4 ms·

> If you haven't noticed that with the several hundred live streamers you've consulted with then it seems by definition the streamers you interact with do not h

by bryans 4y ago

> If you haven't noticed that with the several hundred live streamers you've consulted with then it seems by definition the streamers you interact with do not have the Super Fans being discussed [...] At the same time it doesn't mean these types of streamers and fans don't exist just because you don't work with them I'm trying to take your word that you don't mean to disparage, but I don't see another interpretation for what you've said. You suggested that I'm not aware of basic Twitch functionality (when I clearly am), then claimed that I must not have knowledge of the subject because the streamers I work with "by definition" don't have super fans (even though they clearly do), then claimed I said super fans don't even exist (though I never so much as remotely hinted it), then repeated the claim that I don't work with anyone who has super fans (even after explicitly telling you they do). All of those things (and some that I left out) are disparaging, and the entire premise of your commentary has been that your perspective as a viewer can be applied to the entirety of the content creation industry as an absolute and indisputable fact, but that my perspective as a viewer, streamer and consultant strictly applies to a unique subset of streamers whom I've personally worked with -- because apparently I exclusively find the extremely rare streamers and whales who aren't part of "the vast majority" involved in an "exploitative" industrial complex, even though that would be a statistical impossibility. So, when you say "nothing I've talked to is about my personal experience vs your professional experience," that's patently untrue. It's the basis for everything you've said. > Simply having a 100 gift sub button in the UI, well hidden and never mentioned otherwise, is still extremely hard to justify as anything but exploitative. At the end of the day, you're attempting to perpetuate the completely false notion that "the vast majority" of large donors are "dysfunctional" and being "exploited." You witness people donate large amounts and for some reason automatically assume exploitation, but you have no actual evidence or justification for that assumption other than it seeming like a lot of money to you, personally. Unless you're a professional psychologist who analyzed these people, you don't get to declare that "the vast majority" of any population are mentally unwell or being exploited -- especially when your only knowledge of the situation is that you saw strangers push buttons on a website. That's not situational knowledge of anything. In reality, there are magnitudes more large donors who contribute to be supportive and out of appreciation for the streamers time and talents. Some fans will spend 100+ hours per month watching a particular streamer, so if they can afford to donate $1,000, that works out to paying $10/hr for entertainment, which is less than many hobbies. Yet, I don't see you making claims that people who spend lots of money on other forms of entertainment are exploited -- just this particular industry, and for reasons you haven't actually articulated. And that's all still ignoring the fact that your perceived observations do not apply to the content creation industry as a whole, or even the majority of it. When I tell you that what you're describing can't be applied to the nearly 1,000 whales I've personally communicated with over the past few years, it makes no sense for you to double down on a blanket generalization that "the vast majority" of streamers are exploitative and large donors are being exploited, because even basic math doesn't back your argument. > On the contrary these things are extremely visible and advertised. You listed the basic concept of subscriptions and rewards as evidence for nefarious activity and exploitation. That's rather silly, and I'm not going to engage with it. > Also the conversation was never about all "donors", from the beginning it was about "the vast majority of Super Fans are not buying courses or supporting the development of content". Disagree or not with the statement it never made claims every single Please stop making pedantic nitpicks. I've literally quoted "the vast majority" a dozen times in these comments, and you're choosing to pick a single instance where I generally referred to them as donors for the sake of brevity within a long sentence, which itself is inside a paragraph specifically about super fans and even started with the words "super fans." You know exactly what I was referencing, and that you continue to turn these false nitpicks into full arguments is both exhausting and starting to resemble gaslighting.

zamadatix 4y ago
(1/2) Thanks for the walkthrough on the statement, I think I see a bit of what you were thinking when you read the statement. At the same time let's walk through what it says and try to see : > Twitch has a "Gift 100 subs $499" button right in the gift UI. If you haven't noticed that with the several hundred live streamers you've consulted with then it seems by definition the streamers you interact with do not have the Super Fans being discussed yet such fans are common enough for Twitch to make UI for it. What I intended to communicate: Twitch has far more than a $25 subscription option but the vast majority of partnered channels (there are ~50k active) don't know things like "Gift 100 subs" is a preset option because $499 is a whole number percentage of their lifetime Twitch revenue not something they regularly get from a single user action. And genuinely on the condition the hundreds of live streamers you've consulted aren't exactly the top couple hundred overall you would then by, by your own answer to the question, not talking about the same types of fans when referring to the "Super Fans" that dump life savings or such into these actions. On the other half of the if, i.e. those are the streamers, then we've short-circuited to these high cost options existing and went back to discussion on exploitation/marketing that was perhaps accidentally (or for some other reason) initially dismissed as not even being possible on the site. What you interpreted I communicated: I found a few nits as an excuse to say you're ignorant and couldn't possibly work with streamers of that level. This is the kind of split I had in mind when talking about "often on the internet plain text can be interpreted many different ways". If you go into the comment assuming it has good intent it's just a genuine comment asking if you're referring to the same group that sees these extremely high cost actions or not since the type of fan being talked about necessarily is one doing far more than a tier 3 sub worth $25 via Twitch. If you go into the comment assuming my only intent is to nit and demean, discussion be damned, then it's a reductive comment made purely to be inflammatory. When you start with either of those points of view going in though it can be extremely hard to see how the other person could see it so differently but talking through it like this really helps, for me at least :). > All of those things (and some that I left out) are disparaging, and the entire premise of your commentary has been that your perspective as a viewer can be applied to the entirety of the content creation industry as an absolute and indisputable fact, but that my perspective as a viewer, streamer and consultant strictly applies to a unique subset of streamers whom I've personally worked with -- because apparently I exclusively find the extremely rare streamers and whales who aren't part of "the vast majority" involved in an "exploitative" industrial complex, even though that would be a statistical impossibility. So, when you say "nothing I've talked to is about my personal experience vs your professional experience," that's patently untrue. It's the basis for everything you've said. Going off the above if we start making the conversation about how I view your experience or how you view my experience we'll both get nowhere as we'll be divining things from our interpretations of the other person's anecdotes, neither of which is solid on their own so doubly less so together. That's why I've tried to avoid talking about my experiences vs your experiences and instead try to bring back each talking point to a hard publicly verifiable item like what actions Twitch makes purchasable, how they are advertised, the Twitch data leak and how there can't be 1000 counterexamples because there aren't 1000 accounts with the payout level to have had fans like the mentioned. I'm not bringing these points in because I'm trying to find nits to take a shit on your consultancy business (which sounds pretty successful, congrats consulting can be hard to grow) but because they necessitate that there was a misinterpretation in who GP was referring to and they can't possibly have been referring to all of the people you went to the strong defense of. Now that doesn't mean I think you'll agree with GP's original statements but the reason I bring them up is I think it steers towards a much more interesting conversation on why you disagree with GP with the people they were really referring to not the larger group you feel the need to defend. > In reality, there are magnitudes more large donors who contribute to be supportive and out of appreciation for the streamers time and talents. Some fans will spend 100+ hours per month watching a particular streamer, so if they can afford to donate $1,000, that works out to paying $10/hr for entertainment, which is less than many hobbies. Yet, I don't see you making claims that people who spend lots of money on other forms of entertainment are exploited -- just this particular industry, and for reasons you haven't actually articulated. (1/2)

