Connect with us

Industry

YouTuber Coffee Break Accuses Kurzgesagt of Being Untrustworthy, Founder Responds

Advertisements

Published

on

  • A YouTube channel called Coffee Break released a video accusing prominent science channel Kurzgesagt of being untrustworthy and released one-sided emails of his conversations with its founder, Philipp Dettmer.
  • Coffee Break says Dettmer deleted videos off the Kurzgesagt channel that had misinformation in them, but only after he knew Coffee break was working on a project that would criticize one video.
  • Dettmer responded to questions in an AMA on Reddit explaining his side of the story and allowed for the full emails to be released.

Coffee Break

Popular YouTube channel Kurzgesagt has been accused of being untrustworthy by smaller YouTuber who was preparing to release a video critical of Kurzgesagts “Addiction” video.

Kurzgesagt is a well-known science channel with over 8 million subscribers. The channel is most known for its“In a Nutshell” videos, which take complex topics and break them down into more digestible pieces.

On Tuesday, a YouTuber named Stephen, from the channel Coffee Break, posted a video where he breaks down an experience he had communicating with Philipp Dettmer, Kurzgesagt’s founder.

Stephen starts his video with the question, “Can you trust Kurzgesagt videos?” to which he responded, “No. And, ironically, the reason you can’t trust them is that this video exists at all.”

He goes on to say he is working on a series about the “pop-science” genre, and how the simplification of complicated topics can lead to misinformation.

He specifically sites a TED Talk by Johann Hari called “Everything you know about addiction is wrong,” and Kurzgesagt’s 2015 adaptation of the TED Talk called “Addiction.”

Stephen said he reached out to both Hari and Dettmer to talk about the video and ask questions about possible errors in it. He said Dettmer responded almost immediately and requested to not be quoted. As a result, Stephen only shares his half of the emails in his video and gives paraphrased versions of Dettmer’s emails.

After the Coffee Break video was uploaded, Dettmer posted an “Ask Me Anything” post on Kurzgesagt’s subreddit, so people could ask him questions regarding the video.


Philipp Dettmer’s AMA post

In the thread, Dettmer authorized the release of his half of the emails, which were uploaded into an imgur file almost immediately by Stephen.

The Emails

Stephen shows his first email to Dettmer, saying that he emailed him on Feb. 2 with “some tough questions about the video on Addiction that Kurzgesagt did.”

He continued that because the video was one of Kurzgesagt’s most popular, he was “worried that some of the major claims in that video are vastly simplified, if not outright incorrect.”

Stephen also asked: “Did Kurzgesagt conduct an independent fact-checking of Johann Hari’s book before agreeing to this?”

Source: CoffeeBreakYT- imagur

Stephen then paraphrases Dettmer’s first email in response: “Essentially he’s not thrilled about the interview or video idea, he was worried that the video might be a call out. He basically says ‘hey the addiction video wasn’t perfect, but I feel it was good enough.'”

However, in the actual email, Dettmer directly says he would “not make a video like that today for obvious reasons.” He acknowledged that “it’s not difficult to find criqitue of Hari’s work nowadays,” but said it was not common when the video was made.

Dettmer then says that he has received “countless messages” from people who told him the video helped them, and so he could not bring himself to take it down. He concludes his email by saying while addiction is a complicated topic, he believes the video can exist as a helpful opinion.

Source: CoffeeBreakYT- imagur

It’s also important to note the criticisms of Hari. Hari’s argument is that addiction is largely psychological, and not chemical, a theory that has received pushed back from many experts.

The main thing to note here is a question posed by Stephen in his original email, where he askes if Dettmer was aware of a public scandal Hari had that “threw his credibility in question.”

Source: CoffeeBreakYT- imagur

The scandal Dettmer is referring to was from back in 2011, when Hari was accused of plagiarizing other journalists work, and then anonymously editing Wikipedia pages to discredit people who criticized him.

Stephen then describes the next two email interactions with Dettmer, saying he shared his idea and some criticism. He said that Dettmer responded by saying he was busy traveling, and told him to wait until early March for an interview.

However, there are important parts of these emails that Stephen does not talk about in the video.

In Stephen’s email, he does explain his project, but he also challenges Dettmer’s claim that criticisms of Hari’s work were not available at the time, writing: “There are problems with Hari’s work, not just looking back from 2015, but holes in his research that were easily available at the time.”

