China’s Grip Further Tightens On Youths: Children Limited In Watching, Supporting Streamers

Culture

from the squeeze-harder dept

China’s longstanding war on the internet, especially relating to children’s use of it, continues. Readers here will be well aware of the plethora of actions taken by China over the years to limit what its residents can see and do with the internet. From the Great Firewall of China to the country’s more targeted approach at limiting how much and when children can play online video games, all of this dovetails nicely with Beijing’s larger goals of tamping down on undesirable content and the erosion of any sign of democracy within its sphere of control. The toll this regulatory destruction has taken on the gaming industry in China is nearly too great to be believed.

And now China is setting its sights on another popular corner of the internet marketplace: content streamers. The country recently announced changes to how streaming services and streamers must operate, specifically in terms of limiting how and how often minors can interact with online streamers.

1) Viewers under the age of 18 will no longer be able to “tip,” a practice where those watching a broadcast are able to send small amounts of money, usually in exchange for a spoken or text acknowledgement of their contribution.

2) Anyone watching livestreamed content via a kid’s account will have all streams locked out after 10pm, and those responsible for creating content will “need to strengthen the management of peak hours for such shows.”

What’s the point of all this? Well, a couple of things. First, China’s stated goal in this further tightening of internet restrictions is supposedly to combat “chaos” occurring on the internet. What chaos, you ask? Well, almost certainly this has to do with tamping down the rise of popular personalities on Chinese streaming services that have, or could, build up huge followings and then suddenly say something “subverssive” about China’s government. Authoritarians, after all, don’t typically like a popularity contest. Keeping children, the bulk consumers of streaming services like this, from supporting streamers limits anyone’s opportunity to build a living that way.

As for the limitation on watching streamers at night, well, this follows right along with the limitation of online gaming in the evenings as well. Perhaps China thinks it can squeeze more educational production out of kids by making them go night-night at 10pm. Perhaps this is just a bit more control over culture, serving as a reminder of Beijing’s total authority over its people. On this, we can only speculate.

But raging against modernity isn’t a long term solution. Not even for a government as brutal as China’s.

Filed Under: children, china, internet, streamers

Twitch Finally Gets Around To Letting Banned Streamers Know Why They Were Banned

Copyright

from the victory! dept

We’ve covered Twitch’s no good, very bad time for many months now, which should give you an indication just how bad this time has been. If you need a brief background, the major points of contention have been the Amazon-owned company having a laughably one-sided approach to DMCA takedowns of content, its complete inept method for temp-banning its own creative community over copyright claims, and its totally vague approach to banning creators over various rule-breaking when it comes to Twitch’s indecipherable guidelines and the capricious manner in which it applies them.

While all of it is frankly bad, the lowest hanging fruit in all of this has always been the lack of communication Twitch has offered its own creative community when it comes to bans, copyright issues, or guidelines. For instance, Twitch, at first, would just disappear content, with little or no notice to the streamer who authored it. When it has given any notice to creators, that notice has traditionally been so devoid of any details so as to be entirely useless. Which I suppose is why the recent announcement by Twitch that it will finally tell streamers who have been hit with a copyright takedown what that infringing content is… is good?

The days of Twitch mysteriously suspending popular streamers are coming to an end. The Amazon-owned streaming platform announced yesterday that it will now actually tell streamers who get temporarily banned why they’ve been punished. It only took 10 years, folks.

“As of today, enforcement notifications sent to suspended users will include the name of the content and the date of the violation to ensure they have better clarity about what content is being actioned on,” Twitch Support wrote on Twitter. Based on a sample screenshot, these new explanations will include what the streamer did that violated Twitch’s Terms of Service or Community Guidelines and which stream it happened on.

So, again, this is a good thing, except, as the opening Kotaku graf hints, this announcement also highlights the absurdity of Twitch not having been doing this the entire time. And this should really also callout the minimalist nature of the “infringement” in question, which oftentimes involves video game audio assets that are part of a Twitch stream, or background music and whatnot. In other words, the need for this level of detail, though definitely crucial, also should let you know that these streamers aren’t trying to infringe copyright. If they were, there wouldn’t be so much confusion over why they were being banned or having their content taken down.

All of this certainly isn’t lost on the very community Twitch is now trying to placate.

Twitch was founded back in 2011 and later acquired by Amazon in 2014 for nearly $1 billion. It’s a big business, but only because of the content put there by others. Telling creators why they’ve been occasionally locked out of what is for some a defacto job is the least Twitch could do, though still far from what a lot of users would ideally like. Even now Twitch Support’s announcement tweet for the ban explanations is littered with complaints about the lack of transparency and communication around things like the appeals process.

