Tag Archives: Mass media

Atlanta recap: Season 3, Episode 4

Justin Bartha as Marshall in “The Big Payback”
Photo: Guy D’Alema/FX

The last two episodes of Atlanta have followed Earn, Al, Darius, and Van on the first legs of a European tour. Episode four diverts the action back to the titular city, away from the main foursome and into an unrelated story (the same approach taken by the season opener, “Three Slaps”). It’s hard not to feel a bit cheated by these anthology-style episodes: Atlanta’s primary quartet are as well-written and portrayed as any characters on TV, and I always want to spend more time with them. (I’m still having trouble processing that season four will be the show’s last.) But this detour—a dark satire that tackles systemic racism and the concept of reparations, laying bare the worst nightmares of the anti-CRT brigade—is absolutely worth taking.

The episode opens as we follow Marshall (guest star Justin Bartha) in line at a coffee shop. AirPods in place, he absent-mindedly slips some cookies into his jacket pocket as he witnesses a confrontation between the cashier and a Black customer. Marshall gets his coffee and goes on scot-free, while the other man goes to the back of the line. It turns out Marshall is a separated dad; as he’s driving his daughter to school, he hears a radio news story about a Black man who’s successfully sued a Tesla investor because his ancestors enslaved the plaintiff’s forebears. It’s a development the anchor notes could have “wide-ranging” implications, “especially in America.” (By the way, a lot of plot and spoilers of the episode follow, but they’re worth unpacking.)

At the office, Marshall’s co-workers express disbelief and concern at the story, while layoffs are announced; his company is being sued for the same reason. His white co-worker says she’s researching her family tree online—”everyone is”—while observing of their Black colleagues: “Lucky them—not a care in the world.”

At home, Marshall is confronted at his front door by a Black woman, Sheniqua Johnson (Melissa Youngblood), who is live-streaming on her phone that Marshall’s ancestors enslaved hers, he owes her money, and she’ll probably take his house. She later shows up with a bullhorn outside his office, demanding a payout.

This is beyond-heavy stuff, but it’s deftly written and directed. Many moments in this script (by Francesca Sloane) would do Paddy Chayevsky proud, particularly when Marshall seeks counsel from a Black co-worker and his estranged wife won’t let him see their daughter because of his ancestral past. “I’m Peruvian,” she says. “This never would have happened to me!” Marshall protests: “You were white yesterday!” His wife replies that they have to make the divorce official because “I can’t have my finances take a hit.”

Relegated to a hotel because Sheniqua and several compatriots have camped out on the lawn outside his apartment, Marshall turns on the TV and sees a law-firm commercial, shot in classic ambulance-chaser style, urging anyone eligible to claim their cash. (It’s another moment worthy of Network.) In the lobby bar, Marshall meets a man (“Ernest”—homophonically the same as Donald Glover’s character, of course—”call me E”) who says he’s “in the same boat … you owe a lot.”

“Two days ago, I had a good life, and now I’m being fucked by some shit I didn’t even do,” Marshall complains.

The lobby man (a riveting Tobias Segal) reveals that he’d recently been clued into some realities about his own grandfather, a man always sold as part of the “pulled himself up from his own bootstraps” myth: “Turns out he had a lot of help—and a lot of kids.”

“We don’t deserve this,” Marshall says.

Photo: Guy D’Alema/FX

“What do they deserve?” E replies. For Black people, he says, slavery is not past and has a monetary value that keeps compounding. But as white men, they’ll be okay. “We’re free,” he says, before stepping outside and shooting himself in the head. My first impression was that this was a misstep, an instance of over-egging the dramatic batter. His monologue—with its premise that white men are privileged even when they’re down-and-out—was powerful enough. But the ending of the episode made it feel justified. Some people can bear certain truths, and some people can’t.

