7 ms·

The money you give to steamers doesn’t enable you to watch them so it’s not exactly comparable to purchasing TV

rhdunn 3y ago
You can say the same thing about Patreon, donations, etc. Sure, you don't have to pay to watch them but its a way of giving back to them. And on platforms like twitch, being subscribed to a channel does things like remove ads and access to emotes that are part of the live interaction if you want to participate in that.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  Paying to remove ads is a bit different though. Paying $100 so a streamer pretends to like you for three seconds is really not healthy.
SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
If the streamer wasn't making money would they continue streaming?
- c22 3y ago
  Most of the ones worth watching, I'd guess.
jcranmer 3y ago
You don't have to tip your waiter at the restaurant. But their salary is fundamentally dependent on you tipping them ~15-20%, so by not tipping them, you are effectively stealing from them. Similarly, not subscribing to people I watch heavily is in effect stealing from them. To be clear, I don't actually like this model of payment. I'd much rather there be a system that could automatically distribute a pool of money in terms of how much I watched.
- vel0city 3y ago
  Streamers are making their streams free for the vast majority of the people watching them. Its not stealing when they're producing the content with the expectation most people will watch for free. If a waiter was expecting only 10% of people would actually tip, its not stealing to then not tip most of the time. If the streamer didn't want me to watch for free, they should have put up a paywall.
chefandy 3y ago
Well, your individual dollars don't buy access to a controlled resource, but people in general contributing certainly does. That streamer would definitely do something else if there was no income coming in. The younger generations seem less tied to the idea that money must always be part of a quid pro quo transaction, and are more willing to throw money into a pool to support things they really like. Sounds like a pretty solid step forward in human cultural values to me.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  Not at all. It's still a transaction. It's sold as a membership in a community, but that's not real. That just means they pay more.
  - chefandy 3y ago
    Your criticism would be no different leveled at donating to charity, giving loose change to someone on the street, dropping money on a collection plate, or using the "buy me a coffee" tip like for FOSS projects. What's not real about being part of a community that doesn't have restricted access? Is a community in a FOSS project only real because you need a GitHub account or is that also fake because it doesn't cost money? lThat's a mighty sad outlook on life.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      > lThat's a mighty sad outlook on life. That's not what I said. Paying a streamer to pretend to like you is not being part of a community. There is no community; they just constantly call it a community. A real community wouldn't vanish if one person (the streamer) left. That's a cult. > Your criticism would be no different leveled at donating to charity, giving loose change to someone on the street, dropping money on a collection plate, or using the "buy me a coffee" tip like for FOSS projects. What's not real about being part of a community that doesn't have restricted access? Doing none of those things is being part of a community. Parasocial relationships are monetisable. That's all. I think it's a bad idea to be on the paying end of that transaction.
harperlee 3y ago
Leaving aside the multi-millionaire streamers, I do think it is commendable to take care of the long-term sustainability of what you like instead of being a free rider.

You can say the same thing about Patreon, donations, etc. Sure, you don't have to pay to watch them but its a way of giving back to them. And on platforms like twitch, being subscribed to a channel does things like remove ads and access to emotes that are part of the live interaction if you want to participate in that.

robertlagrant 3y ago
Paying to remove ads is a bit different though. Paying $100 so a streamer pretends to like you for three seconds is really not healthy.

SketchySeaBeast 3y ago

If the streamer wasn't making money would they continue streaming?

c22 3y ago
Most of the ones worth watching, I'd guess.

jcranmer 3y ago

You don't have to tip your waiter at the restaurant. But their salary is fundamentally dependent on you tipping them ~15-20%, so by not tipping them, you are effectively stealing from them. Similarly, not subscribing to people I watch heavily is in effect stealing from them. To be clear, I don't actually like this model of payment. I'd much rather there be a system that could automatically distribute a pool of money in terms of how much I watched.

vel0city 3y ago
Streamers are making their streams free for the vast majority of the people watching them. Its not stealing when they're producing the content with the expectation most people will watch for free. If a waiter was expecting only 10% of people would actually tip, its not stealing to then not tip most of the time. If the streamer didn't want me to watch for free, they should have put up a paywall.

chefandy 3y ago

Well, your individual dollars don't buy access to a controlled resource, but people in general contributing certainly does. That streamer would definitely do something else if there was no income coming in. The younger generations seem less tied to the idea that money must always be part of a quid pro quo transaction, and are more willing to throw money into a pool to support things they really like. Sounds like a pretty solid step forward in human cultural values to me.

robertlagrant 3y ago
Not at all. It's still a transaction. It's sold as a membership in a community, but that's not real. That just means they pay more.
- chefandy 3y ago
  Your criticism would be no different leveled at donating to charity, giving loose change to someone on the street, dropping money on a collection plate, or using the "buy me a coffee" tip like for FOSS projects. What's not real about being part of a community that doesn't have restricted access? Is a community in a FOSS project only real because you need a GitHub account or is that also fake because it doesn't cost money? lThat's a mighty sad outlook on life.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    > lThat's a mighty sad outlook on life. That's not what I said. Paying a streamer to pretend to like you is not being part of a community. There is no community; they just constantly call it a community. A real community wouldn't vanish if one person (the streamer) left. That's a cult. > Your criticism would be no different leveled at donating to charity, giving loose change to someone on the street, dropping money on a collection plate, or using the "buy me a coffee" tip like for FOSS projects. What's not real about being part of a community that doesn't have restricted access? Doing none of those things is being part of a community. Parasocial relationships are monetisable. That's all. I think it's a bad idea to be on the paying end of that transaction.

harperlee 3y ago

Leaving aside the multi-millionaire streamers, I do think it is commendable to take care of the long-term sustainability of what you like instead of being a free rider.