Twitch Hack of 135 GB of Data Includes How Much Its Biggest Streamers Make
vice.com
vice.com
In countries like Norway, that kind of data is publicly available. It makes for less second-guessing and less suspiciousness.
It always struck me as weird that the American Dream can best be lived in Scandinavia
That can easily be found on a site like proff.no
As for the American Dream, it still strikes me as integral the American Dream, I think you just have a different idea of how you wish it was.
EDIT: Also from what I've heard anecdotally, Americans are actually more open about money than most other countries, especially Scandinavian ones.
Ever since meeting him, I'm automatically skeptical that most people are just reciting platitudes without much real belief behind it.
They can retrain and join my megacorp if they want reducing the supply for their job and increasing it for mine which should theoretically reduce the pay gap.
I don't see the immaturity angle. I think lots of folks become envious and it creates hostility, but envy shouldn't be written off as immaturity.
In some cultures in the USA, money issues are kept private. And even among the cultures where it isn't, individuals may be comfortable sharing it themselves but not with others sharing it, or it being broadcast to the world.
Some spats here or there, and the typical social media outrage, but nothing significant.
Plenty of information out there about who makes how much and it doesn't really matter.
And given how the average person experiences jealousy, I wouldn't want salaries to be public. I already feel uncomfortable when family members ask me how much money I make, because I know they'd only use it to compare themselves to. This kind of comparison is toxic in society.
I would imagine that the change, especially overnight, would be quite toxic. But given enough time for the population to adapt, maybe it wouldn't be a problem anymore? Just like it (supposedly) isn't in Norway?
It doesn't fight against tax evasion or anything, because the wealthy of the world will have yet another incentive to mask their income / assets through any of the number of mechanisms currently available.
If you want pay transparency to fight pay inequality, then anonymized pay based on role / job title should suffice.
Any legitimate need for such information can either be obtained through asking, or through the courts. At least then, I have a say in the matter and a right to defend myself in cases where I believe it necessary.
People are entitled to privacy. I wouldn't want random people knowing my salary anymore than I'd want them knowing what medications I take.
https://www.reddit.com/r/raisedbynarcissists/ is even more relevant than that.
I told my dad what I made, he messed up and told my mom, my mom told her brother and now this guy I haven't seen in a couple of decades is begging me for money.
He showed up at my house once to beg and then got mad because he had spent the last of his money on gas to drive to my house to ask for money.
Cut toxic people out of your life!
That being said I'm well aware of how load bearing "somehow thoroughly universalized" is in my statement. Perhaps it's only possible in a culture that truly rejects secret keeping as deeply harmful from an individual level up. I don't believe we can get there from here anytime soon, and if we tried it would just be another system for the people who figure out how to keep secrets to exploit that info asymmetry. In a world of cooperating actors though . . . yeah, I know I'm dreaming.
I imagine that publishing everybodies income would not have a significant impact on freedom even if some people would prefer to keep that data private.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 12)
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 17)
Why should we avoid it? Oh, I know a few arguments and they're compelling in abstract but are inevitably just arguments towards a reshuffling of who or what has power. Power over another, however you want to define it, is inherent in hierarchical structures, and I am sorry to say but hierarchies - that is, rankings of entities - are one of the most fundamental aspects of all known existence. How many electrons do you have?
I get where you're coming from. We should avoid concentration of power in human societies because this always (at least so far) leads to abuse of that power.
However, reality exists.
Hierarchies are unavoidable and useful.
I'm more making the argument that cultural disgust at concentration of power, and a general erring on the side of flatness whenever we can would go a long way toward a healthier society.
All law, court cases, contracts, and legally binding agreements being public? I could be convinced that's a good idea. Bright sunlight from all angles would revel inequity and could allow better civic planning and civil action (voting).
I think the line should be drawn a little in favor of being private, and in favor of hiding non-recurring purchases for personal use. It would be more harmful than good to reveal where and when someone gets food, takes a vacation, etc.
I imagine that this policy also helps with keeping the flat distribution, since people will know when someone is making more money and will request similar salary increases.
skatteentaten.no also lists a bunch of other privacy restrictions that they have in place.
This was, in part, to discourage criminals using the database to target wealthy people, and to curtail some of the harassment that resulted from this information being brought to light. This change apparently was a enough to dissuade the majority of usage, as most people now apparently just search for themselves.
Thanks for the data though.
It does not suffice.
We mostly do have this data in the US and wealth inequality keeps deepening.
The only purpose of the salary taboo is to keep rich people rich.
While it is part of the motivation, calling it the only purpose is just hilariously wrong, completely lacks any nuance/empathy, and a single case of something existing outside of the "only purpose" statement proves it wrong immediately.