Ultimately, we see that Marshall is working in a restaurant, where 15 percent of his paycheck is going to “restitution taxes” paid to Sheniqua. In a poignant moment, we’re taken through the kitchen, where nearly everyone on the line is a person of color. Marshall, of course, is a waiter, an acceptable face for the front-of-the-house, and the episode closes with him serving ritzy dishes to a Black party.

Hiro Murai’s direction is stellar, as usual: He knows how to make irony land without hitting you over the head, and the performances are perfectly modulated. Segal is a standout, and Bartha is very effective as a hangdog everyman avatar who’s just letting life happen to him—trying to do the right things on the surface, but not doing too much to right the wrongs. This episode and “Three Slaps” are so dramatically rich that I’d like to see the Glovers and Murai launch an anthology series of their own, an updated Twilight Zone. No need to brand it as sci-fi or horror. Modern life is just a step or two apart.

For a show labeled comedy (for lack of a more apt genre), “Big Payback” isn’t a fun 30-plus minutes, but it is great television. Atlanta is tackling the big, uncomfortable questions no one else would dare—namely, can we resolve systemic racism and reconcile this country’s history with slavery, when some won’t even acknowledge either—and this episode is worth spending time with. Unfortunately, the people who most need to consider its themes won’t see it; they can afford to turn away.

Stray observations

  • Another good moment: Marshall claims his background is “Austro-Hungarian…we were enslaved too” (to the eye-rolling of his co-worker). But he’s not interested in researching the truth about his ancestors.
  • E’s lobby-bar monologue is exceptional writing. “We’re treating slavery as if it were a mystery buried in the past, something to investigate if we chose to. That history has a monetary value. Confession is not absolution,” he says, and for Black people, slavery is not past—it’s “a cruel, unavoidable ghost that haunts in a way we can’t see.”
  • Episodes two and three of this season were so moody and evocative that I keep finding myself thinking about where the main characters are—a fortunate/unfortunate consequence of watching a show that unspools week-by-week and is unbingeable.
  • The writing in the first four episodes of Atlanta is better than I’ve seen in any drama this season. But it’s a 30-ish minute show, so where do the scripts for “Three Slaps” and “The Big Payback” get submitted? Is there a way to diversify the Emmys’ rigid comedy-drama dichotomy (which has punished some excellent-but-ambiguous 30-minute shows in recent years)?

Read original article here

Riverdale Season 6 Is Back and Just Did Something Crazy (Again)

Honestly, also my face discovering all of this at this point.
Image: The CW

Riverdale has a long history of being A Whole Ass Lot, but somehow the series has managed to even top “hey we’re just creating an Archie multiverse now” with its recent horror-tinged event crossover with Chilling Adventures of Sabrina. If you thought last night’s episode would be a return to… what’s considered normal for the series? Well, you were in for a surprise.

So let’s get this out of the way: I think Riverdale might be another CW superhero show now? Maybe.

“Unbelievable,” the technically-sixth episode of the show’s sixth season—the aforementioned crossover formed the first five late last year—picks back up in the, god, I can’t even believe I get to say it, “Prime” Riverdale reality. More specifically, it picks back up in the wake of the season five finale, which concluded with Archie and Betty about to get it on as it was revealed to the audience that Veronica’s dad, Hiram, had left a bomb planted in Archie’s room after being exiled from the town. Because, y’know, that’s just a thing that happens on Riverdale. Anyway, the bomb went off, destroying the Andrews household… but miraculously, Archie and Betty made it out largely unharmed.

Not everyone is unscathed by the blast. Jughead, who was nearby, eventually discovers that the blast has largely rendered him deaf, and Archie’s poor dog Bingo has all his legs broken, crushed under the debris of the destroyed Andrews home. But yeah: Archie and Betty are largely safe, because, as they learn over the course of the episode… the bomb gave them superpowers. Archie gets the most traditional super-overhaul here, complete with the mandatory “somehow gets even more of a CW show protagonist jacked body” overhaul that gives him enhanced strength alongside a weight increase, and, in a riff on the episode title, a nod to M. Night Shyamalan’s Unbreakable in the form of impenetrable skin, explaining how he managed to survive the blast and protect Betty, who only sustained a few bone-breaking injuries.