by bryans 4y ago

zamadatix 4y ago

(1/2) Thanks for the walkthrough on the statement, I think I see a bit of what you were thinking when you read the statement. At the same time let's walk through what it says and try to see : > Twitch has a "Gift 100 subs $499" button right in the gift UI. If you haven't noticed that with the several hundred live streamers you've consulted with then it seems by definition the streamers you interact with do not have the Super Fans being discussed yet such fans are common enough for Twitch to make UI for it. What I intended to communicate: Twitch has far more than a $25 subscription option but the vast majority of partnered channels (there are ~50k active) don't know things like "Gift 100 subs" is a preset option because $499 is a whole number percentage of their lifetime Twitch revenue not something they regularly get from a single user action. And genuinely on the condition the hundreds of live streamers you've consulted aren't exactly the top couple hundred overall you would then by, by your own answer to the question, not talking about the same types of fans when referring to the "Super Fans" that dump life savings or such into these actions. On the other half of the if, i.e. those are the streamers, then we've short-circuited to these high cost options existing and went back to discussion on exploitation/marketing that was perhaps accidentally (or for some other reason) initially dismissed as not even being possible on the site. What you interpreted I communicated: I found a few nits as an excuse to say you're ignorant and couldn't possibly work with streamers of that level. This is the kind of split I had in mind when talking about "often on the internet plain text can be interpreted many different ways". If you go into the comment assuming it has good intent it's just a genuine comment asking if you're referring to the same group that sees these extremely high cost actions or not since the type of fan being talked about necessarily is one doing far more than a tier 3 sub worth $25 via Twitch. If you go into the comment assuming my only intent is to nit and demean, discussion be damned, then it's a reductive comment made purely to be inflammatory. When you start with either of those points of view going in though it can be extremely hard to see how the other person could see it so differently but talking through it like this really helps, for me at least :). > All of those things (and some that I left out) are disparaging, and the entire premise of your commentary has been that your perspective as a viewer can be applied to the entirety of the content creation industry as an absolute and indisputable fact, but that my perspective as a viewer, streamer and consultant strictly applies to a unique subset of streamers whom I've personally worked with -- because apparently I exclusively find the extremely rare streamers and whales who aren't part of "the vast majority" involved in an "exploitative" industrial complex, even though that would be a statistical impossibility. So, when you say "nothing I've talked to is about my personal experience vs your professional experience," that's patently untrue. It's the basis for everything you've said. Going off the above if we start making the conversation about how I view your experience or how you view my experience we'll both get nowhere as we'll be divining things from our interpretations of the other person's anecdotes, neither of which is solid on their own so doubly less so together. That's why I've tried to avoid talking about my experiences vs your experiences and instead try to bring back each talking point to a hard publicly verifiable item like what actions Twitch makes purchasable, how they are advertised, the Twitch data leak and how there can't be 1000 counterexamples because there aren't 1000 accounts with the payout level to have had fans like the mentioned. I'm not bringing these points in because I'm trying to find nits to take a shit on your consultancy business (which sounds pretty successful, congrats consulting can be hard to grow) but because they necessitate that there was a misinterpretation in who GP was referring to and they can't possibly have been referring to all of the people you went to the strong defense of. Now that doesn't mean I think you'll agree with GP's original statements but the reason I bring them up is I think it steers towards a much more interesting conversation on why you disagree with GP with the people they were really referring to not the larger group you feel the need to defend. > In reality, there are magnitudes more large donors who contribute to be supportive and out of appreciation for the streamers time and talents. Some fans will spend 100+ hours per month watching a particular streamer, so if they can afford to donate $1,000, that works out to paying $10/hr for entertainment, which is less than many hobbies. Yet, I don't see you making claims that people who spend lots of money on other forms of entertainment are exploited -- just this particular industry, and for reasons you haven't actually articulated. (1/2)