Phwoar thread redux

[Blue Jam]

Twitch is gonna blow your mind

How many people here have donated to Limmy on Twitch though? Ahhhhh...

[Buelligan]

I think it might be useful to think about how we want to live.  If you carry all your worldly wealth in cash, someone sees it and takes it from you, who is wrong?

Sure we can all excuse a thief because it was easy for them to steal but, end of day, that doesn't make what they've done OK.  Still stealing.

This idea that the world is corrupt so it's OK to behave in corrupt ways is only useful to people that want to live that way. 

We do all carry responsibility, no one made me post this, well, except you people ^.

[JaDanketies]

I've sent Facebook and LinkedIn messages to the people who were in the post-rock band Cloud Archive, asking them to sell me the mp3s to their album Left The Bright Opening (here's a song), which obviously wasn't as big a smash hit as it ought to have been as I have resorted to sending LinkedIn messages so I can listen to the full album again. They've all seen my message and seemed quite happy to have received the message but it did seem quite intrusive and was probably quite weird. Even dropping a killer album in 2007 is enough to get people pestering you 13 years later.

[El Unicornio, mang]

Twitch is gonna blow your mind

See also: instagram and tiktok. Just be a conventionally attractive late teen/early 20s girl and post regular 15 second videos of miming to some godawful song or sample, or twerking to same, and get 1m+ followers and companies sending you tons of free shit to promote.

This is an example of the kind of thing you have to do to get 61.1 million followers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4aGymwgz3g&ab_channel=TikTokViral

[Blue Jam]

I always assumed TikTok was like Vine, people doing funny little videos with some kind of visual joke or special effects or clever editing, like Limmy used to do.

Shows what I know.

[El Unicornio, mang]

There are some genuinely funny/inventive little clips on there. But it inevitably became dominated by a lot of vapid content. Also it's open to anyone aged 13+ so there's a lot of stuff on there which is downright dodgy. Not an app I would randomly browse in a public place.

[BlodwynPig]

What is Twitch?

[Blue Jam]

My main exposure to TikTok has been adverts for it, like that one with the bloke singing the sea shanty, and the one with the women presenting that mental agility test where words appear in different colours. I guess they're going to put the more creative stuff in their adverts and leave out the vapid crap  though.

I've watched bit of Esports on Twitch, mainly Rocket League because it's fun to watch other people play that, and I've watched Limmy's channel a fair bit. What I really don't get though are those vloggers like jacksepticeye and pewdiepie who screech over videos of themselves playing games. I watch quite a bit of gaming content on YouTube and when the search results autocomplete with "no commentary" that's when I hit the Enter key. Seems it's a very popular search term and I'm far from alone in wanting my gaming content without a soundtrack of ear-splitting screeching, but I'm probably still in a minority.

[AllisonSays]

I don't have a TikTok or anything but occasionally people on Twitter post, like, their favourite ones, and to be fair some of them are genuinely very funny little slices of people's lives.

[Blue Jam]

Reading this is manking me wonder if TikTok could give Liam Williams enough material to do a follow-up to Pls Like. I hope so.

[Icehaven]

Twitch and Tik Tok make me feel like people who were my age now at the time must have felt when MySpace and Facebook first came along.

[Better Midlands]

Sure we can all excuse a thief because it was easy for them to steal but, end of day, that doesn't make what they've done OK.  Still stealing.

I don't feel very comfortable with the comparison of content creators such as the one being discussed here to thieves, are you suggesting that it's an illegitimate revenue stream?

Apologies if I'm mistaken.

[Pdine]

I don't feel very comfortable with the comparison of content creators such as the one being discussed here to thieves, are you suggesting that it's an illegitimate revenue stream?

I think the thieves in the analogy are the people who are reposting and commenting? Not sure though.

[Blue Jam]

I think people have said many, many times now that while people may be failing to exercise adequate caution when posting personal stuff online, that still doesn't make it right for people to send them abuse or steal their content.

[Better Midlands]

I think the thieves in the analogy are the people who are reposting and commenting?

Sorry, in that case I'm wrong.

[Sonny_Jim]

I really don't get though are those vloggers like jacksepticeye and pewdiepie who screech over videos of themselves playing games.

My 8yr old used to watch stuff like that, specifically the Minecraft ones.  For him it was like having a hyperactive mate over to play video games with.  I never really got it either tbh.  Fast cut editing and shaky cam zoom with distorted audio makes me feel old as fuck.

Hang on, where was I?

_phwooooooar

[Better Midlands]

Just be a conventionally attractive late teen/early 20s girl and post regular 15 second videos of miming to some godawful song or sample, or twerking to same, and get 1m+ followers and companies sending you tons of free shit to promote.

Charli D'Amelio age - 16 years
Charli D'Amelio net worth - $8m

[El Unicornio, mang]

Charli D'Amelio age - 16 years
Charli D'Amelio net worth - $8m

If only there was a steady market for middle aged men miming to Cardi B in the kitchen, we could be raking it in :(

[Better Midlands]

If only there was a steady market for middle aged men miming to Cardi B in the kitchen, we could be raking it in :(

There probably is somewhere, it's a mad world out there - just got to find the right hashtag.