Image: The CW

In the hospital recovering, she learns that she too got powers, a sort of spider-sense-esque aura-detection that allows her to spot people who are threats. An absolutely incredible power to give to someone who has also, because this show is this show, been an FBI agent for a few years now. But anyway, she and Archie use their abilities to stop a murderous orderly that gave Betty bad vibes. Oh, and did we mention Bingo got a healing factor, miraculously recovering from his broken legs in just a handful of days? Yeah. Sucks to be Jughead I guess, near enough to be injured but not near enough to get superpowers, unless he’s about to become Riverdale’s equivalent of Clint Barton or something.

There’s a lot more going on in “Unbelievable”—Hiram may actually be dead after Veronica put out a hit on him (!!!) that she immediately regretted (!!!!!) only to find when she tried to do a take-backsies on a contract killer (!!!!!!!!!!) that the job was purportedly already done (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!), oh and Cheryl might be possessed by an evil ghost now? But really, the point here is that literally just after having its own off-kilter indulgence into genre elements, Riverdale is now plowing ahead just completely doolally. It’s hard to say if this will be revealed as another alt-timeline like the events in Rivervale, or if this really is just the status quo for the show now, which is really funny considering the “weird” thing about Riverdale when it started was that Archie was sleeping with his teacher. But for now, Riverdale is… is it too mean to Agents of SHIELD to say it’s Agents of SHIELD with even less budget?

Which, to be fair, is just largely taking a page from the Archie comics even more at this point. Archie has been around for so long that it’s given us superheroes, big franchise crossovers, zombies and werewolves, and of course, a particular Teenage Witch, so Riverdale itself just embracing the utter insanity of the source material, especially when it’s done such a grand job of being so insane itself previously, is more of a lateral move than some huge leap. Screw it, have the Predator show up or something! Hell, make that new comic real and have comics Archie meet Riverdale Archie! Now that’d be fun.


Wondering where our RSS feed went? You can pick the new up one here.

Read original article here

12 Things You Didn’t Know You Could Do on YouTube

There are more stats available, if you want them.
Screenshot: YouTube

If you’re really into video encoding and streaming, then YouTube can give you much more technical information about clips when you’re watching them in the mobile apps. Tap your profile picture on the Home tab (top right), then choose Settings and General and turn on the Enable stats for nerds (Android) or Stats for nerds (iOS) toggle switch.

To see said stats for nerds, tap on a video, tap the three dots in the corner, and then choose Stats for nerds to bring up the overlay while the clip plays underneath. The information displayed on screen in real time includes the resolution of the clip, the audio and video codecs used, and the amount of bandwidth you’re using up by streaming it.

Read original article here

Netflix is raising prices by $1-$2 a month

Netflix!
Photo: ROBYN BECK/AFP via Getty Images

Netflix announced tonight that it’s raising the prices for all of its subscription tiers by $1 to $2 a month. It’s been roughly a year and a half since the streamer’s last price hike, which hit in October of 2020.

The increases—which will “roll out” for existing subscribers in coming months, as part of the company’s ongoing efforts to not get torch-and-pitchforked every time they do this—break down like this: Premium subscribers, who currently pay $18 a month for 4K content and 4 screens at once, will be knocked up to $20 a month. Standard plan members (HD content, 2 screens) will be jumped up a buck fifty, from $14 to $15.50. And Basic members, who don’t get HD content, will now be paying $10 a month for the privilege.

The price increases come at an undeniably weird time for the service, which is simultaneously riding about as high as it’s ever been, while also finding itself facing down stiffer competition than it’s ever seen. On the one hand, Netflix’s subscriber base is about as good as it could conceivably be at the moment, with the service currently supporting some 200+ million subscribers planet-wide, and 74 million in the U.S. and Canada—where these latest price increases are aimed.

