570
Twitch will now allow "Artistic Nudity" following the viral topless meta (www.dexerto.com)
submitted 2 years ago* by to c/games@sh.itjust.works
356 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Twitch Updated their Sexual Content Policy:

  • Changes: Certain content now allowed with labels
  • Artistic Nudity: Permitted under Sexual Themes Label
  • Game Nudity: Contextual; labels necessary
  • Body Painting: Acceptable with appropriate label
  • Mature Games: Label generally covers content
  • Stream Visibility: Impacted by content labels
  • Twerking, grinding and pole dancing are now allowed without a label.

Via https://twitter.com/Dexerto/status/1735024184114245689

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 19 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

I am always so interested by these types of comments. Lots of words, no substance. HOW will this cause harm? Is it the nudity? Is it the platform specifically? Is Twitch now more harmfully addicting due to there now being nudity? Was access to Twitch not harmful, or was harmful, before? In excess? In moderation?

Give us something if you're going to be throwing verbal hands. I neither agree nor disagree with this decision by Twitch, mostly because I honestly dgaf and strongly feel parents have a responsibility to learn how to limit access if it is needed. Having worked with parents a LOT, many of them are happy to shove responsibility for their children onto others, while simultaneously making outrageous demands and incredible accusations. I don't see why this situation should be any different.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

    i think the problem a lot of people (myself included) have specifically with nudity on twitch is with the streamers whose streams are basically just porn. now there's nothing inherently wrong with porn, nudity, or sex work on the internet or in real life, but the issue comes in when you put people who are essentially sex workers on the same video game streaming site many young people visit for non-sexual content. now porn is available and popular on their favorite game streaming site, and it is being forcibly recommended to users who have never browsed that category of content on twitch before.

    pretty much all i watch on twitch is super mario 64 speedruns, but 9/10 times when i log in my first recommended channel is a streamer with their tits out doing jumping jacks in a hot tub or something. i can only imagine this is happening to a large percentage of other users as well, including younger users who could be easily manipulated by an attractive and interactive woman online heavily incentivizing them to donate money.

    it basically boils down to: i don't care that porn is on the site, but it should not be recommended to people who are not already browsing that content as that is not what i'm there to see.

    edit - re-reading the changes, i'm hoping that the stream visibility and content label changes would fix this issue.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    Thanks for the measured response! I can agree with this. There is inherently nothing wrong with nudity or sex in general. In fact a healthy relationship with nudity and sex likely supports good development. I don't need to go much further to support this argument than to point out the myriads of people damaged from strict religious upbringings. That said, it does need to be filtered and enforced properly. Buried even where it had to be actually found, or specific settings activated that are otherwise automatically turned off.

    I think if these and/or similar steps were done many of us wouldn't be bothered.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -8 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Yeah that poster comes off as brainwashed by the puritanical side of the usa. There's nothing inherently damaging about seeing a naked body.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Wow it's almost like you didn't read the comment at all they literally said in the first sentence not all nudity is porn lmao.

    As far as damages from PORNOGRAPHY, which is what they said, yeah. It can be pretty damaging.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Well, I have a headache now. I had forgotten how poorly written some of these published papers tend to be. Anyway, sorta long summary after skimming a few of the studies and that meta-analysis:

    1. The meta-analysis worked through data obtained in a range from 1967 to 1995. It found that the consumption of "explicit pornographic material" appears to create a mostly consistent change in the behavior of adolescents and measured in four categories. I'm on mobile so I won't go back and grab those categories, though the participants are mostly balanced between them. It should be noted that this analysis is trying to push a hard need for practical findings in our modern day despite only taking information from the range provided. Moreover, there is an air of bias regarding the findings.

    2. Other studies have concluded, in general, that while we believe there is an increased risk of early sexual development and even deviance, it has been difficult to replicate these consistently.

    3. Most studies conclude that modern consumption of media by teenagers may or may not increase the risk of deviancy many of us would consider stereotypical risks that teenagers take.

    Basically, science is struggling a bit to show a positive correlation. They think there might be something there, though looking at research into other types of media you'll find similar findings.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    Not to mention that the metric of 'sexual deviance' is ill-defined and multi-variate. If sexual deviance is of a sexual health and safety orientation, then the obvious confounding factor is the historical use of abstinence-only education in this cohort (from 67-95). If the definition is speaking towards sexual violence and improper consent, then I think the conversation should include how healthy and consenting behaviors are being properly depicted outside of pornography as well as within, because simply not ever being exposed to sexual depictions doesn't address the origins of anti-social attitudes toward the opposite gender and sexual frustrations of involuntarily celibate men. Domestic violence exists even outside a sexual context.

    Not addressing those issues is how you end up with senile men like Dennis Prager who believe rape is morally permissible inside a heterosexual marriage.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent