I’ve been thinking about this topic a lot recently; since I basically gave up on mainstream media of all kinds and dove into Twitch streaming for something more human to watch (even if it is owned by Amazon).
Twitch is an interesting platform. It was definitely a pioneer in live-streaming as we know it today. And that’s generally a good thing. Live-streaming is a useful thing to be able to do. Anyone can use it for citizen journalism at a moment’s notice for example. And it’s an easy way to get into producing content online. It’s certainly easier than (scripting?), filming and uploading a YouTube video.
But aside from popularising and perfecting the technology of streaming itself, I can’t think of anything else positive Twitch is responsible for. It’s good at promoting conservative, individualistic thinking through its system of monetisation where it brings out the worst in so many people. Everything has a price. Streamers sell their dignity to the highest bidder all the time it feels like. It’s also good at creating either extremely right wing or anti-political discourse. It rewards stupidity in a way no other social media platform does. At least in my experience. And that’s despite other apps undoubtedly providing stiff completion. Its community on the whole practically celebrates anti-intellectualism. And that’s barely exaggeration, if at all.
And then you get into the gaming roots of the Twitch service itself. The original Justin.tv website which preceded Twitch was not gaming related. It was a more generic streaming service that came out of a sort of stunt; streaming the life of one of the founders 24/7 for a significant period of time. They chose to focus its successor service on gaming rather than IRL (in real life). And that was a mistake in my view. Presumably they chose to do that because they saw game streaming as the next big market they could aim it at to differentiate Twitch from YouTube. I guess it could also have come down to technical limitations of outdoor streaming at the time. Which would have been fair enough, even if it has seemingly not paid off in the long run. Shoehorning outdoor streaming into a platform designed for gaming was always going to be awkward and sub-optimal. Under social democracy, they might have felt empowered to take a punt on IRL / general variety streaming in the early stages.
The gaming world does have plenty of good people involved; but I don’t think anyone would dispute the fact that it was and is far more toxic and unpleasant than it is welcoming and open minded. Had they chosen to (or been able to) focus on life streaming at the beginning, Twitch (or whatever they might have called it instead) could have been a genuine YouTube competitor by now. Rather than a relatively niche community of often angry / depressed gamer misfits (and that’s speaking as an anxious, occasionally angry and depressed gamer misfit). Had YouTube been put under pressure over the years, they’d likely not be as awful as they are now too because of their monopolistic position in online video.
Another interesting element to me, is just how easily the Twitch model has been copied by newcomers like Kick, which is even more right wing and problematic. Kick demonstrated how little of a unique selling point Twitch actually has, and maybe exposed their hubris. YouTube has that gargantuan back catalogue of videos stretching back 20 years. This is genuinely useful and makes them practically untouchable in video, as I said. What does Twitch have content wise? Yes, they have contracts with popular streamers. But we’ve seen big names abandon the platform for guaranteed cash payouts elsewhere already, and this trend will surely accelerate. In terms of archived streams, they now limit even paid accounts to just a few months of archives. And even when streamers choose to make full VODs highlighted permanently; watching 10 hour streams back is a very niche pursuit. I like to do it, because I find that very often, the best parts of streams don’t make the highlights (on YouTube of course). But I will readily admit I’m far from normal in that regard, and it’s surely not a money spinner for Twitch either. And even in this scenario, a lot of Twitch streamers actually just upload their full VODs to secondary YouTube accounts anyway. So Twitch loses out here too.
When you add everything together: the toxic, idiotic, extremely capitalistic culture; the gaming theme that has almost certainly limited the platform’s mainstream appeal; and the fact that almost the entire service can easily be replicated; it doesn’t look good.
If Amazon decided tomorrow to shut the whole thing down; everyone would just move over to Kick or another similar service, and barely anyone would shed a tear. You could even rebrand Kick with the Twitch name and logo, and turn the green accents to purple, and how many people would even be able to tell the difference?
To be absolutely clear; what we need now is definitely not Kick to replace Twitch. What we need is a non-gaming themed, socialist run live-streaming service that keeps the streaming tech but cuts out all the capitalist bullshit. Get rid of text-to-speech (TTS) donations; which hand a megaphone to rich arseholes who can promote fascist politics and climate denial as much as their fat wallets allow (Aka endlessly). Maybe allow one TTS message per viewer per stream. Free of charge of course (or very cheap if absolutely necessary). You’d still be able to be heard above the crowd when you feel like you have something really important to say. But you’d have to be very careful to make the most of it. To time it right, and really be profound. You wouldn’t have stupid spam messages all the time; and you’d allow socialists a voice too. Not just the cashed up, climate denying MAGA supporters. You’d also get rid of these sycophantic sugar daddy types that are way too common on the platform right now. And even that is hardly surprising given the rampant inequality in society. The rich are hoarding all the money!
You often get situations where female streamers are extremely reliant on (probably) older, (probably) rich (probably) men to pay their bills. Some of them are harmless, nice guys who maybe just really like the person and genuinely want to help them out. Albeit sometimes stretching their own finances to the limit to do so. But other times it’s more insidious. You can quite easily have situations where some men perhaps enjoy the power they have over women streamers in a way that pushes the boundary of innocent fun, or crosses it. Sometimes it feels pretty misogynistic, even if it’s not necessarily intentional. You would have a far healthier environment for streamers and viewers alike if you had an overall more equal society, with many people contributing smaller amounts. Rather than a handful as is so often the case now.
A left wing (or even centrist) Twitch alternative I think could very easily take the best elements of the technology, remove all the bad stuff; be a much more inclusive and open minded place for all kinds of thought and entertainment; and become a genuine YouTube competitor. I don’t think that would be too hard either these days, because I get the feeling many people kind of hate YouTube. I used to be a massive fan of YouTube before it became the undisputed home for all internet video not produced by a big corporation like Netflix or Disney. But in the last few years, the algorithm, the AI comment police, the censorship of small channels that speak uncomfortable truths, the incessant clickbait, the stupid facial expressions in thumbnails that creators are forced to make in order to pay their bills. The whole thing has just become so shit. So I think people are increasingly using it begrudgingly and are more open to alternatives. And especially if they’re live focused, because live is relatable, and has a unique, fun element when executed well.
If we do see something new come along, and Twitch does fall out of favour, then they’ll only have themselves to blame. Not least for choosing not to pay their “partners” what they’re worth; which is perhaps the biggest black mark against the company of all. It shows a disregard for the people who generate the money. A streaming platform without streamers is nothing after all. Even the lack of imagination in how payments are structured is mystifying. It seems obvious to me that you should have a progressive payment system. Pay small streamers the highest percentage, to enable them to make a living and potentially deliver more revenue for the company later on; and reduce it down to a base of maybe 50% as streamers earn more and more. But at the moment, you have a scenario where even streamers who have 100k followers and plenty of loyal subscribers are getting burnt out. It makes no sense for anyone. The whole streaming world is ripe for a totally new approach.
