3 ms·

The context here is that one of the most prolific twitch streamers recently had her advertising cut with no warning. (They still run ads on her stream, but she

The context here is that one of the most prolific twitch streamers recently had her advertising cut with no warning. (They still run ads on her stream, but she doesn’t get any of the proceeds, if I understand it.) Lots of these streamers have an Onlyfans link in their Twitter bio, though, and they make it pretty obvious that you should join “to see the good stuff.” https://twitter.com/amouranth/status/1395192511958851585?s=21 https://twitter.com/amouranth/status/1395192511958851585?s=2... Someone put it like “she’s doing the equivalent of holding a finger in front of your face and saying ‘not touching you! Not touching you!’ for a no-touching policy.”

Afforess 5y ago
> (They still run ads on her stream, but she doesn’t get any of the proceeds, if I understand it.) In what universe is this an acceptable outcome for a TOS violation?
- mcherm 5y ago
  It wasn't a TOS violation until today's announcement... at the time her revenue stream was cut off her content was in compliance with the letter (if not the spirit) of twitch's published policy.
- LegitShady 5y ago
  >In what universe is this an acceptable outcome for a TOS violation? in the universe where it's unlikely for small streamers to successfully sue twitch for stealing revenue. It's an egregious abuse but its one that has to be first arbitrated and then sued over and its unlikely to succeed so no one has really done it.
notJim 5y ago
I'm not sure why it's relevant that they have OnlyFans links, unless Amazon's position is that no one who has an OnlyFans or who makes adult content on other platforms is allowed on Twitch. > “she’s doing the equivalent of holding a finger in front of your face and saying ‘not touching you! Not touching you!’ for a no-touching policy.” In other words, she's in compliance with the policy?
- sillysaurusx 5y ago
  She’s in compliance with the policy. And her channel isn’t banned — she’s free to stream. But apparently when she streams, she doesn’t earn advertising revenue. That’s not really a ToS issue; twitch’s advertising partners get the final say there. (It seems nuts that they still run ads on her channel at all, though. If they’re showing ads, it makes no sense that she doesn’t get a cut.)
- ad404b8a372f2b9 5y ago
  It's relevant because it makes it clear what their intent is: To advertise their porn through twitch, half the audience of which is underage. It's the same reason some casual nudity subreddits banned people with onlyfans from posting, they infiltrate communities with the single purpose of getting customers.
ClumsyPilot 5y ago
Ah amazing, I see they are protecting my kids by Checks notes keeping the porn revenue for themselves?
busterarm 5y ago
They also only cut her advertising after she blurted out on stream that her hot tub streams were good in the short term and long term detrimental to Twitch's platform. She basically admitted to poking a bear.

Afforess 5y ago

> (They still run ads on her stream, but she doesn’t get any of the proceeds, if I understand it.) In what universe is this an acceptable outcome for a TOS violation?

mcherm 5y ago
It wasn't a TOS violation until today's announcement... at the time her revenue stream was cut off her content was in compliance with the letter (if not the spirit) of twitch's published policy.
LegitShady 5y ago
>In what universe is this an acceptable outcome for a TOS violation? in the universe where it's unlikely for small streamers to successfully sue twitch for stealing revenue. It's an egregious abuse but its one that has to be first arbitrated and then sued over and its unlikely to succeed so no one has really done it.

notJim 5y ago

I'm not sure why it's relevant that they have OnlyFans links, unless Amazon's position is that no one who has an OnlyFans or who makes adult content on other platforms is allowed on Twitch. > “she’s doing the equivalent of holding a finger in front of your face and saying ‘not touching you! Not touching you!’ for a no-touching policy.” In other words, she's in compliance with the policy?

sillysaurusx 5y ago
She’s in compliance with the policy. And her channel isn’t banned — she’s free to stream. But apparently when she streams, she doesn’t earn advertising revenue. That’s not really a ToS issue; twitch’s advertising partners get the final say there. (It seems nuts that they still run ads on her channel at all, though. If they’re showing ads, it makes no sense that she doesn’t get a cut.)
ad404b8a372f2b9 5y ago
It's relevant because it makes it clear what their intent is: To advertise their porn through twitch, half the audience of which is underage. It's the same reason some casual nudity subreddits banned people with onlyfans from posting, they infiltrate communities with the single purpose of getting customers.

ClumsyPilot 5y ago

Ah amazing, I see they are protecting my kids by Checks notes keeping the porn revenue for themselves?

busterarm 5y ago

They also only cut her advertising after she blurted out on stream that her hot tub streams were good in the short term and long term detrimental to Twitch's platform. She basically admitted to poking a bear.