Hacker News Reader

Comment by aphextim | Hacker News Reader

Not that I agree with this practice, but I've heard from people who stream on twitch that if you are streaming on their platform, you cannot stream to you-tube, d-live or other platforms and keep the affiliate/partner status which allows viewers to subscribe and donate via twitch currency to you.

You may stream to multiple platforms at once, however you lose your ability to be verified on twitch by being an affiliate/partner.

I see more and more of the large platforms taking this route and removing the verified/special perks for being on that particular platform if you are not keeping your content exclusive to them, in an attempt to keep the largest market share/content creators.

In the end I think this will only drive the more independent creators to adopt smaller and more open platforms and the big platforms that are left will be an echo chamber more than ever.

View on HN

AFAIK this only applies to partners who sign a contract with Twitch, but I assume there's some wiggle room, like in the revenue sharing. Affiliates are only forbidden from streaming on Twitch and other platforms simultaneously [0]

[0]: https://help.twitch.tv/s/article/twitch-affiliate-program-fa... (Q. What do you mean by exclusivity for “Live Twitch Content”?)

They are afraid of other platforms, because they know their business will take a serious hit if there's ever serious competition. The cut they take off of subscriptions and donations is absolutely shady and unjustifiable.

Add to that the long list of twitch "anti-features" and they're on a good course to become to Quora of streaming sites. Can't wait for just lurking to become "members only".

Twitch would die in a heartbeat if they allowed multi-streaming (streaming to multiple platforms at the same time).

Their product is too easily replicated and most people don't care about the platform - they follow their favorite content creators.

> In the end I think this will only drive the more independent creators to adopt smaller and more open platforms and the big platforms that are left will be an echo chamber more than ever.

In an ideal world: Yes. In our world? Hm,... My intuition says "no".

yes, but calling something "partner" or affiliate" is not the same as calling "verified"

> Not that I agree with this practice, but ...

http://www.beresources.co.uk/everything-before-but-is-bullsh...

> Apologies to those of a sensitive nature for the graphicness (is that a word?) of the headline. However, it is true.

The meaning of this excerpt would be exactly the same if the word "but" were used instead of "however" (which is, I suspect, why it was worded in this clumsy way - to avoid "but"). Are we to conclude that the author doesn't actually give a shit about the "graphicness" of the headline?

what?

The article is titled "Everything before ‘BUT’ is Bullshit." Basically, if you say but, whatever preceded it is bullshit.

It calls people out for using it.

So, when the author writes: "Apologies to those of a sensitive nature for the graphicness (is that a word?) of the headline. However, it is true.", it shows they aren't actually apologizing. Why? Because the word "however" could be changed with "but" and it would effectively be the same thing.

Basically, that statement in the article is, according to the article, bullshit and combative.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com