• sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    7 hours ago

    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?

    • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      ·
      edit-2
      7 hours ago

      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.

      • warm@kbin.earth
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 hours ago

        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.

      • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        7 hours ago

        this rule apparently only applies to the avatars, but the real stuff is still fair game.

        WTF.

        I guess their biz model is in fact ehags then…

    • _stranger_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      7 hours ago

      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.

      • Armok_the_bunny@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        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.

        • _stranger_@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 hours ago

          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.

            • _stranger_@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 minutes ago

              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).