8 ms·

Twitch U-turns on 'artistic nudity' policy

33 points by edward 3y ago

jimmaswell 3y ago
Happened the instant male streamers/subjects were involved. Typical double standard.
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  The article says the main issue had nothing to do with any prurient concerns, it was more about art communities getting spammed due to allowing "drawings" of nudity which were indistinguishable from photos: > Digital depictions of nudity present a unique challenge - artificial intelligence can be used to create realistic images, and it can be hard to distinguish between digital art and photography > The decision came after an outpouring of concern online from Twitch's art community about the volume of AI-generated nudes which began to bombard Twitch's art category since the policy change.
  - SeanAnderson 3y ago
    The person you're responding to has an element of fairness in the point they're making, though. Straight from Twitch: > Much content that was previously prohibited is now allowed with proper Content Classification labels: Content that ‘deliberately highlighted breasts, buttocks or pelvic region,’ even when fully clothed, fictionalized (drawn, animated, or sculpted) fully exposed female-presenting breasts and/or genitals or buttocks regardless of gender, 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. "female-presenting breasts and/or genitals" were acceptable forms of artistic nudity, but male-presenting genitals were not.
    - abeyer 3y ago
      It was poorly written, and had to reread it, but I eventually parsed that as they meant: (fully exposed female-presenting breasts) and/or (genitals or buttocks regardless of gender) Which would make sense, because I don't think there ever was a restriction on male breasts to need to allow them, was there?
      - SeanAnderson 3y ago
        That's fair, I'm probably misinterpreting. I think they've always allowed male-presenting persons to be shirtless as long as it wasn't sexualized. You also must be shirtless when the stream starts - you can't take your shirt off on stream.
    - hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
      You've misunderstood it, and the exact reverse is what happened. An exposed male chest was not considered sexual and thus subject to no restrictions, while the same was not true for female breasts. The change then allowed female breasts, or genitals of any gender to be shown in "fictionalized contexts".
      - SeanAnderson 3y ago
        Yeah, you're right.
unpopularopp 3y ago
And now we have this instead NSFW https://old.reddit.com/r/LivestreamFail/comments/18lvnez/new_meta_just_dropped/ https://old.reddit.com/r/LivestreamFail/comments/18lvnez/new... The whole thing is just embarrassing. OF girls and pornstars using the site as a softcore promo. Amazon of course won’t do anything (like spinning up a proper porn site) casue literally this grey area is the best market. No content filter (kids can watch it) and advertisers don’t leave (it’s not porn)
- ronsor 3y ago
  > New meta I'm sorry, what? The old meta is only ~3 days old, isn't it?
- whalesalad 3y ago
  The OG twitch was justin.tv, a live streaming service. It began with literally streaming every aspect of your personal life. It eventually transitioned into game streaming, but it was originally for anyone who wanted to stream. I don't really understand why anyone cares what is streamed there. I believe in the idea that anything should be possible, and allow the commons/people to dictate whether they like it or not. If people want to see a naked chick sitting in a gaming chair giggling why stop them? Who cares?
  - eropple 3y ago
    I care, because I don't want to see it when I'm looking to watch a video game stream--there are places for porn. And "well we'll just have opt-in categories" sounds great, except that these categories are thin and (on Twitch especially) not composable; as the purveyors are looking for more clicks, it means trying to rules-lawyer the categories to get in front of eyeballs who are not looking for mature content, because maybe they'll catch more who are. If their categorization was perfect--sure, go nuts. It's not and it won't be, so it makes for a worse site for me.
    - whalesalad 3y ago
      Yeah so it could be handled like virtually every other site on the earth (ie, google, reddit) where you can check a box in your account to show/hide NSFW content. Easy peasy.
elephanlemon 3y ago
Twitch has already been morphing into Chaturbate and the change last week doubled down there. I don’t think a website with a large audience of children should have been brushing up against pornography. I don’t even know what was going on with the AI art stuff, but there were numerous streams where females appeared topless, stopping just short of visible nipples.
- ipaddr 3y ago
  [flagged]
- voidfunc 3y ago
  Meh if you're old enough to be online by yourself you're old enough to see some titties. The puritan approach to sex in America is ridiculous.