My brother ex-communicated my dad because he wouldn't stop hounding him for money. My brother became wealthy at a young age, and made the unfortunate mistake of divulging his finances to my narcissistic father. My father made terrible financial decisions in his life and subsists entirely on social security. He also bragged routinely about cheating on my mom, who got the courage to pull us out of that situation when we were kids. Any extra money I have would go to my mom, not my piece of crap dad.
I can't imagine how terrible it would be if he simply knew how much money I make.
This is the "lacking in nuance" thing that parent was talking about.
Salary transparency can help individuals by revealing their unfair pay relative to their peers. Correcting such injustices are not big money overall, they're not going to create meaningful wealth distribution, it's not going to make the rich noticeably less rich.
It should strike you as weird, because that's false.
The American Dream can be best lived by Scandinavians in the US. Scandinavians do better in the US than they do in Scandinavia and that has been true for the past century. Among the US population, people from Scandinavia and or of Scandinavian descent produce exceptional outcomes.
Comparing primary demographics to primary demographics, white Americans are richer than white Scandinavians at both the median and average. They have higher incomes and greater wealth. And Scandinavians in the US are far richer than Scandinavians in Scandinavia, at both the median and average.
If Scandinavia is so great, how come their people do so much better here and always have? Scandinavian culture + the US system = vastly superior outcome.
Interestingly, Minneapolis, where virtually all Somali-Americans live has strong Scandinavian roots.
The Scandinavians immigrating to the US are not a random sampling of Scandinavians. Getting a visa to live in the US usually requires a high-paying job. Usually of high skill or of exceptional talent. Basically the US work visa system selects for the cream of the crop.
Almost like the issue isn't the 'thing' being done, but the people.
Not having a universal-nation-wide identification system only makes it worse for everyone.
Generally I'd respect those folks rights to have that info remain private. They can always share if they want.
As long as certain other people are never near them. It’s really not a live and let live kind of place.
In Scandinavia, you have the radical lack of privacy you just mentioned as a feature (!!!) as well as eye-watering taxes.
Now, in the States, the government spies on you, but at least they don’t publish their findings.
Full disclosure: I live in neither Scandinavia nor the States.
The States are doing so much better than the rest of the world economically that we should follow the American example, not vice versa.
I don't think too many people, at least in other developed countries, are looking at the United States and thinking "wow, I wish my country was more like the United States." Usually such comparisons are made to the Scandinavian countries.
What moral system informed these utopian ideas? Why does everyone have an obligation to subscribe to it?
If the rest of the world wants to hand arbitrary taxation power to some bureaucrats in pursuit of their moral ideal, let them have at it.
Regarding ideals: they’re usually great to have personally, but not so great anymore if others have to pay for your grand visions.
Regarding Bezos and Amazon: of course they have to pay tax, everyone should. But my sense is that taxes are far higher than they need to be - there’s an entire class of unionized middle-class bureacrats and government suppliers that add uncertain value at best.
Here's a fun thought experiment - if Jeff Bezos (actually Andy Jassy nowadays, but that just proves my point further) suddenly vanished, how many orders would fail to be delivered tomorrow as a result? Literally none. Now suppose everybody else working at Amazon disappeared instead. What happens? The company ceases to meaningfully exist. So who really created that wealth?
Jeff Bezos (and I’m no fan) the hungry entrepreneur only went through the massive life disruption of starting a company because of the possibility that he might one day become Jeff Bezos the (m/b)illionaire.
Take that juicy end state away and suddenly you’ll have nobody willing to go through the decades of hell it takes to create these big companies.
Resulting in no jobs and no packages.
Nonsense, Jeff Bozos has never been through "hell", since he only started Amazon with the help of venture capital. It was more work than a normal job, yes, but was not torture nor even something he disliked doing.
Contrast this with the US at $60,235.73 and Germany at about $51,000.
The effective tax rate for the highest earners right now is not all that different than it was from the 50's to the 90's.
The thing that's changed is actually the effective rate on the bottom 50% - those taxes have increased.
Typically the "American Dream" has been centrally about freedom of opportunity, independent of social class or circumstances of birth, and the resulting possibility for upward social mobility through hard work (e.g. America as the Land of Opportunity). I think it's quite hard to argue that the United States is a leader in this category in the same way that it was 50 or 100 years ago.
As an aside (mostly to add some perspective around Scandinavian comments), my Swedish friend moved to America and became a citizen exactly for this version of the American dream. As far as he's concerned, it's FAR more difficult to become wealthy in Sweden.
With this in mind, generally speaking the US does not do particularly well on social mobility in relation to most other developed country, this includes the Scandinavian countries, the other anglophone countries, and western/central European countries... And, honestly, it really should surprise no one that social programs (including things like high quality public/affordable education and universal healthcare) improve social mobility for the poorer half of society.
