Hacker News Reader

Yeah. "You ensure" that Twitch users' "experience" of your stream is "no less" than other platform users' "experience".

They write them like this deliberately -- so they can enforce them however they like, and there's nothing clear-cut so they are largely unaccountable. They're "guidelines" after all -- mere suggestions at things you might like to consider. You know, "guidelines", as in "your account has been closed due to your recent breach/es of the guidelines".

So, if I can't ensure that every person watching on OtherPlatform is having a measurably worse time than every person watching on Twitch, I'm risking my Twitch channel? Unless they came here for a bad time, I guess, so every Twitch viewer must be having the experience that they deem as more than or equal to every OtherPlatform viewer.

I guess if I can't comply with that then maybe I just don't have what it takes to be a god/Twitch streamer.

> If you fail to adhere to the Simulcast Guidelines, Twitch will send you a warning prior to taking any enforcement action

https://help.twitch.tv/s/article/simulcasting-guidelines?lan...

Isn't this pretty much exactly one of the major things they're accused of in the anti trust suit against them? They would ban you from selling if you sold your product cheaper on your own site where amazon doesn't get a cut. Seems their m.o.

That's something Amazon did with Amazon sellers which is an issue.

I don't think there's been an Antitrust complaint against Twitch though -- this complaint would have to be formally raised by a competing streaming platform though, unfortunately. It is not enough that it harms creators or consumers (Consumers cannot raise the antitrust issue -- due to quirks in the US law; it is only competing companies such as Youtube, Trovo, etc, whose competition would be harmed by their actions or the US government who can have standing to raise an antitrust complaint - Antitrust violations and anticompetitive behavior harm consumers and other companies indirectly but the courts only give standing to sue to the actual competitors).

These excerpts read like the ultimatums of a deeply insecure partner. The bizarre demands and their the defensive pretexts...like, you ok Twitch? You shouldn't control what someone does with others. You definitely shouldn't stalk them to see what they're doing without you. That's abusive behavior, Twitch. Placating jealousy doesn't preserve relationships, it destroys them. If you don't want to drive people away, work on yourself, Twitch. I recommend seeing someone. This isn't healthy.

Only if you have a parasocial relationship with Twitch, they're not your friend, at best they are your employer.

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.

First party would refer to twitch

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

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

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.

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

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

That doesn't matter. Their ToS prohibits hacking them, but Twitch can hire an external security company to test their security.

"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.

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.

> 1) Due to some odd wording in the terms of what’s permissible, your stream can’t be lower quality than what you send to other platforms. Because YouTube offers a higher ingestion bandwidth rate (10+ Mbps) than Twitch (6 Mbps), someone appealing to both services that wants to send the maximum bitrate allowed for quality purposes or even with differing resolutions can be hit due to the technicality:

I doubt streamers would dual encode their streams anyway. They'd just use the lowest common denominator.

I think Twitch doubts it too, that's part of this strategy. They tell you you are free, contingent on these guidelines being followed (but they're not rules). They then present vague conditions which seem unenforceable and impossible to follow. They can and will enforce them, you just don't know how, why, or when -- so you play it safe: cripple the experience on OtherPlatform, or, as that's too much effort, just don't use OtherPlatform. Problem solved!

It's kind of crazy that Twitch hasn't improved the video quality since... possibly ever? Didn't they have a 6 Mbps limit back in 2013-2015 too? Actually, come to think of it, I'm not sure Twitch has, technically, improved at all since then, other than stability.

Even hitbox.tv, back when they tried to enter the fray, had live rewind, for instance.

It probably has to do with the accelerator hardware they use for transcoding the source stream. If they want to support higher bitrates or resolutions, they have to invest in completely new hardware.

That would also mean added complexity in the ingest server architecture, because large partners would probably be the first get access to the new hardware. While keeping smaller streamers on 720p 2Mbps or something to keep down costs.

Twitch was purchased by Amazon in 2014. Coincidence? [1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitch_(service)#Amazon_subsid...

in 2015 they had 3500 limit for everyone and 6 was only for partners, nowadays its 6Mbps for everyone and 8Mbps for partners.

I take the first to mean that you can't purposefully degrade the quality from what would otherwise be possible, not that you can't use higher bitrate elsewhere.

The second bit simply says "third party service" - nothing stops you from doing the combined chat overlay locally and streaming the result.

Also, twitch is still very much the top dog, but you're right - they're actually having to compete against youtube now.

> The second bit simply says "third party service"

The spirit of the terms seems to be they don't want combined chat, and are relying on the fact that most streamers are not going to develop their own chat combining software.

If people try to get past this on a technicality, expect them to revise the conditions.

There are multiple software packages to do this already.

Why are you commenting on something you clearly know nothing about?

People learn better when you give them the information they're lacking rather than snark at them for lacking it.

For the rest of us who also know nothing, could you expand on your thoughts? Information is much more interesting than an internet slap fight :)

I presumed there was. I interpret running someone elses software locally on your computer as "third party".

But, silly pedantry aside, my point still stands. It seems like Twitch doesn't want chats combined, regardless of the mechanism.

You are correct.

A huge majority of streamers rely on overlays provided by either the companies Streamlabs or StreamElements for things like displaying a chat on their stream, among others.

> not that you can't use higher bitrate elsewhere

If, as a user, I think the video quality on another platform is superior to that on Twitch and knew that there was an alternative platform where I could watch the same thing at higher quality, the experience on Twitch is clearly less than that on the other platform. This breaches the first guideline.

> The second bit simply says "third party service"

And this is the real point: it simply says. It doesn't clearly specify, there is no definition of these terms. These vaguely/innocently worded hints will be enforced opaquely whenever they feel like it, without explanation of what, specifically, you did wrong.

> The second bit simply says "third party service" - nothing stops you from doing the combined chat overlay locally and streaming the result.

I think that is either legalese or poor wording in the text of the actual guideline, The FAQ has this to say about personal use of chat combining software:

> The prohibition on third party tools only applies to content presented to viewers either on or off Twitch.

"tools" and "applies to content presented to viewers" I think gives an idea of how they will actually enforce this versus the "service" wording of the guideline