The problem is that Netflix’s subscriber base is also, well, as high as it can conceivably be at the moment; when you’re already installed in the homes of basically every internet-enabled home in a decent chunk of the planet, it’s hard to carve out that pesky “growth” that shareholders crave. Hence, partly, the price increases, which put Netflix on par (or a little past, for Premium) HBO Max, which has generally been the priciest plan in the game at $15 a month. (For comparison, Disney+ remains at $8 a month, Paramount+ at $10 a month, Apple TV+ at $5, and Hulu just kicked its own prices up to $13 a month last year.) (That’s for the non-ad versions of the services, to be clear.)

And the mere length of the above parenthetical demonstrates the other issue Netflix is currently facing down: There are a lot of other companies out here right now trying to house its lunch. And while its multi-year head start in the streaming wars is obviously a boon, the company still needs to keep throwing as much money as it can at original content to keep subscribers happy. (Especially since studios who were once eager to license their shows to the streamer for some quick post-life profits are now far more reticent to feed a rival the content that it needs.)

The upshot of all of that being: Expect that little monthly bill to get a little less little in the coming months.

[via The Verge]

Read original article here

Spotify Makes Podcast Ads Unskippable by Sticking Them in App

Spotify’s new clickable ad cards.
Image: Spotify

Those of us who are serial podcast listeners know how the ad drill goes. A short audio clip will pop up right before, during, or after your show to tell you about a revolutionary product, service, or sale. Some of you might skip through a particularly long ad, or just speed through all ads. However, it’s not going to be so easy to do that on Spotify anymore.

The streaming giant unveiled its new “call-to-action cards” for podcast ads on Thursday. The concept is pretty straightforward. When an ad starts playing in the podcast, a small card will pop up at the bottom with clickable buttons that allow users to see learn more about the brand, product, or service being talked about in the ad or directly make a purchase from the advertiser’s website. Both free and paid users will see the cards, which are available now.

Spotify told Gizmodo on Thursday that the call-to-action cards will be available across its desktop, mobile, and tablet apps but not within web browsers.

Some of you might be wondering, “What happens to the cards if the app is running in the background while my phone is blocked or when I’m doing something else on my device?” Don’t worry, Spotify wouldn’t dream of leaving you out, especially since doing something while listening to a podcast, such as doing the dishes while listening to Pop Culture Happy Hour, in my case, is common.

In fact, that’s currently why remembering a promo code, product name, or link mentioned in a podcast ad can be complicated, Spotify maintains.

As explained by the company, the call-to-action cards pop up again for users who listened to them when they’re exploring the app to make it easier for them to remember and interact with the ad they heard. For instance, the cards will appear when you check out a specific podcast episode or visit show’s page in the app.

“With the launch of this new ad experience, we’re making podcast ads interactive for the first time, transforming the format from something that can only be heard, into an experience that you can also seeand, most importantly, click,” Spotify said in a news announcement.

According to Spotify, its call-to-action cards have shown positive results in recent tests, doubling site visits when compared to non-clickable podcast ads. Three companies—Ulta Beauty, Athletic Greens, and Squarespace—have already signed on as early adopters.

Spotify’s new clickable cards are just another example of the company’s quest to monetize podcasts and make its app more seller friendly. Over the past year and a half, the company has acquired podcasting giant Megaphone to better target real-time ads to listeners and launched a new wake word function (“Hey Spotify”) to possibly open the door for more voice-powered ads.

As a paid Spotify user and a power podcast listener, according to my 2021 Spotify Wrapped at least, I have mixed feelings about its new ad formats for shows. While I get that podcasts need ad sponsors, and would be aghast if some of my favorite podcasts disappeared due to a lack of funding, for years Spotify has been my go-to spot to get away from heavy and annoying advertising. (Instagram, for instance, serves me ads as if they were hot churros).