Many things make sense for a largely homogenous nation of 5.5 million that stop making sense for a largely heterogenous nation of 330 million.
The "but we're different" narrative doesn't suffice.
Someone actually did a writeup of some of their personal findings, though i'm sure that we'll see more in the following weeks: https://sizeof.cat/post/twitch-leaks/
Of course, i can also understand that those with a lot of money probably don't want others to know how much they make, while those that are making less money sometimes don't want to be confronted with the truth because it's so depressing. Regardless, if nothing else, it's educational to see things like these and have them become a piece of humanity's history.
Transparency and expansion of the public sphere generally has equalizing effects, expansion of the private sphere the opposite. This is I think relevant in particular for people in the US who seek to emulate Scandinavia, because they ironically seem to be some of the biggest opponents to anything that conjures up notions of 'surveillance'.
A country which values it's citizens health and happiness in measurable, quantifiable ways.
A country which ensures it's citizens can be educated and follow their passions to financial success.
A country which allows even poor citizens to take risks like opening a business or going to school _(if you can call that a risk)_ without going into crippling debt or becoming homeless if you fail.
A country where a health emergency won't leave middle class workers in crippling debt.
A country where a job is enough to ensure you can have a roof over your head and food on the table.
Scandinavia may or may not match all of those, but that's not my point - it feels to me Americans don't want this. To me Americans value "freedom" (as ephemeral as that may be) and low taxes so heavily that the above items are nearly irrelevant if they conflict with that.
This isn't a dig at America, rather i'm simply saying maybe i need to stop voting so "lefty" and find some place more inline with myself?
In fact, you will find that it is much more common for people with high levels of education or marketable skills to migrate to the US, versus those people migrating from the US to whatever country.
I maybe am. No formal education, but self taught and we live very comfortably.
However this isn't about "me". I want a country that feels like it's trying to do better for all. America seems very selfish to me. I want to aid and support a government that actively works towards the bullet points i mentioned, not against.
That just means the very rich need more creative accountants.
"See I don't own the jet, per se, I just own a majority of shares in a corporation headquartered in Cyprus that owns said asset"
> It always struck me as weird that the American Dream can best be lived in Scandinavia
I don't think the American Dream is really compatible with Janteloven
Given that one strategy for businesses is to optimize monetary intake by tailoring prices to how much specific customers can pay and often this tailoring is facilitated by stuff like checking if you are using an iphone or an android phone etc. etc. - if you use your name and address to login to a service and you are from Norway could they look up how much money you make and more precisely tailor their prices for what you are able to pay?
If so, boy, that letting people know exactly how much money you have thing is great.
It might work in Norway where there is basically zero violent crime, but in many parts of the world outing yourself as a millionaire is a great way to get yourself or your family kidnapped.
Wealth inequality is underlying in "creator fund" money making as well. The algorithms are skewed towards people that are already rich, popular, and/or well connected. The few people that make it up the ladder from humble beginnings might well be people who were let in to cover the real underpinnings of non-transparent creator economies.
Those few "came up from nothing" success stories may literally well be false encouragement or fabrication just to keep platform engagement and related consumerism up.
Kind of like your friend who invites you over to play video games but they really just want you to watch them while they play because they only have one controller they'll never let you touch.
What you choose to support and invest in matters too.
1) The skill/ability curve is going to look really consistent with the earnings curve, just like in anything, similar to sports.
2) 'Creators fund' is marginal - having a few extra dollars for a microphone is not going to bring in more viewers for a stream. Far from 'false economy' it's probably something akin to very efficient. If there is inefficiency, it's about who is highlighted by the platform.
3) Barriers to entry are very low, and every joe blow is nipping at the heels of established streamers, many of whom have spent a long time building their audiences.
4) This should be thought of more like athleticism: it's popularity, brand, personality and skill, it's populist and short-lived, very risky, and extremely competitive/open to anyone.
" like your friend who invites you over to play video games but they really just want you to watch them while they play because they only have one controller they'll never let you touch." Well this is some cynical stuff, I'm not sure what to say.
In order to admit that the highest paid streamers fairly made it to their current levels of obscene payment, it would be a lot more believable if there wasn't such a huge disparity in pay (from my perspective).
I work with analytics, and understand them well. Twitch creates their own non-transparent algorithm that evaluates metrics and determines pay for contributors based on those factors. Twitch is in complete control over the rules for who gets paid and how much they are paid.
In a fair creator economy yes, some would get rich and some would go unpaid, but the gap would not be that huge.
Technically most of the contributing creators should be paid and promoted by the platform equally, and accurate metrics would determine who stays on top, but these days creators are not treated equally based on the data I've seen thus far. The inequality reflects on our current societal problems as well.
