So the model has to meet a new decency standard that’s higher than they demand of streamers who show their real bodies?
Sorry I’m just confused if they are saying the digital model needs to cover the caster’s real hips, or if the digital model needs to be wearing clothes.
As you can tell I’m pretty far from this universe :)
Arguably twitch should do some kind of Twitch+ that’s basically OF. Given how much money it brings in though, it might be easier to convince them to do a “TwitchKids” and leave “Twitch” as the OF.
As much as I’d love that idea, I would guess there are financial reasons to not allow things like that, as both advertisers and credit card companies seem to really hate erotic and erotic adjacent media.
Chargebacks are a huge pain in the ass and everyone involved hates doing them. The chargeback fees are supposed to be a disincentive to curb the behavior. It’s mostly automated now, but there’s a whole “accusation/response/appeal” process that businesses need to actively participate in or risk just getting money clawed back Everytime a chargeback happens, regardless of reason. This causes friction between merchants and payment processors that sometimes leads to one dropping the other. Being in a business where chargebacks happen a lot requires a commensurate amount of work. They suck. (Yes, I’ve worked in this realm. Even when it’s all automated and works well, it still sucks).
WTF is a vtuber?
Ain’t twitch notorious for having ehags using thrist traps against juveniles?
Shouldn’t this be done on OF and be 18 over?
vtubers are streamers or content creators that use a puppeted avatar, instead of camera feed of their real face/body.
Some avatars are quite risque, but this rule apparently only applies to the avatars, while the real stuff is still fair game.
So the model has to meet a new decency standard that’s higher than they demand of streamers who show their real bodies?
Sorry I’m just confused if they are saying the digital model needs to cover the caster’s real hips, or if the digital model needs to be wearing clothes.
As you can tell I’m pretty far from this universe :)
This is just false, the policy applies to both real people and avatars. It’s even in the article if you bothered to read it.
Their policies are mostly fine, it’s the lackluster and cherrypicking enforcement that is the problem.
WTF.
I guess their biz model is in fact ehags then…
Arguably twitch should do some kind of Twitch+ that’s basically OF. Given how much money it brings in though, it might be easier to convince them to do a “TwitchKids” and leave “Twitch” as the OF.
As much as I’d love that idea, I would guess there are financial reasons to not allow things like that, as both advertisers and credit card companies seem to really hate erotic and erotic adjacent media.
They mostly hate them because people tend to do chargebacks when other people find out they made those purchases.
Or they do chargebacks in the wake of post nut clarity when they regret giving money to an OF.
Why would that bother them? They charge vendors for chargebacks.
Chargebacks are a huge pain in the ass and everyone involved hates doing them. The chargeback fees are supposed to be a disincentive to curb the behavior. It’s mostly automated now, but there’s a whole “accusation/response/appeal” process that businesses need to actively participate in or risk just getting money clawed back Everytime a chargeback happens, regardless of reason. This causes friction between merchants and payment processors that sometimes leads to one dropping the other. Being in a business where chargebacks happen a lot requires a commensurate amount of work. They suck. (Yes, I’ve worked in this realm. Even when it’s all automated and works well, it still sucks).