Yet, if Spotify is adamant about sticking ads on its platform, I’m OK with the cards. They’re small, don’t follow me everywhere, and support content I really enjoy. It could’ve been worse.

Read original article here

Twitch Streamers React To Leaked Incomes With Jokes, Criticism

Image: Twitch

An anonymous hacker leaked payroll information for every streamer on Twitch yesterday, and predictably, the revealed incomes have become an inescapable topic of conversation for streamers in their Twitch chats and on social media. The range of reactions to the leak has been vast, with some streamers making light of the matter, and others seeing it as an opportunity to spotlight longstanding issues with the livestreaming platform.

Yesterday, Twitch confirmed that “a breach had taken place.” While the company investigated the hack, prominent streamers took to Twitter to react.

Jack Manifold (JackManifoldTV), along with multiple other high-profile streamers, joked about the leak: “It is completely unfair that I am that far down the list, and I will be doing everything in my power to pump up that number going forward; for you guys!” Meanwhile, some streamers referred to each other by their ranked placement on the leaked list. Ludwig Anders Ahgren (ludwig), one of the biggest earners on the platform, jokingly replied to another streamer with “don’t speak unless spoken to, #486.” Several Twitch creators even updated their Twitter handles to incorporate their ranking among Twitch earners.

Other streamers such as Charles White Jr. (moistcr1tikal) expressed surprise at the public reaction to the disclosed figures, citing the fact that it was possible to calculate a streamer’s ballpark income from a channel’s subscriber count.

Super weird to see people freak out about twitch income and act like it was some big secret when sub count is publicly available. Take that number and multiple by 2.5 or 3.5 and you’re there. I made a whole video on it; it’s not the krabby patty formula, it’s basic shit

 

Hasan Piker (HasanAbi), one of the platform’s biggest earners who recently generated strong public reactions for buying a house, jokingly anticipated being at the center of another firestorm, tweeting: “just woke up to some fun news. cant wait for ppl to be mad at me about my publicly available sub count again.”

Other streamers such as Smash Bros. commentator Phil Visu (EEvisu) ribbed more successful streamers for not being more generous with their Twitch earnings.

Twitch leak just made me realize my millionaire friends are cheap, how we hit Wendy’s and you ain’t picking up the tab Mr. 100k a month? Smh why TF we even at Wendy’s?!

However, other reactions were more serious.

Creators such as variety streamer and host Brandon Stennis (iamBrandon) were disappointed at how Twitch handled the leaks, citing a lack of communication with streamers who were affected.

With a big leak breach like Twitch has, why didn’t they email this information to people and only talked about it on Twitter? I mean its a bit of a huge deal if information like this is out. Not everyone is on Twitter.

Popular streamer Anthony DiMarco (ChilledChaos) was less than impressed with some people’s reactions to the largest doxxing that the Twitch community has ever experienced. Apparently, several streamers have had problems with chat participants behaving badly about the leaks.

Bro…if you make shitty Twitch Leak jokes and get banned by my friends, don’t come to my chat complaining. Because you are also going to get banned. “How does it feel to be XYZ compared to someone else”?

Streamer group Black Girl Gamers, meanwhile, saw the leaks as an opportunity to highlight the opportunity disparities for marginalized content creators on the platform.

The leak is proof of what we’ve been saying all along regarding the lack of diversity at the top, that’s all.

And Tanya DePass (cypheroftyr), director of the nonprofit organization I Need Diverse Games, was disappointed that the leaks gave some audience members ammunition with which to devalue the labor and costs of content creation.

Watching people spin out over the Twitch earnings numbers, especially the pearl clutching over [Critical Role] & adding the [Kickstarter] funds; reveal how little some folks know about how much content costs to create.

 



Read original article here

Twitch Announces Test Of New Boosting Feature, Faces Criticism

Screenshot: Twitch / Kotaku

Yesterday, Twitch announced it will test a new feature that allows streamers and their audiences to pay for heightened visibility. Currently, only a select number of accounts participating in Twitch’s research initiative have access to the feature. Despite this, streamers are, unsurprisingly, not very happy about this decision.

