. The government does.
Like Ironmouse has like 200,000 subs and some losers are like "checked out who mouse is - 20 seconds i know all her fans are Pedos and weirdos" - and "simps dont even know what she looks like" - there is huge hate for vtubers.
I do agree that there are people that will jump through every loophole to get away with breaking the rules, we've seen it with "artistic nudity" thing but the issue is the (seeming) uneven enforcement. If it's a case of anti-vtuber people mass reporting then that makes sense. The other thing I don't get is tagging streams 18+, which most vtubers do. You get a warning about potential sexual content but all the rules still apply?
The secret rules thing is referencing Shando's Twitch manager admitting there are other rules that apply to her, probably because she's a loli, that they won't tell her. Make of that what you will.
Sure the rules make sense on paper, for the most part.
Whether or not they're being enforced properly or evenly? They're not. At all. Saying they are is outright delusional.
That's what people are complaining about, not that the rules are bad, although a bunch of them are nonsense too.
Like the arbitrary distinction between VR and 2D vtubers.
The most popular female streamers are actively ignoring the rules as it is.
The CEO watches hot tub streams, like thats all he does, so its not surprisingly. Strangely rather than just change the rules he'd rather just ignore them when convenient.
There's no distinction between VRChat models and 3D Vtuber models. They are one and the same. That Rindo model Filian uses on VRChat? Comes with a VRM that works in VSeeFace, and FBX and Blender projects. You can literately use it in anything. The only wiggle room VRChat has/needs that doesn't apply to Vtubers is the fact that there are other participants that might intentionally flashbang a streamer in a public world. Hence there should be an internal rule against "taking action based on activities out of the streamer's control" And that same rule should also apply to Fugi chat images. The streamer won't know what that image is when they first pop into the stream.
@@TenshiKisai "Effective today, we are rolling back the change to the enforcement guidelines. Any strikes due to this change will be deprecated.
That said, as stated in our policy, our attire policy guidelines still apply to Vtubers, but it does not apply to characters in games such as VRChat."
They qualify VRChat as a game as opposed to the streamer's persona being projected onto the screen which makes no sense but means a vtuber with a croptop gets banned arbitrarily like Layna but someone barely clothed in VRchat or doing filian things is fine. You are either being disingenuous on purpose or woefully misinformed.
geega takes are always so good
"can they" yes, does it make the line go up? no.
it's not a "do they have the money" question, it's a "what makes line go up for shareholders" question, and layoffs often make the line temporarily go up for the sake of a quarterly.
I think the main reason it might seem unfair for the Zen thing. I think it's mostly because Vtuber can change their costumes as a whim. It's not just not being in the right category. As a flesh tuber people can tell the intentions easier mostly because it has to be a conscious action then accidentally pressing the wrong button. All you need is a random person in chat wanting to make someone else's life miserable that day
there's plenty of money in the site, there's just not enough to cover operation costs and also the demand for ever increasing profit margins
Twitch has never turned in a profit and has been operating at a loss for 13 years. Much like websites like twitter, it worked on gaining users for years with hopes of monetizing it later.
@@TheSlithice Twitch has absolutely turned a profit.
Don't confuse it with Social Media sites like Facebook and Twitter. Those haven't turned a profit because they have no monetisation outside of ads and the main way the companies that run them make their money (aggregating and selling data) isn't an official part of the way the website itself makes money. And this is an intentional accounting trick. So long as the social media website part of the business officially makes a loss because internet advertisement doesn't bring in much money these days, they can write that loss off on their taxes and reduce how much they have to pay on the 'data selling' part of the business.
Twitch, however, has monetisation via subs and bits and rakes in a fair amount of money from sponsored content and the like, but through the magic of accounting, all that money disappears into the aether.
In the sense that Twitch officially runs a constant loss because it's always spending more money than it made in any given financial quarter. And it doesn't matter that all that money it spends is in projects that make the company worth more money, so technically if the owners sold the company they would turn a massive profit on all that 'loss' they had for over a decade. Because they ('they' being Amazon) continue to own the company rather than selling it, they can continue to leverage that supposed loss as a tax write-off for the massive amounts of tax they would otherwise have to pay on the profit they make shipping cheap crap to people.
This trick is particularly cheeky for Prime Video, one of Amazon's other companies, since Prime Video also constantly runs a loss (on paper) because it's constantly paying a company, a lot more money than it makes every quarter. to make new shows for it.
The company it's paying so much money to produce these shows for it is itself. The money that it pays itself goes on the books as being spent the moment it orders a new show from itself, because that's when it goes in the budget. But it doesn't actually pay itself the money for its own services until the show is finished and delivered in the next financial quarter and then immediately pays itself that money (plus all the extra money it got from people's subscription fees, minus the dividends that go to the shareholders and the salaries of employees) to make more shows. That way it can make tons of money while at the same time running a loss on paper so that its parent company Amazon can also use it as a tax write-off.
