Isn't this a misleading/clickbaity title? 🤔
The title of the article is "Twitch quickly reverses policy that “went too far” allowing nudity — Twitch confirmed its policy banning nudity was sexist."
this post was submitted on 15 Dec 2023
87 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37747 readers
230 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The title does need updated, but I suspect it was accurate at the time of posting 23 hours ago. The article appears to have been updated at least twice, based on the URL.
That's my biggest gripe with online news articles. Editing titles and content.
I witnessed it happen in real time a couple months back when they were switching between Hamas and IDF bombing that hospital, modern media is a shambles
It’s not really editing titles. They publish it with various titles that get split-tested at first, whichever version of the title gets more clicks then becomes the only title used.
Maybe it should be a requirement to preserve original headlines at the bottom of the article if they change it.
OK, not requirement, who would ever enforce that, but it would be a nice trend, if nothing else.
🤖 I'm a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles:
Click here to see the summary
In one prominent example, just two days before the policy change, Twitch banned OnlyFans model Morgpie for posting "topless" streams.
Hession confirmed that Twitch's policy prohibiting "content that ‘deliberately highlighted breasts, buttocks or pelvic region,’ even when fully clothed" was confusing.
"Streamers found it difficult to determine what was prohibited and what was allowed and often evaluating whether or not a stream violated this portion of the policy was subjective," Hession wrote.
The only exceptions will be made for streams labeled as including mature-rated games and profanity, which will still appear in the main feed on the homepage.
"In addition to providing clarity, these updates will also reduce the risk of inconsistent enforcement and bring our policy more in line with other social media services."
“With the updated terms of service, content on Twitch containing mature themes will be allowed but no longer pushed on the homepage of the site,” Morgpie told Dexerto.
Saved 78% of original text.
Bring on the simps!
I don't see many men disrobing in just chatting, i gee, i wonder why women were disproportionately banned
I'll show you my bits if you give me your bits.
“Now, labeled content is allowed that features "body writing on female-presenting breasts and/or buttocks regardless of gender" and "erotic dances that involve disrobing or disrobing gestures, such as strip teases."
So, if it was the male streamers that had been flashing children, then the old rules would have been just fine?
This is not a good move
If it's labeled as adult it's not the streamer's responsibility to keep children from watching.
And content targeting adults has a very clear right to exist whether Twitch decides they want to host it or not.
Sure, but that attitude doesn’t do much for you when children is twitches main demographic.
It literally doesn't matter.
There would be nothing wrong with dudes clearly labeling swinging their dicks around as adult content. It isn't their responsibility to control how twitch handles adult content.
That comparison would only make sense if that was happening, which it isn’t.
Twitch has been essentially a soft core version of these girls’ only fans for a while now, and their adult content has been put in front of children, unconsentually.
Ffs, these changes are to help stop the blatantly sexual thumbnails from being shown on the front page
And yea, twitch knows they bring in money and so won’t do anything to stop them, but this will make the whole “protect the children” thing 10x worse, as twitch actively targets younger viewers and so do these adult “performers”
This rule was an attempt to make it more clearly labeled, so yes, it's exactly what it's about.
It absolutely has every right to exist.
Where the fuck is this “right to exist” shit coming from
You’re attacking an argument I never made
You're attacking their effort to formally label it without punishing it.
Thinking it doesn't deserve to exist is the only possible cause for that.
Or, just maaaaybe, it deserves to be in its own space, away from children, and these labels are only going to help with the appearance of that, and not the actual issue
You’re strawmanning drying to defend this, and I don’t understand why you’re triggered so hard
"It can exist, but not here" by monopolies is by far the most effective method of censorship available in the modern era.
Megalithic companies like payment processors and Twitch should straight up not be permitted to ban classes of content.
Payment processors, sure, but how the fuck do you lump twitch in there?
Should they be prohibited from banning Nazi streams, too?? That’s protected free speech, after all.
Twitch is a monopoly in the live streaming video space. So unconditionally yes, blocking nudity for five minutes should get every asset Amazon owns seized for abusing that position.
There's loads of precedent for hate speech not constituting protected speech, so that's not an issue.
Goddamn, your head is so far up your ass on this you’ve forgotten reality exists!
Twitch is not a streaming monopoly
Even if it was, banning nudity would not be any kind of infringement due to how many other nudity specific competitors absolutely exist
And even if they didn’t, aren’t they “a private company, they can ban who they want when they want!” Like you just justified with hate speech, while completely forgetting that censorship of nudity has longer and more established president in much more monopolistic environments?
Seriously, get some fresh air. Breathing all those fumes isn’t good for your health.
Yes, Twitch absolutely has a monopoly on live streaming. They own the whole market and the hardware that is required for economy of scales to work.
Twitch not allowing nudity is exactly identical to MasterCard refusing to process porn. They are abusing their market share to prevent businesses they don't like from being possible. They aren't subject to the First Amendment and I never claimed they were. You're the one who brought up speech that courts have repeatedly ruled is not protected by the first amendment and the government is permitted to explicitly take action on as "protected speech" they would have to allow if they were held to the antitrust law that prevents them from abusing their market position, and I threw it out as the obvious irrelevant nonsense it was.
Well, that was a fucking lie
All the streamers I watch livestream on YouTube, and even when moving away from YouTube twitch isn’t on their list
And that’s not even getting into data, which also proves it’s not a monopoly
Way to gaslight to shovel bullshit tho
And no, twitches stance on nudity has fuck all to do with Mastercards take on nudity, because Mastercard isn’t hosting, promoting, or advertising the content. And they’re certainly not targeting their products to children, again twitch’s main demographic