“Boosting” means Twitch will recommend the stream to more users. How many more users is determined by how many boosts are purchased by both the streamer and their community. However, these recommendations likely won’t directly translate into viewers. For example, 3,000 recommendations won’t take a channel’s viewer count from 50 to 3,050 because not all of those viewers will actually start watching, but it is a drastic shift in who gets to be visible on the platform.

The overly generous read of this is that Twitch is trying to give smaller content creators more avenues for being discovered. Building an audience on Twitch, like any creative field, is as much about timing and luck as it is quality. This can be deeply frustrating, doubly so for dedicated creators who feel left out by Twitch’s standard algorithms.

This is hard to accept at face value because the move will undoubtedly benefit streamers that are already somewhat established more than smaller creators. If a streamer’s bank account and audience are already large, this feature will only give resourced streamers more opportunities to dominate the platform.

Others have called “boosting” exploitative and “pay-to-win,” equating the feature to viewbotting. Viewbotting, which is widely looked down upon in the world of online content creation and community building, is the practice of hiring a server farm to visit a website en masse to boost its popularity. The goal is to either use those paid viewers as a kickstarter for an actual community as people are drawn to the supposed existing popularity or to better convince advertisers that you’re worth working with. It usually fails at both and is famously corny behavior. It’s also one of the fastest ways to permanently undermine your credibility in online spaces.

Whether Twitch users consider its intent to be an exploitative power grab or an attempt to shakeup how discovery works on Twitch doesn’t really matter. Either way, the move is still a band-aid over one of the gaping wounds in its platform. Small streamers feel they aren’t given enough of a chance with Twitch’s algorithm, and who grows and when can feel like playing the lottery. While there are breakout moments for some creators, streamer wayneradioTV’s “Half-Life VR but the AI is Self Aware series comes to mind, wild creativity is not frequently rewarded on Twitch. From Twitch’s perspective, boosting is a way to fix this. But from many streamer’s perspectives, this will only make things worse.

From implementation to justification, all of this combines into a tremendously bad look for Twitch, and if “boosting” ever leaves testing, it could signal a radical shift in how the platform operates.

  



Read original article here

Hulu Is Raising Its Prices Again Oct. 8

Photo: Jenny Kane (AP)

Less than one year after Hulu jacked up the price of its Hulu with Live TV subscription package, the streaming service is preparing to put another dent in customers’ wallets by raising prices once again.

Beginning on Oct. 8, anyone who subscribes to one of Hulu’s on-demand plans, Hulu and Hulu with No Ads, will be subjected to a $1 increase, TechCrunch reports, which more or less sounds like a pittance when you recall that the price of Hulu’s Live TV bundles increased by a whopping $10 apiece last year. What that means in practice is that the ad-supported version of Hulu will now cost $7 per month, up from $6, while Hulu with No Ads will cost $13 per month, up from $12.

Thankfully, Hulu’s Live TV bundles have not been subject to any price hikes this year, probably because making them any more expensive would further erode what little artifice is left to the idea that cutting the cord is in any way cheaper than buying a cable package.

Notably, the planned price hikes also won’t affect any plan where Hulu is bundled with Disney+. Disney—which assumed full ownership of Hulu in 2019 after it bought out Comcast’s stake—is likely doing this on purpose in order to incentivize customers who don’t require live TV to shell out for a package that includes its own flagship streaming product. The package that combines Hulu with Disney+ and ESPN+, for example, costs $14 per month—just $1 more than Hulu with No Ads will cost after the price hike goes into effect next month.

In its third-quarter earnings report last month, Disney announced that while Hulu still trails Disney+ in subscribers, it actually leads in average monthly revenue per user. Hulu’s subscription on-demand video service has also grown to 39.1 million subscribers, per the report, and its Live TV option, which bundles its live and linear programming, has 3.7 million subscribers, leading to a grand total of 42.8 million total subscribers—up 21% year-over-year.