In other words, now that Twitch has gotten things to where they probably should have been at the jump, the real work to win back its community begins.

Filed Under: content moderation, copyright, dmca, information, policy violations, rules, streamers, takedowns
Companies: twitch

Streamer Raptors Continue To Test Twitch's Appropriate Content Guideline Fencing

Content Moderation

from the wet-willy dept

It’s no secret that we’ve dinged streaming giant Twitch over and over again these past months. Frankly, it was done with good reason, as the Amazon-owned company continues to respond to crisis after crises, conflict after conflict, with pure confusion and callous behavior. While some of those conflicts were Twitch-specific, the company is also dealing with the more common problem of attempting to have a coherent content policy when it comes to what is appropriate to stream and what is not. For instance, Twitch recently found itself in the headlines yet again first by yanking advertising revenue from so-called “hot tub meta” streamers, where streamers live-stream in bathing suits from hot tubs or kiddie pools. Kaitlyn “Amouranth” Siragusa was one of the more prominent names impacted by this move, which again came with no warning. As a result of the public backlash over Twitch choosing not to communicate with its own creative community, the platform announced a “hot tub channel” category, as though that solved anything.

But now this has moved on from just a situation where Twitch sucks at communication with streamers, its most important asset. With all of the above having occurred, it seems that the raptors are now going about testing their fencing when it comes to what content is appropriate and what is not. And, if you want to get a sense of just how weird these tests can get, you need only dive into the latest Twitch trend: ear lick meta streams. Perhaps not surprisingly, Amouranth is once again leading this charge.

Perpetual Twitch provocateur Amouranth, along with model indiefoxxlive, have been temporarily taken off the livestreaming service following some delightfully bizarre video clips going viral on social media. While Twitch never comments on bans, the timing coincides with the proliferation of a clip in which Amouranth wears a horse mask. Neighing, the controversial Twitch streamer sometimes takes the entire mic into her mouth to make slurping sounds.

Similarly, if you click on Twitch’s “ASMR” tag at the moment, the most popular streamer is a woman whispering with the occasional wet sound thrown in. The community has taken to calling such shticks “ear lick streams,” as that is basically what these broadcasts sound like.

“Delightfully bizarre” appears to be exactly the right phrase for all of this. ASMR is not specifically meant to have any sexual connotation to it. That being said, it seems quite clear that what Amouranth and the like are doing is in part at least attempting to rope some measure of sexuality into behavior that would otherwise not necessarily have any sexual connotation to it. And, of course, adding a dash of the absolutely absurd just for shits and giggles.

In other words, if you want to argue that there is clear sexual connotation to these specific videos (you can find them in the link above if you’re curious), I won’t argue with you all that much. But — and this is a big caveat — finding precisely where and how any of this violates Twitch’s streaming guidelines on what’s appropriate is very much an exercise in subjectivity.

The general idea predates Twitch, of course, but it’s certainly true that Amouranth is savvy enough to command attention wherever she goes. Whether or not viewers approve of her methods is beyond the point. Twitch’s Community Guidelines have multiple pages dedicated to sexually suggestive content on the site, but the general gist is that it’s not allowed on the platform.

“Evaluations on the sexual suggestiveness of a behavior or activity are independent of user attire and are instead based on the overall surrounding framing and context,” the rules read. “This policy also applies to embedded media, augmented reality, creative broadcasts, and channel content—such as banners, profile images, emotes, and panels—that are focused on provocative images or video.”

But this leaves us still with two issues. The first is yet again how Twitch doles out these punishments and changes without any real communication with streamers or the public. It all just kind of happens and we get to play the game of attempting to interpret what it all means after the fact. The second issue is common among online platforms that do a shit job of having clear content guidelines: nobody actually knows where the lines are and these punishments tend to be doled out asymmetrically.

For example, the above guidelines would appear to prohibit, oh I don’t know, a liveplay of Dungeons and Dragons in which the players creatively act out to one degree or another sexual situations. And, yet, shows like Critical Role which stream on Twitch have had such content in one degree or another on the regular. Is that considered as graphic as a woman in a horse mask engulfing a microphone in her mouth?

Maybe? This feels like less of an obvious answer and more of a discussion open to interpretation. But, since Twitch has the final say for what occurs on its platform, only its opinion actually matters. But that doesn’t change the fact that Twitch’s guidelines are vague and unhelpful, its communication method neutered, and its handing out of punishment arbitrary and capricious.

Good times. Sluuuuuurp!

