At the beginning of the month, popular Twitch streamer Tyler "Ninja" Blevins
announced that he would be leaving his home of 8 years on Twitch to exclusively stream on Microsoft's Mixer platform. He was streaming the next day on Mixer, leaving his Twitch channel offline for the first time in a while. Ninja did a great job of keeping the transition smooth and professional, never saying anything bad about his former home because he had nothing negative to say. He had been happy on Twitch, but Microsoft made him an offer he couldn't refuse.
Twitch, on the other hand, did not treat the situation with the same level of professionalism. Unlike other channels, whose page shows previous streams and the ongoing chat for the user, Twitch changed Ninja's offline profile to promote other channels. The page showed the most popular active streams under the "Fortnite" category, which is the game that made Ninja a household name.
While that is already disrespectful to Ninja and his fans, what came next was worse. The top suggested stream listed on Ninja's page at one point
was pron. It is important to remember that many of Ninja's biggest fans are children, making this even more disturbing. In response, Ninja tweeted out a video apology for a situation that he did not create, saying, We haven't said anything bad or negative about Twitch, obviously, because there really hadn't been any reason to. Over the past couple of days there have been some things that have been going on that, you know, we let slide. They were kind of annoying. Little jabs, we felt like, but it didn't matter. We wanted to stay professional. But now, if you go to Twitch.tv/ninja, they advertise other channels. They don't do this for anyone else that's offline, by the way - just me. And there are also other streamers who have signed with other platforms whose stream and channel still remains the same. You can see their VODs, they don't promote other streams, they don't promote other popular channels. But they do on mine. I've been streaming for eight years to build my brand and build that channel: 14.5 million followers. And they were still using my channel to promote other streamers.
He goes on to discuss the porn incident, apologizing for the incident, and showing his frustration because he has no say in what is being shown attached to his name. Shortly after, Twitch CEO Emmett Shear
sent his own series of tweets discussing the incident, stating, Our community comes to Twitch looking for live content. To help ensure they find great, live channels we've been experimenting with showing recommended content across Twitch, including on streamer's pages that are offline.
This helps all streamers as it creates new community connections. However, the lewd content that appeared on the @ninja offline channel page grossly violates our terms of service, and we've permanently suspended the account in question.
We have also suspended these recommendations while we investigate how this content came to be promoted.
On a more personal note, I apologize want to apologize directly to @ninja that this happened. It wasn't our intent, but it should not have happened. No excuses.
Since the incident, Twitch has reverted Ninja's channel to a standard offline page, but it has brought up a long-standing issue with Twitch regarding their inconsistent rules enforcement. While there is an explicit content policy, it tends to apply less to popular female channels than it does to others. But, as Ninja points out,
his wouldn't even have been an issue if they didn't use my channel to promote others in the first place...
In 2016, the European Union decided that Ireland had not charged Apple enough in taxes, and demanded that Ireland collect an additional 13 billion euro (or roughly $14.4 billion) in "back taxes." This would be far from the first time a company, especially a tech company, was accused of avoiding taxes. For example, Bernie Sanders believes that Amazon has skirted tax law in the United States. However, this might be the first time that the country in question believes that the company paid what they were supposed to.
In this case, Ireland is on Apple's side, not the side of the EU. In fact, the Irish government will be heading to court with Apple to argue against the EU's imposed penalties over Apple paying exactly what the country asked them to pay. The EU has essentially argued that Apple has an unfair advantage in Ireland, where the company houses its European headquarters.
Publicly, the issue revolves around how Apple reports profits. Since the company's European headquarters are in Ireland, they report the profit from their various divisions within Europe through their corporate office. This allows them to pay 3.8 percent on their European profits. However, the EU believes that the amount collected should be reflective of the countries in which the company operates, including design and manufacturing.
In 2016, the Obama administration claimed that the EU was trying to help itself to cash that rightly belongs within the United States' economy. Many in Silicon Valley have argued that it is just one example of many of the jealousy of the EU over constantly losing out on the highly profitable tech market, and trying to rig EU regulations against US companies. This argument has been made many times, often referencing the
"Google Tax", which has already claimed services in Europe, like Google News.
Over the last year, there has been a lot of discussion about YouTube and, in particular, the way their Community Guidelines are implemented and enforced. The company has changed its public rules to
define what is true, as well as demonetizing videos that don't fit into a particular political or social view. The problem is that, while the rules are usually written clearly, the enforcement is not.
It often seems that the majority of content creators are bound to the published Community Guidelines, the bigger creators are not. The biggest example of inconsistent policy enforcement for big-name content creators has been Logan Paul. Early last year, Paul posed with and seemed to mock a dead body that he found in a forest in Japan, known for suicides, in a video posted to YouTube. The company took two full weeks to respond to the incident, removing him from the Preferred partner program. Afterward, YouTube
released new policies and procedures, theoretically preventing the problem in the future. When Paul tazed a rat in another video a few weeks later, the company ignored the policies and removing monetization for 2 weeks, essentially a slap on the wrist.
It has long been believed that YouTube turns a blind eye to what the big creators do until criticism no longer allows them to pretend they didn't know.
According to , who interviewed current and former content moderators for YouTube, this is exactly what happens. One former moderator told the Post, The Washington Post Our responsibility was never to the creators or to the users. It was to the advertisers.
That should be a surprise to no one. YouTube is owned by Google, which is an advertising company through and through. Everything they do is intended to increase eyeballs and advertising returns. If a content creator creates popular videos, they will attract more advertising dollars, even if they push the boundaries.