Read original article here

Movies on Some Streaming Services Could Be Headed for Peacock

Photo: Catie Keck/Gizmodo

The battle between streaming services for your binge-watching hours continues.

Citing sources familiar with the matter, Bloomberg reported Wednesday that Peacock parent NBCUniversal has been mulling pulling its movies from services like Netflix and HBO Max to boost its own content offering. The outlet additionally reported that contracts that HBO Max and Netflix have respectively with Universal Pictures and Illumination Entertainment will expire at the end of 2021.

Bloomberg reported that no final decision has been made as to whether it will pull its films from rival services where they appear less than a year after releasing in theaters. A spokesperson declined to comment on negotiations but did confirm that pay 1 rights agreements are coming up at the end of the year and that negotiations with interested parties are currently underway.

It doesn’t come as any surprise that Peacock would be weighing such a decision, though. While those licensing deals are likely lucrative for NBCUniversal, Peacock entered the streaming wars alongside a number of other platform launches. Everyone is competing for viewers, and nobody is quite pulling off the numbers of Netflix or Disney+, which have 200 million and 100 million subscriptions, respectively. Peacock, which launched last year, reported having 33 million subscriptions in January.

Peacock does offer a lot of content that other services do not, and its WWE hub will likely be a draw for some subscribers. That said, Netflix and HBO Max are dumping a ton of money into producing high-quality originals, which will help them continue to scale and draw in new subscribers.

Even if NBCUniversal proceeds with yanking its films from rival services to instead offer them on its own, it is questionable whether that will carry the service—particularly for films that have already been released in theaters. This is especially true as the promise of vaccines for covid-19 reaches a greater percentage of the population and consumers begin to return to public spaces to go to the movies.

Will this potentially suck for subscribers? Well, yes. But I wonder if many HBO Max and Netflix users would even know the difference if Peacock does pull this lever.

Read original article here

Twitch Streamer Gross Gore Banned After Years Of Sexual Assault Allegations

Image: Ali “Gross Gore” Larsen

Today, Twitch banned and de-partnered Ali “Gross Gore” Larsen, a longtime streamer and subject of controversy, after sexual assault allegations old and new came to light last weekend.

Allegations emerged after the 28 year-old Larsen, who’s been suspended by Twitch numerous times over the years, made a post on the RoastMe subreddit on Friday. This led users to discuss previous allegations against him, culminating in lengthy lists of Larsen’s indiscretions, including videos of Larsen himself talking about times he asked a 15 year-old to show her breasts (he was 18 at the time) and slept with a 16 year-old when he was in his 20s, as well as a video in which another streamer, Jenna, accuses him of sexually assaulting her during TwitchCon. Threads also referenced a series of incidents at UK Runescape convention Runefest in 2018, which Kotaku reported on at the time, including a video in which Larsen appears to grab a woman’s face and try to kiss her, as well as multiple alleged inappropriate comments toward women that culminated in a physical altercation between Larsen and another streamer, Skiddler, that was dispersed by hotel staff and the police.

In the wake of these allegations resurfacing, a woman named Eve came forward on Saturday with her own story, saying that Larsen groomed her back in 2008, when she was 13 and he was 16. “Ali offered me video opportunities, clan chat rankings, and being featured on his personal YT channel,” she wrote in a Twitlonger. “In exchange, all I had to do was moan as he masturbated…Even at 13 I knew I was doing something wrong, but I didn’t understand until many years later how he used his power over me to help him masturbate.”

Over a Discord call, Jenna told Kotaku that Larsen was like a “big brother” to her for a long time, but during a party at TwitchCon 2019, he got drunk and refused to stop touching her arms, legs, and thigh while the two were on a couch. Eventually, he asked to grab her face. “It was super creepy,” Jenna told Kotaku, noting that she’d previously witnessed and talked to Larsen about other instances of sexual assault at events, during which she believes he was also drunk. “Then he started begging to grab me. And I was like ‘No dude, you’re my brother. Stop this.’” She says she ended up leaving the party not long after.

