You want a "sensitive" topic? How about "silencing people that need a voice"? Isn't Twitch supposed to be a platform for people to get along in? This "change" will only make things worse, not just for LGBTQ+ people, but for their allies and other people who could be informed on the matter. They are still part of this life and you shouldn't silence them for trying to live it.

Queer life experiences and existence is not inherently political. Nor should it be treated as such.

Respectfully, ******** with that ********

You want to kill diversity on your service? This is how you do it

If Dan Clancy was so in tuned to wanting to fit in with the Twitch community doing hip young cool things. Maybe he should try to reach out and understand what is happening and reach out to people.

We LGBTQ+ people just want to exist and have a safe space for people remove this change

Tired of this. Just let queer people live.

The existence of LGBTQ+ people is a sensitive topic? Who are we appealing to now Twitch? Religious zealots? Remove this change

The Nazis did this last century and it worked out great. If you, perhaps, don't think what your doing could possibly be correlated, might I suggest learning some History, because while you might not believe in it, you'd better start. You're living in it.

This is a wildly bad and nonsensical idea and will greatly harm twitch’s bottom line (the thing they care about most) if it goes forward.

It should be common sense that someone being of a minority and discussing their experience is different from someone else debating whether minorities have a right to exist.

you are just a bunch of ******* douchebags if you don't remove it.

Is this another Bezos mandate being pushed down from up top, because someone is being a coward and trying to hedge their bets?

We know Twitch is owned by Amazon, and we all know what happened with WaPro. Knock this **** off.

Surely nothing bad has ever come from declaring the existence of a whole group of people inherently political and sweeping discussion of them into a quarantined space. I can't imagine any examples of this being intimately tied in with a rise in violent and genocidal sentiments.

garbage policy.

A dreadful idea that will immediately and profoundly impact a wide, diverse range of streamers for the negative.

This is a terrible and ineffective decision across the board. While a content flag for coverage of warfare, unrest, and contentious political disputes is clearly defined and understandable even if I disagree with it, the points about discussing ideological and socio-political topics undermines and compromises any usefulness the flag would otherwise have.

First, content flags are what replaced the mature tag and are connected by analogy to content classifications (e.g. movie age ratings, or parental advisories on albums) which specify the reason for the warning. In this context, these two bullet points are totally out of step, as "ideological" is not anything that warrants any kind of age rating and never has in any other context. If it were an ideological issue around a topic that was actually mature, such as explicit sexual issues or drug- related advocacy, it could easily qualify under one of the other classification labels already.

Second, content classification labels are intended to collect and give more information about stream content. This applies both to allowing viewers to make informed choices about viewing preferences, and providing advertisers more information and control over where their ads are shown. In this context, these two bullet points simply fail. What kind of content is a "sensitive social issue"? They are utterly intangible and not clearly demonstrable in the way e.g. warfare, protests, and elections are. The inherent lack of consensus also creates impossible double standards over which topics are even considered sensitive. Sensitive for whom? Americans? Brazilians? Germans? Japanese? Russians? These are huge communities on Twitch and every one of them are going to have different ideas about which topics and what expressions are considered sensitive. If Twitch uses a universal standard, diverse communities will be hurt for expressing things that for them are uncontroversial while actual sensitive topics are untouched. Vice versa, if Twitch enforces the standards differently depending on the community that means streamers are going to find themselves restricted not based on what they say but based on which community they're in. Either option is terrible.

Finally, content flags are a part of the trust and safety team's toolkit and responsibility. In this context, these last two bullet points are an impossible pressure begging for controversy. How are the team members who enforce whether this content flag needs to be applied actually going to do so? The various teams involved with communications and enforcement are as human as any of us and already have to field controversy relating to much more tangible moderation decisions over things that are already clearly articulated. How can they fairly apply this when people already go to the mat over the apparel policy? How are any of them supposed to be confident using this as an enforcement tool? You're really asking them to make decisions that are inherently controversial by nature of these two points when there's already so many challenges with other content policies? What things could they not enforce without these lines that this would allow them to enforce? And when we're so confused and anxious about it, surely some members of the team have no idea what is going to qualify for enforcement.

In summary, please remove and reconsider the intent behind the last two bullet points on this content flag.

I refuse to be censored for my identity again. This is so sick.

our existence is not CONTRIVERSIAL! PLEASE DON'T ENABLE THIS REDERIC!

Twitch buck Ur ******* ideas up. This is well over the ******** line.