  - haunter 3y ago
    Or maybe not every site should be about porn? Why don't we post here on HN then too?
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
      > Why don't we post here on HN then too? Twitch's audience wants it and HN's audience doesn't. Perhaps more accurately, HN specifically doesn't want that.
    - malfist 3y ago
      HN isn't an image or video sharing site?
      - haunter 3y ago
        >HN isn't an image or video sharing site? Not with that attitude
      - insanitybit 3y ago
makomk 3y ago
As far as I could tell, the policy allowing artistic nudity never existed in practice and Twitch doesn't seem to have been serious about it. Even though it was supposedly allowed, basically everyone who drew art with genitals or female nipples got their account suspended aside from one or two exceptions that seem to have slipped through the cracks. This wasn't just limited to AI art or anything even vaguely photorealistic either, and it included Twitch partners whose bans are supposedly are handled in house. Also, whilst the Twitch CEO did say that some people had been accidentally banned who were following the rules, Twitch conspicously didn't unban any of them until comfortably after the U-turn. There was also nothing stopping the full, uncensored thumbnails showing up on the Art category page, including for users whose accounts were marked as under-18 - which meant that it was full of naked anime titties.
pyrophane 3y ago
They really didn't think that through! "Artistic nudity?" They thought defining and enforcing rules around what constitutes "art" in the context of nudity was a good plan? Even without AI (which seems to be the in vogue thing to blame for everything that doesn't go well) this was a horrible idea.
blueblimp 3y ago
I don't know what Twitch's goals are here, but if they want to get rid of the right-up-against-the-line content, then maybe clear, consistently-enforced rules are actually detrimental, because it just invites rules lawyering like we see here. If Twitch staff just went around arbitrarily banning anything they don't like, the affected streamers would hate it (because they wouldn't know what they can get away with), which, if you want to drive them off the platform, is a good thing.
- insanitybit 3y ago
  Users get really bothered by arbitrary banning, irrationally so I think. I've been on sites with moderators who could basically just enforce the rules as they liked and it's so much better. No "well technically I'm not rule breaking" - a human makes a judgment and bans them. For some reason these "professional" Websites (ie: the modern web of company-run forums) seem to resist this idea, and unfortunately it's hard to do it later in the game because the userbases can be very easily riled up.
  - OnlineGladiator 3y ago
    So you think if you get banned without notice you should be unable to appeal and this is what fosters a healthy community?
    - whalesalad 3y ago
      Absolutely. Those in power make mistakes all the time.
    - insanitybit 3y ago
      So strange, none of the words you said appear in my post.
      - OnlineGladiator 3y ago
        > I've been on sites with moderators who could basically just enforce the rules as they liked and it's so much better. No "well technically I'm not rule breaking" - a human makes a judgment and bans them. I'm not sure how else to interpret what you typed.
happytiger 3y ago
Why don’t they just add a filter that is off by default and requires opting in and age verification? Is it purely legal liability and brand perception here, because the technical hurdles are fairly trivial.
- SeanAnderson 3y ago
  Credit card processing is split between normal and high risk merchant accounts. Major CC companies tend to be significantly less interested in dealing with high risk accounts. If Twitch introduces content segregation then they're making it explicitly clear that they consider an aspect of their business higher risk. They don't want that.
  - charcircuit 3y ago
    Normally this is handled by using separate processors for adult content, but that isn't quite so simple because of the existence of bits.
- ytoawwhra92 3y ago
  That's just moving the problem somewhere else. NSFW content creators have a strong financial incentive to find ways to use SFW content as marketing for their NSFW content.
mise_en_place 3y ago
What's always been strange to me is that these kinds of streamers are not judged as harshly as real sex workers. On the status hierarchy, they seem to be close to the top.
2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
> Mr Clancy said the issue had proven more complex than initially envisaged. > "Digital depictions of nudity present a unique challenge - artificial intelligence can be used to create realistic images, and it can be hard to distinguish between digital art and photography." I don't buy it. You're telling me with all the brains and tech talent you couldn't see this coming? I think they want to sell pornography to children.