Filed Under: appropriate content, content moderation, streamers, streaming
Companies: twitch

Creative Director At Google Stadia Advocates Streamers Paying Game Devs And Publishers

Culture

from the ruh-roh dept

Way back in 2013, we discussed an interesting study conducted by Google looking at the effect of let’s play and video game reviews has on the gaming industry. That study’s conclusion was that viewers watched let’s plays at a far higher clip than, say, video game trailers. Two-thirds of those views appeared to be watchers focusing on the video itself, whereas the other third were watching on secondary devices/screens in order to find tips and tricks for completing the game in question. Both were conducive to promoting the gaming industry, being a method for finding out if a game is worth buying and because gamers know they have a resource to help complete a game.

Fast forward to 2020 and Google has its own game-streaming platform that it’s trying to get off of the ground. One of the folks that works at Google on the platform is Alex Hutchinson. And when it comes to let’s play videos and streams, hoo boy does he have some thoughts.

Earlier today Alex Hutchinson, creative director at Typhoon Studios (bought by Google last year to make Stadia games), made a tweet suggesting that Twitch and YouTube users should be “paying the developers and publishers” of the games they stream.

And the tweet that set this shitstorm off:

The backlash online was swift and severe. So much so, in fact, that Hutchinson went on to wonder aloud why people were so mad about all of this. Several people attempted to explain to him that game streams are good for developers and publishers, not bad. Others pointed out that any licensing would go to the publisher and not the developer anyway, so Hutchinson was really just advocating for big companies to make more big money. And one streamer pointed out that Hutchinson’s Twitter banner was fan-art of that very streamer, used without attribution or permission.

Meanwhile, I’m just wondering why Hutchinson doesn’t just go read his own employer’s 2013 study that shows just how beneficial let’s plays and game-streaming is for the industry. He might also want to realize that Google’s YouTube has an entire wing of it’s service called YouTube Gaming, built around game-streaming.  

For what it’s worth, there is no reason to think that Hutchinson is making any actual policy decisions at Google or for Stadia. And, more importantly, Google reps have already come out and said Hutchinson’s tweets don’t reflect the views of the company.  

But it’s probably time to educate Hutchinson on the actual facts that his own employer has made clear in the past.

Filed Under: alex hutchinson, stadia, streamers, streaming, symbiosis, video games
Companies: google

Mixer Shuts Down, Showing Again Why You Don't Need To Freak Out By Copycat Competitors

Overhype

from the getting-twitchy dept

In all sorts of intellectual property conversations, one common refrain is something like “If you let people copy others, those copycats will be just as successful without having to work to develop a product.” This ire is most commonly aimed at big companies that see something successful and simply come up with their own version of it. And, to be generous, there certainly does seem to be something less than fair about that. But then you take a step back and watch just how often these copycat startups fall flat on their faces and you have to wonder why anyone worries about this stuff at all. Does nobody remember Google Plus?

Other companies have shown that it often builds more trust to not care about copycats any further than poking fun at them. Again, this is because the innovator almost always has a massive leg up on the copycat competitor, rather than the other way around. The most recent example of this is Microsoft’s Mixer platform, which was supposed to be a streaming service geared towards video gaming, with Twitch being the competition it was trying to “copy” off of. Well, even with the corporate power and war chest of Microsoft behind it, the platform failed and has since been offloaded to Facebook Gaming.

The shutdown starts today, with a transition plan laid out by Microsoft for Mixer streamers. Mixer Partners will be granted partner status with Facebook Gaming, and the platform will honor and “match all existing Partner agreements as closely as possible,” according to the blog detailing the change.

Several big-name streamers, such as Ninja and Shroud, moved from Twitch exclusively to Mixer this year. On Twitter, popular streamer King Gothalion announced he would be moving to Facebook; earlier this year, he signed a deal to stream exclusively on Mixer.

Even with some pretty big streaming names on the service, Mixer failed. Why? Well, because Twitch had already built up an audience and trust within the public for its product. Microsoft didn’t do enough to make Mixer stand apart from Twitch. Instead, the strategy appeared to roughly be just throwing money at some high profile streamers and expect audiences to flock to the platform because of it. That didn’t work, however.

Those streamers will now be free to move on to either Facebook Gaming or back to Twitch, where most of them began. Where the majority decide to go will be quite telling, but I imagine Facebook will throw money at this the same way Microsoft did. And if Facebook doesn’t do enough to make Gaming stand out and special compared with Twitch, it’ll likely fail in exactly the same way. What we’ve seen from Facebook Gaming thus far, however, does have some more intriguing social and DIY elements.

But the real lesson here is that building a copycat startup isn’t some get rich quick scheme. Or, it is, but it rarely works. So if you create a great platform, build a great community, and deliver great content… you probably are wasting time if you’re worrying about copycats.

Filed Under: big companies, competition, copycats, mixer, startups, streamers, video streaming
Companies: microsoft, mixer, twitch