Source: CoffeeBreakYT- imagur

Dettmer responded in his email that he did confront Hari about the critique, but that he was not comfortable discussing it with Stephen, because he felt Stephen’s project was a gotcha video.

Source: CoffeeBreakYT- imagur

Stephen’s Accusations

After showing the emails, Stephen launches into the main accusations he’s making:

“And March 3 was the day I found what Philipp had been really busy doing, too busy to answer my questions. He had been busy making my video, for me, for his channel. He even did me the favor and interviewed himself by answering all my questions.”

Stephen goes on to show clips from the video and how they correspond with the questions in his emails. He then goes on to show clips from the video where it talks about how oversimplification can be distorting and provides a brief clip where Kurzgesagt says they deleted the addiction video.

However, in Kurzgesagt’s full video, they actually go in depth as to how they conduct research and how that system has evolved over the years.

They say that some older videos do not live up to current standards and that they have been trying to figure out what to do with them for a while. The video then says they were not proud of the video about addiction and another about refugees, and so they removed them.

Stephen then accuses Dettmer of preempting his own research and stalling the interview so he could get ahead of the criticism. He adds that it is unfair for larger creators to steal content from smaller creators and goes on to say that there is no way this could be a coincidence.

However, Dettmer refutes this in the AMA.

When asked if he removed the addiction video because of the Coffee Break video, Dettmer says that he had been working on script regarding the addiction video and removing it for two years, but did not want to tell Stephon because he believed his video was going to be a “hostile takedown.”

Source: Philipp Dettmer AMA

Johann Hari

Finally, Stephen talks about Johann Hari.

He shows a clip from “Can You Trust Kurzgesagt Videos?” which said: “The addiction video was based on only one source that has amassed a lot of criticism over the years, that addiction is purely physiological and based on the life circumstances of the individual.”  

Stephen explains that Hari does not believe that addiction is purely psychological and that that idea was only a simplification that came from condensing his book into a 15 minute TED Talk.

He says if you look at Hari’s book and any interview’s he’s done, he does not actually hold such a simplified view and assets that Dettmer never read Hari’s book.

Stephen then plays a clip of a phone conversation he had with Hari, where he essentially says no one believes that addiction is purely environmental or purely chemical, and accuses Dettmer of scapegoating Hari and portraying him as crazy.

Dettmer refuted this as well on the AMA. When asked if he did read Hari’s book, Dettmer wrote: “Of course I did. After reading it, I very enthusiastically emailed him and asked him to collaborate on the video.”

Dettmer also noted that Hari wrote most of the script, Which is the reason why it has such a big overlap with his Ted Talk.”

Source: Philipp Dettmer AMA

The Two Email’s Not Discussed

There were also two emails included in the imgur file that Stephen did not talk about in his video.

In the last of Stephen’s emails that he released, he says that he spoke to Hari, and that his story changed considerably after their conversation.

That conversation might explain why Stephen starts defending Hari’s work later in the video. Stephen also does not discuss the controversies he claimed discredit Hari and prove that his work could be considered “false information.” A fact that is worth noting because the discussion of the factual basis of Hari’s work was a huge talking point in the emails between Stephen and Dettmer.

Source: CoffeeBreakYT – imgur

The final email was actually from Dettmer on Feb. 21. He asked Stephen to send him questions and tells him he can talk to him the next week.

Source: CoffeeBreakYT – imgur

Stephen never responded to Dettmer’s email asking him for questions and trying to schedule the interview.

This fact was pointed out in a Reddit thread and Stephen responded by saying the only day he could have done the interview was March 1. He says that day he was busy polishing a video and before that he was on vacation.

Source: Coffeebreak42 – Reddit

The timeline here is odd because one of Stephen’s biggest complaints is that he was never given an interview before Kurzgesagt’s video was released.

However, it seems like he was given an interview, and he was just busy.

It is also clear that he never even sent the questions to Dettmer, which could indicate the interview was not actually a top priority for him.

Finally, Stephen concludes the video by saying you can only trust Kurzgesagt to do what’s best for himself and his channel and to make him look good, even if it means taking other people’s research, saying: “Simply put, I don’t think you can trust him to do the right thing when no one’s watching.

