3 ms·
That Twitch link is interesting. My read is that they're disingenuously trying to spin obviously intentional sexual content as, rather, a matter of interpretat
by neilv 2y ago
That Twitch link is interesting.
My read is that they're disingenuously trying to spin obviously intentional sexual content as, rather, a matter of interpretation of the wide range of imaginations of the viewers.
And they experimentally made a "Pools, Hot Tubs, and Beaches" swimwear category, while they figure out how to keep milking the intentional sexual titillation content, while still keeping advertisers happy.
(Related: The Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue wasn't about sports, nor about travel, nor about anything else other than the obvious.)
- danpalmer 2y agoI have no comment on the way Twitch handled this, was only providing the link for context. I find the culture around this fascinating. We've got platforms trying to find the right balance of moderation in an attempt to not appear to be porn sites because that would be perceived as bad by society, while taking as much of that traffic as they can and normalising this type of content at the boundary, and while also trying to appease their own sources of moderation such as advertisers and payment processors. We've got content creators who may well not identify as sex workers, convincing themselves that they're different because of some boundary, and children looking for attention and emulating the increasingly normalised behaviour at the encouragement of a platform that prioritises views and exposes harmful metrics.