In response to the allegations, Larsen posted a YouTube video on Saturday in which he claimed some allegations, like the video of Jenna accusing him of sexual assault, were false or taken out of context, and that he had already apologized for others and turned over a new leaf. “There are some disgusting things from my past and I can promise you that’s not who I am today,” he said. “I look back, I cringe, I get embarrassed, and I regret so much.”

Now, several days later, Twitch has banned him and taken away his partnership status, meaning he’s probably not coming back this time. In a statement to Kotaku, Twitch cited its rules against inappropriate behavior off-platform.

“The safety of our community is our top priority,” a Twitch spokesperson said in an email. “We take appropriate action when we have evidence that a streamer has acted in violation of our Community Guidelines or Terms of Service, including in certain instances where the behavior may have taken place off Twitch. These apply to all streamers regardless of status or prominence in the community.”

The spokesperson specifically mentioned a rule that says, “We may take action against persons for hateful conduct or harassment that occurs off Twitch services and is directed at Twitch users.”

Kotaku also reached out to Larsen, who pointed to a video he posted to Twitter shortly after he’d been banned. In the video, Larsen showed viewers the email he received from Twitch, which cited “adult sexual exploitation” as the reason for his ban.

“I don’t know what to believe anymore,” Larsen said in the video. “I don’t know what to say anymore. I’m so used to being thrown around in this community, and like being bullied and picked on. They’re bringing up stuff from 2016.”

He speculated that Twitch banned him for a “revenge porn” incident in which he allegedly sent nudes to a then-teenage streamer’s mother, but he said that he just showed her mother her Instagram account, and that she was 18 at the time. “This is a mistake from Twitch,” he concluded, adding that he’s going to start streaming on YouTube tomorrow.

Despite a laundry list of alleged infractions, Twitch took its time in banning Larsen. Back in 2018, he’d already been suspended numerous times, including in 2016 after he harassed a Riot employee. In a video Larsen released after Runefest 2018, he said Twitch would have perma-banned him had “someone at Twitch” not intervened on his behalf. Instead, the company suspended him for a month and prevented him from attending TwitchCon, suggesting it was well aware of the severity of his actions at Runefest. Since then, Larsen has managed to continue growing his Twitch audience all the way up to half a million followers. Larsen’s ban comes nearly a year after Twitch’s #MeToo reckoning, which resulted in the company banning several streamers accused of sexual assault and vowing to “continue to assess accusations against people affiliated with Twitch and explore ways Twitch can collaborate with other industry leaders on this important issue.” Months later, the company also ended up parting ways with an employee accused of sexual assault by a streamer.

Jenna hopes that some good comes of Larsen’s Twitch ban. “I feel bad, really, but he’s doing it to himself,” she said. “Obviously what he’s doing is awful and unforgivable. He really needs to get help, or he’s going to keep hurting people. That’s all there is to it. Maybe Twitch banning him will force him into going and getting that help.”

In response to Larsen’s Twitch ban and everything else that has happened, Eve told Kotaku that she’s “happy and ready to move forward,” but that Larsen’s response to his ban left her cold.

“He never reached out to me, and all I wanted was some acknowledgement and a private sincere apology,” Eve wrote in a DM. “He has been doing the same stuff for over 10 years. If he wanted to write off my story as him being a kid, then why didn’t this behavior end when he grew up? I honestly was hopeful after writing my story he would reach out, apologize, and I could move on and tell him I forgive him. But that video just showed me how not sorry he was, and deserved to be banned. I have no doubt in my mind if he weren’t banned, there would be more stories in the future of Ali sexually assaulting or harassing women. Without being held accountable, I don’t think he would see a reason to change.”

.

Recommended Stories



Read original article here