Rogue Rocket reached out to Dettmer for comment and he responded with the following statement:

I didn’t stall him with malice in mind, but I also didn’t motivate him to work faster. Of course I wanted to have the first word on my own failings. I have been working on and off on the video since early 2017, which made it extra frustrating. So I decided to finish the video and release it. It felt like the right thing to do. I never would have thought that he’d go this far and purposefully misrepresented our email conversation. It is sad this whole thing happened. I really would have done the interview with him. I said anything else that is relevant in the AMA in our sub.

See what others are saying: (Johann Hari TED Talk) (Kurzgesagt “Addiction”) (Reddit AMA)

Advertisements

Industry

Authorities Accuse 17-Year-Old of Orchestrating July’s Massive Bitcoin Twitter Hack, Teen Has More Than $3M in Bitcoin

Published

on

  • Three people were charged on Friday in connection to a massive Twitter bitcoin hack in July that compromised dozens of high profile accounts, including those of Kim Kardashian-West, Kanye West, and former President Barack Obama.
  • Among those charged was 17-year-old Graham Ivan Clark who reportedly stole nearly $180,000 and is being described as the mastermind behind the attack.
  • On Sunday, the Tampa Bay Times reported that Clark has over $3 million in bitcoin, and prosecutors believe that money was also obtained illegally. 
  • This is not Clark’s first run in with authorities. Last year, they seized cash and $700,000 bitcoin in a criminal investigation, though he was never charged.

17-Year-Old “Mastermind” Arrested

In news that would otherwise appear to come straight from a best-selling young adult heist novel, a 17-year-old Florida teen has been charged as the “mastermind” behind Twitter’s largest hack ever. Reportedly, he’s also worth $3 million in bitcoin. 

That hack, which happened on July 15, successfully infiltrated dozens of high-profile accounts including: Kim Kardashian-West, Kanye, Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, former President Barack Obama, and presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden. It also attacked Twitter accounts for companies like Apple and Uber.

All of those accounts then tweeted out some variation of the same message: “I am giving back to my community due to Covid-19! All Bitcoin sent to my address below will be sent back doubled. If you send $1,000, I will send back $2,000! Only doing this for the next 30 minutes! Enjoy.” 

On Friday, state authorities arrested 17-year-old Graham Ivan Clark in Tampa, Fl. Though he reportedly lives alone and is a recent high school graduate, Clark is still a minor, which is why he was not arrested by federal officials. He will be tried as an adult.

Clark faces 30 different felonies, including 17 counts of communications fraud and one count of fraudulent use of personal information (over $100,000 or 30 or more victims).

On July 16, the Federal Bureau of Investigation announced it was opening an investigation into the hack. The same day that Clark was arrested and charged, two others were charged by federal agents. 

One of those men, 22-year-old Nima Fazeli of Orlando, Fl., has been arrested by federal agents. The other, 19-year-old Mason John Sheppard of the United Kingdom, still hasn’t been arrested but the FBI is expecting him to be taken into custody soon. 

How Clark Hacked Twitter 

Despite many details around Clark being restricted because he is a minor, a criminal affidavit from Florida has still revealed some of the specifics behind how that attack happened.

According to that affidavit, Clark gained access to a portion of Twitter’s network on May 3. Reportedly, this happened after Clark convinced a Twitter employee that he was also an employee in the technology department. He then told the real employee that he needed their  credentials to access the customer service portal.

From there, the affidavit jumps to July 15 and it’s not clear what happened between then, but according to Zdnet, “it appears Clark wasn’t immediately able to pivot from his initial entry point to the Twitter admin tool that he later used to take over accounts.”

In fact, according to The New York Times, he only got access to those credentials after he found a way into Twitter’s internal Slack workspaces and saw them posted there. 

Still, that alone was not enough for him to make his way past Twitter’s two-factor authentication. Likely, he maneuvered around that through what Twitter called a “phone spear phishing attack.”

“The attack on July 15, 2020, targeted a small number of employees through a phone spear phishing attack,” Twitter Support said on Thursday. “This attack relied on a significant and concerted attempt to mislead certain employees and exploit human vulnerabilities to gain access to our internal systems.”

The affidavit accuses Discord user Kirk#5270, believed to be Clark, of initiating the attacks.

“I work for Twitter,” Kirk said in a chatroom on July 15. “I can claim any @. Let me know. Don’t tell anyone.”

Soon after, Sheppard and Fazeli joined under separate usernames of their own, and the three reportedly began selling access to Twitter accounts. 

However, this attack is different from the one that targeted personalities like Kim K. Instead, this attack focused on stealing short handles like @drug, @xx, @vampire.

