(1/2)

Thanks for the walkthrough on the statement, I think I see a bit of what you were thinking when you read the statement. At the same time let's walk through what it says and try to see :

> Twitch has a "Gift 100 subs $499" button right in the gift UI. If you haven't noticed that with the several hundred live streamers you've consulted with then it seems by definition the streamers you interact with do not have the Super Fans being discussed yet such fans are common enough for Twitch to make UI for it.

What I intended to communicate: Twitch has far more than a $25 subscription option but the vast majority of partnered channels (there are ~50k active) don't know things like "Gift 100 subs" is a preset option because $499 is a whole number percentage of their lifetime Twitch revenue not something they regularly get from a single user action. And genuinely on the condition the hundreds of live streamers you've consulted aren't exactly the top couple hundred overall you would then by, by your own answer to the question, not talking about the same types of fans when referring to the "Super Fans" that dump life savings or such into these actions. On the other half of the if, i.e. those are the streamers, then we've short-circuited to these high cost options existing and went back to discussion on exploitation/marketing that was perhaps accidentally (or for some other reason) initially dismissed as not even being possible on the site.

What you interpreted I communicated: I found a few nits as an excuse to say you're ignorant and couldn't possibly work with streamers of that level.

This is the kind of split I had in mind when talking about "often on the internet plain text can be interpreted many different ways". If you go into the comment assuming it has good intent it's just a genuine comment asking if you're referring to the same group that sees these extremely high cost actions or not since the type of fan being talked about necessarily is one doing far more than a tier 3 sub worth $25 via Twitch. If you go into the comment assuming my only intent is to nit and demean, discussion be damned, then it's a reductive comment made purely to be inflammatory. When you start with either of those points of view going in though it can be extremely hard to see how the other person could see it so differently but talking through it like this really helps, for me at least :).

> All of those things (and some that I left out) are disparaging, and the entire premise of your commentary has been that your perspective as a viewer can be applied to the entirety of the content creation industry as an absolute and indisputable fact, but that my perspective as a viewer, streamer and consultant strictly applies to a unique subset of streamers whom I've personally worked with -- because apparently I exclusively find the extremely rare streamers and whales who aren't part of "the vast majority" involved in an "exploitative" industrial complex, even though that would be a statistical impossibility. So, when you say "nothing I've talked to is about my personal experience vs your professional experience," that's patently untrue. It's the basis for everything you've said.

Going off the above if we start making the conversation about how I view your experience or how you view my experience we'll both get nowhere as we'll be divining things from our interpretations of the other person's anecdotes, neither of which is solid on their own so doubly less so together. That's why I've tried to avoid talking about my experiences vs your experiences and instead try to bring back each talking point to a hard publicly verifiable item like what actions Twitch makes purchasable, how they are advertised, the Twitch data leak and how there can't be 1000 counterexamples because there aren't 1000 accounts with the payout level to have had fans like the mentioned. I'm not bringing these points in because I'm trying to find nits to take a shit on your consultancy business (which sounds pretty successful, congrats consulting can be hard to grow) but because they necessitate that there was a misinterpretation in who GP was referring to and they can't possibly have been referring to all of the people you went to the strong defense of. Now that doesn't mean I think you'll agree with GP's original statements but the reason I bring them up is I think it steers towards a much more interesting conversation on why you disagree with GP with the people they were really referring to not the larger group you feel the need to defend.

> In reality, there are magnitudes more large donors who contribute to be supportive and out of appreciation for the streamers time and talents. Some fans will spend 100+ hours per month watching a particular streamer, so if they can afford to donate $1,000, that works out to paying $10/hr for entertainment, which is less than many hobbies. Yet, I don't see you making claims that people who spend lots of money on other forms of entertainment are exploited -- just this particular industry, and for reasons you haven't actually articulated.

(1/2)