Settings and activity
17 results found
-
88 votes
AcingEagle
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment -
3 votesAcingEagle
shared this idea
·
-
2 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment AcingEagle
commented
Furthermore, I'd like to address that the Uservoice is only in English, which excludes millions of users worldwide, who follow their national fellows, but do not fluently communicate in English. Despite the existence of Translators. Also, only a small minority looks into Uservoice.
AcingEagle
shared this idea
·
-
4 votesAcingEagle
shared this idea
·
-
23 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment AcingEagle
commented
As of 2025: Once processed you receive an E-Mail with the report no, status, and its outcome.
AcingEagle
supported this idea
·
-
55 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment AcingEagle
commented
I think this fundamentally has a few problems:
- Why is this a trend? Who profits from sexual suggestion?
- Is the trend actually causing objective harm?
- Does stricter enforcement actually change the behave?Ofc, subjective harm needs to be respected in crafting processes for the guidelines, and policy decisions.
While I believe its fully ok to have sexually suggestion (depending on context), I question the purpose, intent, and what it does with the community.
So many streamers going in that direction, I have heard from many, they feel pressured to do so by other platforms such as TikTok, but also by other streamers, coming from other platforms, or having such conduct in their streams.
One should also question, whether sexual suggestion actually has some benefit. Either it disgusts people, or it attracts them spending money, or it does not even affect them.
I would rather say, except if they want to be sexually attracted (are on "the search"), they feel rather pressured to move away, thus it is harming the community, especially of the streamer doing it.
My last question relates to whether strict enforcement would actually change something. As I have implictly said, it is a structural issue, as such we have to change the community conduct, not only by punishment but by active engagement as community.
People won't change their habit if you just punish them. You have to explain and make people understand as well, why a conduct is improper, and even better why a conduct is better suited to achieve what the people (streamers and their communities) want.
/E: I forgot to mention the world wide econmic crisis, and the economic situation of every streamer, people on Twitch who watch, and the people at Twitch, including Amazon’s revenue and re-investment into the platform through moderation (costs).
-
230 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment AcingEagle
commented
What in the world did I just read? Sorry but I stopped reading after the headline. Zionism as word equals in social and lingual context pretty much always to Jewish people.
Humanity is one family! So we love Israelis, whether they might be Jewish, Christian, Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists or whatever. Same applies to people from typically Arab countries and other places around the world.
The consideration that Zionism itself would be a political ideology sounds weird to me as well, and even antisemit in itself.
-
782 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment AcingEagle
commented
Before I am discussing it through, I want to ask, why is it your/our business how you fellow humans talk? Freedom of Speech is a very valuable basic human right, which shall not be infringed easily.
While I agree it might be resulting in an insult that is perceived as such, due to the way of usage, such applications fall under Twitch’s existing insult policy sections.
Most people won't feel offended by it, so it should not be seen as offending, excpet under special contexts which are already to be sanctioned on Twitch.
So all in all, censoring the whole community because you feel offended is a bit too much, I believe, but restricting insulting behavior, in such explicit contexts, is a good way of moderation.
-
108 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment AcingEagle
commented
I don't get why it's not already like that. Nobody who works in UX or legal dep would come to the conclusion that the current Twitch way is the proper.
AcingEagle
supported this idea
·
-
108 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment AcingEagle
commented
+1
AcingEagle
supported this idea
·
-
6 votesAcingEagle
supported this idea
·
-
6 votesAcingEagle
supported this idea
·
-
4 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment AcingEagle
commented
wtf is latino really restricted?
AcingEagle
supported this idea
·
-
2 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment AcingEagle
commented
Most games have sexualized characters. Isn't it funny you do not complain about them but about THAT?
However, I agree I think there needs more seperation from that content. I also have no problem if a nudity streamer focusses on gaming during the streams and just links it in the bio. Like many atm do.
And the naked people with stickers on their ding dongs or bongos (sry for the terms) is really weird and should be a bit more punished. Aslong it's not for art or similiar purposes.
-
5 votesAcingEagle
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment AcingEagle
commented
We shouldn't focus on "protecting children" from people who show themselves nked or on "such sites". I believe it's better to clean up Twitch from certain advertising of those people. They just add a linktree in their profile and lead people over there.
I have no problem with the individuals doing so. I have also no problem with teens (like we were back then) watching that stuff.
More important is good education about it and a good handling of that stuff by us all.