[Buelligan]

I think people have said many, many times now that while people may be failing to exercise adequate caution when posting personal stuff online, that still doesn't make it right for people to send them abuse or steal their content.

Yes but you did add a lot of stuff about the style of her pics, possible motivation for posting them and getting sent toasters and so on.  What is that about?  I'm sorry if I misunderstood but it sounded to me like saying, it is wrong to steal but if people lay out the welcome mat, well, not really stealing is it?

Clearly a lot of people are finding it difficult to understand all of this.  I do try to be clear though.  I do feel that forcefully defending a thread[nb]For clarity, I am speaking generally here.[/nb] that, I assume many people defending it, knew, contained this material (and maybe other stuff), then making a point of making a new one, is plainly not a position to take if one thinks that any of this was questionable.

[Blue Jam]

I'm sorry if I misunderstood but it sounded to me like saying, it is wrong to steal but if people lay out the welcome mat, well, not really stealing is it?

I didn't say that at all and you know it.

[Pdine]

Yes but you did add a lot of stuff about the style of her pics, possible motivation for posting them and getting sent toasters and so on.  What is that about?  I'm sorry if I misunderstood but it sounded to me like saying, it is wrong to steal but if people lay out the welcome mat, well, not really stealing is it?

I think the problem with that kind of critique is it makes recognising complexity identical to victim-blaming. While sometimes it can be, it isn't always, and it certainly isn't here, I think.

[Buelligan]

I didn't say that at all and you know it.

I don't know it.  That's why I'm saying it.  I saw that you wrote quite a bit about the style of the pictures, her possible motivations and Amazon wishlist etc.  In my understanding, I don't think I'm alone, you were saying she was acting in bad faith to complain because, from the "evidence" of the pics, wishlist, etc, she encouraged sexualised attention.  If that wasn't what you meant, maybe it would be good to explain what you did mean.

[JaDanketies]

I think the problem with that kind of critique is it makes recognising complexity identical to victim-blaming. While sometimes it can be, it isn't always, and it certainly isn't here, I think.

But I can certainly understand people's consternation when the complexity is fleshed out in this thread. And to be honest, making another thread to talk about it would be the icing on the cake when it comes to this board treating the Twitter user badly. It's not the time or the place, and in this instance there aren't any times or places.

[Ferris]

I haven't been following this thread because I am very conflict averse. However, from personal experience this:

Even dropping a killer album in 2007 is enough to get people pestering you 13 years later.

is entirely untrue.

[Blue Jam]

I don't know it.

Oh I think you do. And if you really are having trouble understanding people's crystal-clear posts in this thread then pershaps it's just not the thread for you.

maybe it would be good to explain what you did mean.

I'm not going to do that because attempting to debate anything with you is pointless and exhausting. I think you know that too.

[Buelligan]

I'm not asking you to debate anything with me.  I'm asking you to lay out clearly exactly what you did mean.  I won't visit the thread again because it absolutely isn't the thread for me as you point out.

I think the problem with that kind of critique is it makes recognising complexity identical to victim-blaming. While sometimes it can be, it isn't always, and it certainly isn't here, I think.

I'd just like to add recognising complexity is useful, clearly BUT in this specific context, is recognising complexity really a priority?  And, if it is, why not recognise it clearly unambigously to make sure that it's not conflated with or mistaken for, victim-blaming? 

[Blue Jam]

I won't visit the thread again

WOO-HOO! I WIN!

^{Yeah, right. See you back here in five minutes, yeah?}

[Ferris]

I don't know it.  That's why I'm saying it.  I saw that you wrote quite a bit about the style of the pictures, her possible motivations and Amazon wishlist etc.  In my understanding, I don't think I'm alone, you were saying she was acting in bad faith to complain because, from the "evidence" of the pics, wishlist, etc, she encouraged sexualised attention.  If that wasn't what you meant, maybe it would be good to explain what you did mean.

BJam was saying that (1) people might post things online in a way that doesn't consider longer term ramifications and that (2) it doesn't make it right to take them and out them elsewhere without the creator's consent.

Explaining why people do (1) doesn't negate the ultimate point of (2). We're all on the same page that (2) is not on, regardless of (1).

That seems a sensible point to me and I agree with it - giving extra context to explain why someone might do something makes sense in context but I haven't read the thread and really don't want to get involved.

[Pdine]

But I can certainly understand people's consternation when the complexity is fleshed out in this thread. And to be honest, making another thread to talk about it would be the icing on the cake when it comes to this board treating the Twitter user badly. It's not the time or the place, and in this instance there aren't any times or places.

I haven't seen another thread, and yes I think lingering on the very specifics isn't useful. I'm interested by the general topic though.

I'd just like to add recognising complexity is useful, clearly BUT in this specific context, is recognising complexity really a priority?  And, if it is, why not recognise it clearly unambigously to make sure that it's not conflated with or mistaken for, victim-blaming?

I suppose I'm saying that it did seem unambiguous to me, but maybe I'm missing some details?