|
|
|
|
|
|
by graphe
903 days ago
|
|
|
Never heard of kick. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kick_(service) doesn't seem bad on first glance unless you REALLY hate a streamer enough to say the whole platform sucks. >There's nothing wrong with it. Twitch promotes sexual content/channels to children and this project is perfectly okay with that because it reinforces to young boys that women are worth nothing more than what they charge for their OF subscription and to young girls that they can make money really easily by using this lovely free software. If that was actually considered detestable or vile then the project would obviously remove Twitch from the services.json file. This project empowers women to take their shirts off and stream on Twitch with only a few clicks! Pretty funny. |
|
|
It first became notable when twitch banned certain gambling content, which kick allows. This gave it an initial reputation of being a site that allows content that Twitch does not.
the Wikipedia article mentions the site being founded with "a focus on looser moderation". When a site becomes known for lax moderation policies, it has a tendency to attract people whose content violates the rules of other platforms. While this might sometimes be good, a lot of the time it attracts people who want to promote bigotry or other hate.
As expected in the early days, the site did attract streamers that most competing services did not want to have. This has earned the site a bit of a stigma. There was at least one incident that would have resulted in the streamer getting suspended on literally any other game streaming service, and nothing happened over on Kick, and we know they knew about it, as their CEO was in the chat during the stream.
The site has tightened up its moderation a bit more vs the earlier days, but it has still yet to fully shake the stigma.