I would say this falls into the same category as
" "being found to be sexy by others is not against our rules, and Twitch will not take enforcement action against women, or anyone on our service, for their perceived attractiveness."
So honestly I would say Twitch had no right to carry out this ban as it is fully within TOS.
Twitch TOS also has this in it:
Content that is considered to be sexually suggestive includes, but is not limited to:
- Content or camera focus on breasts, buttocks, or pelvic region, including poses that deliberately highlight these elements
Like in the end, attractive men and women will always permeate and rise to the top of most visually-focused fields, but Amouranth, Indiefoxx and others were posing like this:
Along with Indiefoxx doing fart fetish stuff for donation goals and ExoHydraX grinding on the pillows in simulated over-the-clothes sex, you can begin to see why they were in violation of the TOS. If the belief of the author is that women on Twitch shouldn't be punished for accentuating their bodies (while clothed) in sexually appealing ways in a medium that empowers creators to express themselves that counteracts a Hollywood-industry-driven exploitation of women's bodies, that would be an awesome, amazing, pertinent take.
However, to pretend there is nothing in the TOS that could punish them, make no mention that they were banned for these poses instead of "being found to be sexy by others is not against our rules, and Twitch will not take enforcement action against women, or anyone on our service, for their perceived attractiveness," and that if their bans "actually makes sense to you,
consider going outside and maybe touching some grass," is incredibly condescending, uninformative, and almost deliberately misrepresentative of the issue.
Just like it was when Amouranth et al did ASMR years ago, the imperative reason they're doing it now is because the new Hot Tubs, Beaches and Pools category didn't have the built-in viewership and followers of the ASMR channel.
I'm of the mind that attention = power and just don't bother with it if you're truly offended (most reasonable people understand its US-centric puritanism and generalized, global misogyny from the majority male teen demographic that's emboldening the pushback), but the more that outlets pretend that they were banned for being attractive women and not for constantly bending (or outright violating) the terms of service, the less informative the audience can be to the situation at large.
What was completely untoward, I'd argue, was when Amouranth was ad-demonitized weeks ago by Twitch without warning, as staff removed the ability to run ad blocks or receive money from them, without telling her or informing her ahead of time what was wrong and why she was being punished. Twitch's enforcement of rules and guidelines, as well as communication in this regard, is among the company's biggest weaknesses, and deserves more recognition in stories covering this trend.
www.resetera.com