I do not think that ID Verification is a way to go. First of all, it can be bypassed, second of all, it does not replace the good education and the issue of the spammy advertising by the mentioned individuals.
Furthermore the recommendation algorithm could be adjusted to keep those people a bit lower, not to harm them but to avoid them getting recommend first.
I think they also should be categorized and being restricted in another section without recommendations at all, except a user explicitly opts-in for that. -
6 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment AcingEagle
commented
Not sure what exactly you are demanding. The idea is very unstructured.
When I saw the blocks of restrictions applying to women but not to men I also had a eyebrow raiser. At least they added a ******-feeding section! xD
This has nothing really todo with capitalism. It has to do with social norms and like you already well-described social structures and (sometimes wicked) morals.
I doubt that women do not suffer from double standards like they are being checked whether their outfit attracted men, or even men getting an political or financial advantage over them, as they are structurally hurt in a gender unequal and non-gender-equity based society.
I think there are multiple aspects to it, Twitch's international stance, e.g. in Arab/Muslim countries, where those state's have a different public appearances and rules imposed on the society (not only women). Then we have more or less liberal westerner countries where Twitch would not even have a problem to let the women show their nipples and so on. They prob could let them stream publicly. There are exceptions e.g. prostitution and it's advertisement OR the American nudity shaming and stuff like that. As company you usually try to equalize the differences across states to avoid legal and technical business issues.
I personally have no problem with any woman showing herself naked on stream for art or stuff like that. The same I do not have any problem with men showing up naked for the same purposes. I do not care about their nipples or the space between their ***** (due to the bra's nature). Aside that many bodies looking great for sure.
I have a problem with nudity solely for the purpose to attract adults on **** sites, or even worse kiddies - which is the 2nd problem. Despite everyone is watching that stuff, and many teens do (like we did back then). Aside the s3x business can be exploitative, if women/men are forced or underpaid.
Hopefully that's structured and understandable enough !
-
5 votesAcingEagle
shared this idea
·
I personally don't have a problem with Amazon building a rival or internal model to Google, OpenAI, Clownde and all the chinese manufacturers (Alibaba, Tencent, DeekSeek, MoonShot etc) with their models. Or even making them better.
Imo its dumb how Twitch communicated their interest and change! Silently pushing this opt-out button onto us, without notifying us or even waiting for our feedback is a huge ** move and a crazy deviation from Amazon & Twitch procedures (rather doctrine).
Let alone to mention the whole opt-out Generative AI Training thing is illegal under GDPR (there's no legitimate interest nor a legal requirement for AI training data collection). Especially when one considers the attempted Dark Pattern and Loophole exploitation by Amazon/Twitch. All European companies who tried that were 100% butchered in court later on and had to delete all collected data. So the risk of high cost and losing the data esp. from EU Citizen with very tiny languages and data sets about them (!) is insanely high.
The other huge problem is how the policy does not properly state what exactly is being done with the data AND that the link to the Amazon policy is actually dead. This decreases trust too.
If you look at all these facts, it looks like a insane loss of reputation for Amazon/Twitch, especially if we take into account that they could have just asked us to opt-in for a small amount of bitties in return, or even make a proper agreement change - giving us the option either to enable it or delete the account.
It's a disgrace what Amazon and Twitch did there. There's no need to butcher the own reputation like that and offend us users. Keep in mind: WE provide you all the data for your generative AI bs AND we are the ones who making your content and platform run.
So we need some respect for us in return, as it was in the past. You always notified us in advance before changes were made and you actually allowed us to contribute for success. But this is a full failure that will backlash and hit harder later on .
What you did damaged the whole AI industry (not only reptuation wise) with it's legitimate interests, the good-faith contributors, and the positively behaving actors. They already have bad reptuation for Musk's Memphis gas-turbine corruption and the other sh1t they do e.g. using so much energy and spitting out so much trash e.g. increasing hardware prices and blocking the production of them and killing the planet... Like wth are you doing? Thats not how to win the competition between the big companies and China - which seems to have stricter privacy laws than our so-called rule of law driven democracies.
I would have put my efforts onto building opt-in, consent, trust and community building. For example, by giving smaller and larger charity streams a few bitties or similiar incentives at low cost for Twitch. So people contribute because they have an interest - forming a mutual interest, which avoids the PR trouble.
Note from Gemini: if you're forcing us to give our data, how many people will poison the training data intentionally? How much does it cost you to clean and process that post collection? How hard will ur cleaning pipelines will get compromised/poisoned?
So how is it not smarter to ask for consent and build quality data?
Greetz