33 points by edward 3y ago

jimmaswell 3y ago

Happened the instant male streamers/subjects were involved. Typical double standard.

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
The article says the main issue had nothing to do with any prurient concerns, it was more about art communities getting spammed due to allowing "drawings" of nudity which were indistinguishable from photos: > Digital depictions of nudity present a unique challenge - artificial intelligence can be used to create realistic images, and it can be hard to distinguish between digital art and photography > The decision came after an outpouring of concern online from Twitch's art community about the volume of AI-generated nudes which began to bombard Twitch's art category since the policy change.
- SeanAnderson 3y ago
  The person you're responding to has an element of fairness in the point they're making, though. Straight from Twitch: > Much content that was previously prohibited is now allowed with proper Content Classification labels: Content that ‘deliberately highlighted breasts, buttocks or pelvic region,’ even when fully clothed, fictionalized (drawn, animated, or sculpted) fully exposed female-presenting breasts and/or genitals or buttocks regardless of gender, 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. "female-presenting breasts and/or genitals" were acceptable forms of artistic nudity, but male-presenting genitals were not.
  - abeyer 3y ago
    It was poorly written, and had to reread it, but I eventually parsed that as they meant: (fully exposed female-presenting breasts) and/or (genitals or buttocks regardless of gender) Which would make sense, because I don't think there ever was a restriction on male breasts to need to allow them, was there?
    - SeanAnderson 3y ago
      That's fair, I'm probably misinterpreting. I think they've always allowed male-presenting persons to be shirtless as long as it wasn't sexualized. You also must be shirtless when the stream starts - you can't take your shirt off on stream.
  - hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
    You've misunderstood it, and the exact reverse is what happened. An exposed male chest was not considered sexual and thus subject to no restrictions, while the same was not true for female breasts. The change then allowed female breasts, or genitals of any gender to be shown in "fictionalized contexts".
    - SeanAnderson 3y ago
      Yeah, you're right.

unpopularopp 3y ago

And now we have this instead NSFW https://old.reddit.com/r/LivestreamFail/comments/18lvnez/new_meta_just_dropped/ https://old.reddit.com/r/LivestreamFail/comments/18lvnez/new... The whole thing is just embarrassing. OF girls and pornstars using the site as a softcore promo. Amazon of course won’t do anything (like spinning up a proper porn site) casue literally this grey area is the best market. No content filter (kids can watch it) and advertisers don’t leave (it’s not porn)

ronsor 3y ago
> New meta I'm sorry, what? The old meta is only ~3 days old, isn't it?
whalesalad 3y ago
The OG twitch was justin.tv, a live streaming service. It began with literally streaming every aspect of your personal life. It eventually transitioned into game streaming, but it was originally for anyone who wanted to stream. I don't really understand why anyone cares what is streamed there. I believe in the idea that anything should be possible, and allow the commons/people to dictate whether they like it or not. If people want to see a naked chick sitting in a gaming chair giggling why stop them? Who cares?
- eropple 3y ago
  I care, because I don't want to see it when I'm looking to watch a video game stream--there are places for porn. And "well we'll just have opt-in categories" sounds great, except that these categories are thin and (on Twitch especially) not composable; as the purveyors are looking for more clicks, it means trying to rules-lawyer the categories to get in front of eyeballs who are not looking for mature content, because maybe they'll catch more who are. If their categorization was perfect--sure, go nuts. It's not and it won't be, so it makes for a worse site for me.
  - whalesalad 3y ago
    Yeah so it could be handled like virtually every other site on the earth (ie, google, reddit) where you can check a box in your account to show/hide NSFW content. Easy peasy.

elephanlemon 3y ago

Twitch has already been morphing into Chaturbate and the change last week doubled down there. I don’t think a website with a large audience of children should have been brushing up against pornography. I don’t even know what was going on with the AI art stuff, but there were numerous streams where females appeared topless, stopping just short of visible nipples.