I'm really looking forward to Shylily interviewing Dan Clancy
They were also never consistent because there are live streamers doing stuff that is straight up against TOS and not simply skirting the rules
10:00 = True 😅
I had that with a friend, I said "Maybe we can solve it like this.... and so he felt to be in the right"
When I worked in retail there were rules against having drinks by the cash registers. Thing is, they'd only enforce it until everyone was in compliance, and then they wouldn't enforce it at all for at least 6 months. Then another compliance crackdown would start. I nearly got written up for having an open soda at my register a few too many times.
My guess is, the local managers didn't really care, but the corporate managers would crack down on the local ones every so often. Forcing the local management to crackdown on the rest of the employees. I wouldn't be surprised if Twitch is having a similar enforcement issue between levels of management.
Its gotten so bad with UA-cam and twitch it might be time to change from these platforms. It's not just vtubers either that have been having problems with youtube and twitch.
HRm, yes, the geegonium is making me wiser.
It might be a communication failure rather than targeting, but if it is a communication failure, whoever is responsible for it probably needs to be encouraged to find another job.
I have been wondering about this lately, Rules are Rules I suppose, but the "Copyright Strike" thing makes no sense.
That seems like a stalkers paradise, to me, the recent Ironmouse VOD removal is very troubling.
the rules arent enforced if you make twitch a mountain of cash
Geega so based and level headed about this. Still, we do know there are bad actors going around attacking vtubers
Geega keeping it real. Great takes.
Shondo have a special rule for her because of her model.
Do you know how many models are similarly childlike like that, if not more so? Lmao. There are waaaay more egregious ones too that don't get any flack.
It seems like they're going after VTubers a lot more than they are their IRL streamers. Unfair targeting? Pretty sure that would get them something like a 15-yard penalty and automatic first down in football.
If only "just pressing the button" would work.
I've reported a vtuber openly advertising for her 18+ patreon and other nswf content for 100+ days straight, on a very money grubby subathon nonetheless, without ever putting the appropriate tags on her stream
So they banned shirtless men and then vtubers but not body painted naked women in kiddie pools?
We all follow the same rules, meanwhile...
MASS VTUBER BANS "Using stolen payment information to buy Twitch Bits"
They went to Ai to cover those jobs
Me clicking onto this video: "This is about all the lewd outfits and 'flashbanging' that vtubers have been doing lately isn't it?"
The video: "Yes, yes it is."
It's more about the complete lack of equal enforcement of rules and the length of bans issued.
But of course, Twitch thots/cam girls are completely okay...
Yea
Playing with TOS gets yourself played.
GeeGa got some real good insight
"They also have a rule for bottoms"
So most Vtubers are going to be banned then.🙃
But surely they'll be fine. It's a lack of bottoms that gets you banned.
@@sebrussellMister Altaire, *where are your legs!?*
People thinking twitch has some algorithm targeting vrubers, please they're not UA-cam they are definitely not using computional power to single out anime people. Outside of their basic thing scanning for copyrighted music I don't think they have anything really. They have always relied on people reporting more than anything. Developing and finetuning an anti-vtuber MLA and running it constantly would cost a lot of money and it would reduce their overall income. It's really unlikely.
At one point...vtuber could take responsability.
The amount of bad faith from a lot of them is insane too
hosting data storage and streaming services isnt cheap. if you want to add live support as well, you should then be expected to charge the streamer to stream on twitch for those services. employing people is expensive, often the most expensive thing for any companys budget outside of COGS.
It's something I've been thinking about too. Things like multi streaming and selling things like TTS on other sites damages the revenue sharing model that's in place rn. Placing the cost on the streamer would in some ways cause a less distorted market. With the YT/Twitch competition, the market _might_ be competitive enough for streaming costs to stay at a reasonable level. When one of them dies it would remove a big incentive to be cosy effective though.
Yeah but if people had to pay to stream on Twitch they wouldn't do it. Also Twitch is owned by one of the biggest companies in the world. If anything they should be investing into it but as we all know the one thing Amazon will never do is hire people when they can avoid it.
@@azamonra investing implies eventual return. Seeing as how twitch has never turned a profit, at some point it stops being investing and starts being throwing money away. People will only not pay to stream because it's been free for so long. Same reason people are upset about TOS. People got used to something, got spoiled, and now are crying foul. Eventually twitch will either evolve to a point where it's sustainable or it will collapse and everyone will need to go somewhere else.
@@TheSillyPepper True but how do you make Twitch profitable? Charging isn't realistic since casual streamers will switch to a free site mostly because it's a hobby and they don't want extra cost. Pros will switch because nobody is going to do a job you have to pay to do.
@@azamonra yea this is part of the problem. The only solution I can think of is for the platform to offer a free tier with ads and then cap the viewership at a certain number and streamer with bigger followings would need to pay for tiers of viewership but in exchange they get better service from the platform, more control over advertising or not having ads, etc.