[elif]

As a developer I think it's hilarious that they specify that only "third party services" are not allowed.

Nothing is stopping the streamer, as a first party, from combining chats.

[rvba]

As a developer you make the mistake of thinking that everyone is a developer.

Many streamers are not technically adept. For them it would be easier to use a hypothetical Chat-Combiner-Third-Party-Service, but they are banned from that. They have to install some software on their computer (many cant), that software needs to be configured and nothing stops twich from pulling tricks ro break it. Basically they make it harder for streamers.

[hanniabu]

First party would refer to twitch

[a_cardboard_box]

Then wouldn't the steamer be the second party? Still not third party!

[charcircuit]

No, streamers would still be 3rd party. I don't know it would be considered "using a 3rd party service" though.

[distract8901]

Streaming to twitch involves two parties. First, the service provider twitch, second the user uploading the video. Streaming to a second service introduces a third party.

[charcircuit]

That isn't what parties is referring to.

1st party: Twitch

2nd party: An entity Twitch has made an agreement with that lets them merge chats

3rd party: Everyone else

[bdowling]

"Third party" just means anyone who isn't a party to the contract. They're called that because most contracts have two parties (e.g., buyer and seller, landlord and tenant, service provider and customer). Contracts can have three or more parties, but they're not usually numbered. The TV trope of incomprehensible legalese involving "the party of the first part" and "the party of the second part" is a joke that you won't actually find in modern agreements.

[heyoni]

If Twitch made such an agreement, their ToS would clearly refer to the party they have this agreement with as a third party.