Settings and activity
16 results found
-
7,980 votes
CyberneticSusurrus
supported this idea
·
-
148 votesCyberneticSusurrus
supported this idea
·
-
6 votesCyberneticSusurrus
supported this idea
·
-
166 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment CyberneticSusurrus
supported this idea
·
-
21 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment CyberneticSusurrus
commented
This suggestion from 2019 is effectively the same thing, & has many more votes:
https://twitch.uservoice.com/forums/310222-twitch-applications-mobile/suggestions/39000541-swipe-to-remove-continue-watching-entryand yet, years later, still no sign of the very obviously missing UX feature.
CyberneticSusurrus
supported this idea
·
-
960 votesCyberneticSusurrus
supported this idea
·
-
4,863 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment CyberneticSusurrus
commented
I hadn't realised until reading this post, but it's absolutely correct to point out that these new "clarified" guidelines functionally prevent anyone from actually being an ally to Queer people.
It also forces people to out themselves in order to speak about the very things that keep them closeted for safety reasons; the alternative being that they're slapped with a label that makes them a target and equates their existence with military conflicts.If Twitch were to actually recognise these issues and not only change course but meaningfully act against bigotry on the platform, I'd switch from being irritated and ready to keep hammering them to being really quite appreciative.
It's incredibly bizarre that Twitch is still insisting on equating the existence of marginalised genders, sexualities, & ethnic/racial groups with coverage of military conflicts and actual political events.
Do they really not realise what they're saying when they lump those into the same warning label?An error occurred while saving the comment CyberneticSusurrus
commented
Fundamentally, the "sensitive social issues" do not fit the primary focus of the Content Classification Label.
Footage and discussion of military conflicts and/or elections and/or actual political debates are NOT in the same category as mentions or discussions of gender, sexuality, and race.
Conflating the two is bizarre, and will only complicate any filtering and/or moderation efforts; it is ultimately UNHELPFUL to the userbase AND advertisers for those things to be thrown into the same proverbial bucket.Given the clarification that the label is allegedly only to be applied when content is "polarising or inflammatory", the obvious question is:
'What exactly qualifies as polarising or inflammatory?'.What does it mean for gender and/or sexuality and/or race to be presented or discussed in a "polarising or inflammatory manner" ?
(Note: for some Queer individuals in particular, simply existing and living and presenting as one does is liable to be considered "polarising" or "inflammatory" by some.)
If a "polarising or inflammatory manner" denotes hostility and bigotry, then there should be no need for a Content Classification Label; such content should INSTEAD be being moderated in accordance with Twitch policies.And if it ISN'T simple hostility and bigotry (which - again - ought to be moderated accordingly):
How exactly does Twitch plan to determine what qualifies as "polarising" or "inflammatory" ?
What are the defined standards here; what criteria are going to be used to make those judgements, and why are they not being made crystal clear so as to reassure and prevent abuse of said policy?
Consider:
- Is it "polarising" to suggest that a trans kid ought to be respected and listened to; that one should use whatever name & pronouns they're actually comfortable with?
- Is it "polarising" to suggest that white supremacist bigotry is built into a lot of social, political, and cultural systems and practices; through historical impacts if nothing else?NOTE: so-called "polarisation" doesn't just pop into existence randomly; when it concerns the groups listed, it's a direct result of marginalised people being marginalised, or being intentionally politicised.
Policies such as this one falsely equate the pushback and reaction against that with the actual source of the problem.CyberneticSusurrus
supported this idea
·
-
269 votesCyberneticSusurrus
supported this idea
·
-
257 votesCyberneticSusurrus
supported this idea
·
-
295 votesCyberneticSusurrus
supported this idea
·
-
724 votesCyberneticSusurrus
supported this idea
·
-
791 votesCyberneticSusurrus
supported this idea
·
-
1,120 votesCyberneticSusurrus
supported this idea
·
-
1,949 votesCyberneticSusurrus
supported this idea
·
-
2,648 votesCyberneticSusurrus
supported this idea
·
-
9 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment CyberneticSusurrus
commented
Bizarre that this is somehow still unaddressed.
It seems like it'd be a relatively simple fix:
If a user has unfollowed an account, assume the user would like them marked 'do not recommend'.CyberneticSusurrus
supported this idea
·
"Swipe" is specific to mobile users.
It should also be possible via browser.
It's incredibly bizarre that over 5 years later, there's still no sign of such an obviously missing UX feature.