Framing this like creators don't have a choice is a bad generalization and equally as bad as saying they have the power to do anything they want.

There's two situation that really highlight the uniqueness of the relationship between the audience and creators. One is the category of streamers that has been on the rise in the last few years, IRL streaming. The other is the concept of a sub-a-thon. I am surprised neither were brought up in the article.

For most people, being able to have a strong boundary between work and free time is necessary for the sake of mental health. My favorite content creator is an IRL streamer. She takes a camera out with her during the day and visits different destinations, usually spending a couple of weeks at locations. The amount of hours a streamer requires is pre determined by a contract with Twitch. There have been days where she leaves for the day at 4 pm and goes around places, like in a travel show, but essentially every minute is live streamed with an interactive chat. Some streamers talk to the entity that is chat like they would a friend, asking "am I going the right way?". The continued amount of time spent experiencing things together blur the line for whether it's actually parasocial. It's one thing when you hear a podcast and then imagine you are friends with a creator because you know a little about their history. It doesn't feel as one sided when the creator reads out and responds to your messages frequently, enough to where the creator remembers and requests for viewers by screen name.

This creator also has a discord and interacts there very frequently and has watch parties. There's channels to share food you ate or stream ideas. The creator engages with the discord like anyone else would, they also happen to be the content people make memes with. There's some validation they feel from their community, and the thing is most times the community responds to fishing for validation by being contrarian regardless of context. I enjoy this streamer's content because it feels like the way in which we process the world is similar. This understanding came from the creator being vulnerable with chat and opening up in a way you would a friend. Some creators do put on a persona, but some don't.

In that situation I don't know what it would mean to log off. I didn't understand initially, but it's clear that leans on their community strongly. The creator feels a sense of obligation to finish hours, but they seem to appreciate and enjoy their community and not feel pressured by it. This creator feels no guilt about delaying a stream or not follow her own schedule she has previously shared with chat. And I am glad, because I think it's a good way to be healthy around not having people build up expectations. A part of the interaction is still transactional, and with part of the twitch audience still maturing emotionally, donating or buying a monthly subscription to a creator can make people feel some ownership or entitlement.

When creators frame it as, only spend money on me if you have money to spend, and the money will not change how I see you, keep away building unhealthy dependencies. Not all creators can maintain that kind of distance, and sometimes there's nothing the creator creator can do.

Amourath, in the last week, received a gift of 70,000$ in cash along with some self defense tools and a prepaid bodyguard service. Unlike most similar stories, that's where the story ends. There were no conditions or strings attached to gift. I don't know how many people there are in the world that can drop 70,000$ on a person without it affecting their life. In this situation, I am not sure what the creator can do, it's not something she requested or wanted. She said she was grateful and hasn't contacted the person although they did leave a number, there was nothing dangerous about accepting the gift that would dox her. She wasn't even sure if she wanted to keep the gifts when she initially received it. The only reasonable expectation of Amourath is that she refuse gifts if she finds out it came at an unreasonable cost to the person who chose to gift.

The other thing is subathons and the apparent cause of burnout. Subathons are how they sound, a creator sets a time to extend their stream by for every new subscriber they get. Usually it's a few seconds. Ludwig, a very prolific creator ended up streaming for 30 days straight. He netted 1.4 million$, a large amount of which he donated or paid his team of moderators who worked to manage chat during the subathon. He even slept on stream, his moderators would make content for chat to engage with during that time.

Ludwig has spoken about how fondly he enjoyed doing it, he didn't really need the money and he potentially would have done it for longer if it wouldn't lead to negative consequences with friends and family. He is successful because he loves the work.

Content creation is often a lot of work for very little rewards, the people who end up successful are the one who would have done it for free. Burnout isn't necessarily about the platform itself. Any situation where a passionate person can obsess about their craft or where it can get repetitive can lead to burnout. The creator takes a break by making content or a company or doing work somewhere else. It very much depends on the person, and it can be argued that there isn't a great support system for content creators right now, but it's not a Twitch issue since most creators make their own schedule.

Twitch is absolutely is real work. Successful creators I've met usually end up apologizing if we spend more than a couple hours together saying, "sorry, it's hard to turn my brain off from thinking about new ideas".

Taking these things together with the facts in the article lead to a differnt final conclusion, to me.