How does one even pull that off? What would be her explanation to friends and family? Or did she slowly lower her tone over the course of months or years, so they didn't even notice?
In high school I noticed my sister wore glasses when going out with her friends, but never at any other time. And, after a year or two in high school, hasn't ever worn glasses (that I know of) for many years after. It was clearly just an affectation for her friends and her family just made fun of her in private about it.
You don't have to fool your family about stuff like this. Just your marks.
First @Neuralink product will enable someone with paralysis to use a smartphone with their mind faster than someone using thumbs
Later versions will be able to shunt signals from Neuralinks in brain to Neuralinks in body motor/sensory neuron clusters, thus enabling, for example, paraplegics to walk again
GDPR is a gift to large corporations. Regulatory capture in return for a slap on the wrist. It also burdens startup competition and trains people to click "Allow Cookies" and "Accept the Terms of Service" as fast as possible.
GDPR is extremely similar to pre-existing privacy laws in some EU countries. It also applies to startups and large corporations equally, and in practice is more likely to be lenient towards startups making genuine mistakes while trying to obey the rules versus large corporations intentionally ignoring them.
The "Allow Cookies" and "Accept Terms of Service" click-throughs also barely meet any of the GDPR requirements and in the case of the latter don't necessarily constitute informed consent: EU courts have repeatedly ruled that a wall of text can not be used in software to hide "surprising" rules (e.g. that your WhatsApp account will be banned if you use a third-party client).
it really wasn't - unlike other similar laws it is written in terms of world wide revenue (not profit), not a fixed fine, so it's not as easy to simply treat violations as being "free".
The actual work involved is trivial if you minimize data collection, which is the whole point - you shouldn't collect anything you don't actually need and GDPR got rid of the "abusing user privacy is purely profitable" excuse.
Regulatory capture is an anti-piracy bill that requires scanning all uploads using technology that only a few companies have or that costs more than potential income of a business. That's why YouTube was generally pro-that bullshit EU "anti piracy" law.
It is nearly impossible to answer this question because everyone means something totally different by apolitical and neutral these days, but as far as I can see it is simple, positive children’s programs.
I'm fairly sure PBS Kids contains politics since it has Daniel Tiger's Neighborhood, which is absolutely "political" just like Mr. Roger's Neighborhood was.
Yes inspired by based.cooking, but wanted a simpler interface than git, so anyone could submit, will add users, editing and comments when i have a mo...
That's of course a stretch, no corporations aren't governments and aren't a new form of legal system. They are still subject to regulation. But I get your sentiment. I see an interesting point here: corporations like Twitch, while registered in a specific country (here the US) have a global reach. But their culture and set of rules is generally uniform, and heavily influenced by the country the company is from. Twitch is a US company, their way to analyze cultural/moral issues is with an American point of view and framing, but they are applied globally.
In some ways that extends the reach of US systems in a way even the US government cannot do, unless Twitch starts to create versions of their platform siloed by country.
I don't believe she is breaking any rules. Having seen some of her streams, her behavior belongs more on a porn cam site than Twitch.
She constantly is like "Stop objectifying me, I am just playing video games" but she wears extremely sexualized clothing, bends over into the camera and from seeing her streams multiple times, seems to only play dance games (if you see where this is going.)
She isn't breaking any rules but Jesus Christ she is a really bad look for the platform.
I have nothing wrong with sexualization. Heck, Twitch should add an 18+ category. Do it. But you can't have people like Amo and say you prohibit sexual content.
I would not feel at all comfortable watching her streams at work if that's a metric.
Go to 43m57 seconds in this video: https://www.twitch.tv/videos/972822254 (Partial nudity, sexualized behavior). "Don't mind me, innocently shaking my protein shake in my bra on camera"
1h05m34s: "Don't mind me doing splits and checking that the camera is well-positioned"
Oh and she is wearing a sports bra for a sit-down gaming stream, then at ~5h she moves her stream to a kiddie pool wearing a pretty loose bikini top.
I mean, absolutely get that money. She is absolutely in her rights to do this and I genuinely support her, but you can't have her on the same platform as streamers like SodaPoppin getting scared for showing a dildo on camera.
It sounds like you have spent a few hours enjoying her channel.
There isn't anything wrong with that content. More innocent content is getting sexualized as we speak. She is playing into one aspect. Denying young people sexualized content means they will create sexualized content out of things not designed to be sexual in nature.
Mys statement was not a value judgement, it was statement of what actually happened.
Twitch has suspended her several times for what it viewed as rule-breaking. Twitch modified its rules several times, and she kept breaking the less restrictive rules, until Twitch finally created the NSFW category.
If you have an issue with this, take it up with Twitch for having unnecessarily restrict rules.