The gap between top and bottom creators is massive based on data from Twitch, tons of people are technically working for free over many years in hopes of being discovered.
The level of labor and efforts in being a platform user and a creator are very high, the problem is when success is only an illusion. Even as an unpaid creator, if the platform only promotes it's top creators, their profits surge while no one off the radar gets discovered, and thus the unequal profit cycle is upheld without anyone knowing the truth of skewed reality.
Algorithms frequently reflect bias on all social media now because they are developed by companies and people that often have bias (towards making profit, or for political purposes, etc.).
Even very talented creators don't stand a chance of being recognized or paid for their work because of that bias that drives profit on massive social media platforms because they are too often profit-driven machines.
'Obscene' is a superlative not hugely relevant here unless you start with calling pro-athletes and actors getting paid 'millions' as 'obscene'.
Twitch streamers have even considerably lower barriers to entry than athletes or actors. In the later case, probably 1/2 of well known actors are born into the industry. Athletes work through a selective system that is gamed so is the workplace.
On Twitch - people are paid literally in donations from viewers, there are no powerful layers of value chain here, which is a very powerful signal of valid intent on the part of those being entertained.
Twitch Entertainers is possibly one of the most free, open and fair markets going.
Once again: your hints of 'money to pay people for promotion' isn't valuable foremost because 1) 'marketing' exists in all professions (actors have agents, press people, managers and work in a highly controlled system of promotion and 2) those activities are scant and not powerful. Nick Merc is not paying big bucks for marketing, and it wouldn't get him anywhere anyhow.
"Technically most of the contributing creators should be paid and promoted by the platform equally," - no. They should be promoted fairly - which they are. Obviously there is some incumbency in that more popular people get promoted more, however, there's ample opportunity for long tail discovery.
The truth is (and this is a very key understanding) most creators are not creating interesting content. Full Stop.
"The inequality reflects on our current societal problems as well." - no, there's little parallel here.
"The level of labor and efforts in being a platform user and a creator are very high," - this is not relevant. Nobody cares how much work or effort goes into the content creation. They want to be entertained with good gameplay or charismatic personalities, and that's it.
"Even very talented creators don't stand a chance of being recognized " - totally the opposite. They have a very good chance of getting some viewers, and if they have something people want to see, more will tune in.
The reality is, like everything in life - 'most people are not good at it' and the eyeballs are going to veer towards the more talented streamers.
Frankly, I think they get paid too much, I'm glad they get paid something but I'm not going to give them my money.
That said, the system is pretty good. A lot of people making a living out of playing video games, and a lot of people seem to be entertained by that.
If it were similar work, then subscriber numbers wouldn't be so different.
Amazon Prime used to include (and maybe still includes) Amazon Prime Gaming (https://gaming.amazon.com/intro). One of the perks:
> Use your free channel subscription ($4.99 value) every month to support your favorite streamers
There are over 100M prime subscribers, and let's suppose 3% of them use the benefit to support streamers. That's at least $15M/mo Amazon is throwing into the ecosystem. Given a pareto distribution of revenue, it's no surprise that 1000 streamers are clearing 10K/mo
Remember also that they all have channels on Youtube and other social media.
magnet:?xt=urn:btih:N5BLZ6XECNEHHARHJOVQAS4W7TWRXCSI&dn=twitch-leaks-part-one&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Fopen.stealth.si%3A80%2Fannounce
It is illegal to initially steal data.
But can you clarify which law would be violated by downloading it? And by "illegal" do you mean civil or criminal law?
I'm not sure what "at a baseline" means. If you know of other specific legal violations then name them, so we can discuss it.
That's inaccurate. You can configure if you're providing upload capacity, but other peers can penalize you for that.
> good luck proofing in court that you did that.
That isn't how the legal system works. They have to prove you uploaded since that is the infringement at the core of their suite. The emphasis is on them to prove both infringement, responsibility, and monetary damages.
Which brings us back to my earlier point which so far hasn't been answered: They have to show damages to successfully sue you in a civil court. How do they show damages here?
DO NOT POST THE MAGNET LINKS IN THIS THREAD
Feel free to discuss this for what it is, news about a data leak.
As per rule 1 'Search the Internet.....' a quick search will give you the data should you want it, understand however that this is stolen data and should it be what is described the torrent will likely be peer logged and addresses handed to the relevant authorities should Twitch wish to pursue legal action against those sharing it.
---
Sorry if I was incorrect about the validity of the warning
If anyone needs to only download and not seed the torrent at all (to avoid potential copyright infringement action), there's a patch for libtorrent available here: https://web.archive.org/web/20160625100706/citylight.thinkba....
I'm using this with the latest stable libtorrent and rtorrent releases and it's working great so far. Getting around 100 MB/s download rate from the swarm.