ipaddr 3y ago
[flagged]
voidfunc 3y ago
Meh if you're old enough to be online by yourself you're old enough to see some titties. The puritan approach to sex in America is ridiculous.
- haunter 3y ago
  Or maybe not every site should be about porn? Why don't we post here on HN then too?
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
    > Why don't we post here on HN then too? Twitch's audience wants it and HN's audience doesn't. Perhaps more accurately, HN specifically doesn't want that.
  - malfist 3y ago
    HN isn't an image or video sharing site?
    - haunter 3y ago
      >HN isn't an image or video sharing site? Not with that attitude
    - insanitybit 3y ago

makomk 3y ago

As far as I could tell, the policy allowing artistic nudity never existed in practice and Twitch doesn't seem to have been serious about it. Even though it was supposedly allowed, basically everyone who drew art with genitals or female nipples got their account suspended aside from one or two exceptions that seem to have slipped through the cracks. This wasn't just limited to AI art or anything even vaguely photorealistic either, and it included Twitch partners whose bans are supposedly are handled in house. Also, whilst the Twitch CEO did say that some people had been accidentally banned who were following the rules, Twitch conspicously didn't unban any of them until comfortably after the U-turn. There was also nothing stopping the full, uncensored thumbnails showing up on the Art category page, including for users whose accounts were marked as under-18 - which meant that it was full of naked anime titties.

pyrophane 3y ago

They really didn't think that through! "Artistic nudity?" They thought defining and enforcing rules around what constitutes "art" in the context of nudity was a good plan? Even without AI (which seems to be the in vogue thing to blame for everything that doesn't go well) this was a horrible idea.

blueblimp 3y ago

I don't know what Twitch's goals are here, but if they want to get rid of the right-up-against-the-line content, then maybe clear, consistently-enforced rules are actually detrimental, because it just invites rules lawyering like we see here. If Twitch staff just went around arbitrarily banning anything they don't like, the affected streamers would hate it (because they wouldn't know what they can get away with), which, if you want to drive them off the platform, is a good thing.

insanitybit 3y ago
Users get really bothered by arbitrary banning, irrationally so I think. I've been on sites with moderators who could basically just enforce the rules as they liked and it's so much better. No "well technically I'm not rule breaking" - a human makes a judgment and bans them. For some reason these "professional" Websites (ie: the modern web of company-run forums) seem to resist this idea, and unfortunately it's hard to do it later in the game because the userbases can be very easily riled up.
- OnlineGladiator 3y ago
  So you think if you get banned without notice you should be unable to appeal and this is what fosters a healthy community?
  - whalesalad 3y ago
    Absolutely. Those in power make mistakes all the time.
  - insanitybit 3y ago
    So strange, none of the words you said appear in my post.
    - OnlineGladiator 3y ago
      > I've been on sites with moderators who could basically just enforce the rules as they liked and it's so much better. No "well technically I'm not rule breaking" - a human makes a judgment and bans them. I'm not sure how else to interpret what you typed.

happytiger 3y ago

Why don’t they just add a filter that is off by default and requires opting in and age verification? Is it purely legal liability and brand perception here, because the technical hurdles are fairly trivial.

SeanAnderson 3y ago
Credit card processing is split between normal and high risk merchant accounts. Major CC companies tend to be significantly less interested in dealing with high risk accounts. If Twitch introduces content segregation then they're making it explicitly clear that they consider an aspect of their business higher risk. They don't want that.
- charcircuit 3y ago
  Normally this is handled by using separate processors for adult content, but that isn't quite so simple because of the existence of bits.
ytoawwhra92 3y ago
That's just moving the problem somewhere else. NSFW content creators have a strong financial incentive to find ways to use SFW content as marketing for their NSFW content.

mise_en_place 3y ago

What's always been strange to me is that these kinds of streamers are not judged as harshly as real sex workers. On the status hierarchy, they seem to be close to the top.

2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago

> Mr Clancy said the issue had proven more complex than initially envisaged. > "Digital depictions of nudity present a unique challenge - artificial intelligence can be used to create realistic images, and it can be hard to distinguish between digital art and photography." I don't buy it. You're telling me with all the brains and tech talent you couldn't see this coming? I think they want to sell pornography to children.