By the end of it, Kirk was accused of netting around $33,000 in bitcoin. Sheppard is accused of acquiring around $7,000 in bitcoin. Fazeli is accused of having worked in cooperation with the two in exchange for a Twitter handle he wanted. 

From here, the criminal complaints against Sheppard and Fazeli end. Of course, that wasn’t the end of the attack. Later that same day, the main hack against numerous high profiles figures began. 

By the end of that, Clark had reportedly stolen around $177,000 from both attacks.

How the 17-Year-Old “Mastermind” Got Caught

If the first part of their plan went off without a hitch, the latter half did not. The alleged criminals reportedly failed to hide their real identities and scrambled to hide their stolen money once the hack went public. Such mistakes led to a quick discovery of their identities by law enforcement.

Clark himself has faced legal trouble before, as well.

According to  the Tampa Bay Times on Sunday, he has 300 Bitcoin — making him worth more than $3 million. Prosecutors have argued that most — if not all of that money — was likely illegally obtained, though Clark’s attorney has denied that claim. 

Last year, Clark was the subject of a criminal investigation where authorities seized $15,000 in cash and 400 bitcoin. Ultimately, Clark was never charged, prosecutors returned 300 bitcoin to him. 

While July’s Twitter hack stirred up significant (and justified) fear over just how easy it was for hackers to target users, as of now, it is unknown if this hack had any more sinister intentions outside of stealing money.

See what others are saying: (Tampa Bay Times) (Zdnet) (WIRED)

Advertisements
Continue Reading

Industry

James Charles, Tana Mongeau, and Erika Costell Apologize for Attending Parties During Pandemic

Published

on

  • Youtube and TikTok personalities have recently come under fire for attending parties during the ongoing coronavirus pandemic.
  • After much backlash online for attending a party last week, YouTuber James Charles issued a text apology within a new video, calling it a “selfish and stupid decision.”
  • Viral footage from Tana Mongeau’s social media showed her and Erika Costell at another party Saturday, saying “We don’t care!” which many interpreted as their stance on the pandemic.
  • Both later issued text apologies for attending parties and clarified that the comment was in reference to suspected drama between them.

Influencers Just Want to Party

Influencers James Charles, Tana Mongeau, and Erika Costell have issued apologies for attending parties during the coronavirus pandemic after widespread backlash.

On July 21, an estimated 70 people gathered at a Hollywood Hills home to celebrate Hype House member Larray Merritt’s birthday. Influencers in attendance included James Charles, Tana Mongeau, Nikita Dragun, and the D’Amelio sisters.

The guests were widely criticized for ignoring social distancing recommendations and not wearing face masks after fans and fellow creators saw photos and videos of the party online. Despite online backlash, most creators were silent about being involved with the party, only Larray issued a quick apology.

James Charles Apology

Photos of the event showed James Charles ignoring social distancing guidelines and not wearing a mask. Most of these images have since expired from his Instagram story, but on Twitter, he still has a photo up with the caption, “uhh, I think this is the best paparazzi photo I’ve ever taken oh my god.”

It wasn’t until Saturday, after delaying a video he was supposed to have released on Friday, that he finally broke his silence on the matter.

Saturday’s video is titled A Day in the Life of James Charles,” and shows what the title suggests. Around 17 minutes in, there’s footage of James in an Uber, wearing a mask on his way to the party. The video also shows him at the party wearing a mask, albeit ignoring social distancing.

Then the video cuts to the following message, “Hi sisters! I decided to cut the party footage from the video. Even though I have been wearing a mask in public and have tested negative multiple times, going to a party during a pandemic was a selfish & stupid decisions. People’s safety and keeping COVID-19 contained is FAR more important than celebrating a friend’s birthday and unsafe partying is not something I want to promote to my audience.”

“I recognize that with my platform comes responsibility,” he continued, adding, “and I encourage you guys to be smarter than I was – Wear your masks and continue to social distance. Love you.”

The message stays on screen for 12 seconds before showing footage of James speaking with paparazzi while standing outside of the party.

His apology for attending the party was met with severe backlash online.

“James Charles apology is bs. He knew what he was doing when he went and he knew he shouldn’t go but he didn’t care. He’s only apologizing because he got in trouble and the same with everyone else apologizing,” wrote one user.

However, there were people who defended the YouTuber, saying, “Y’all just an excuse to hate, nothing ever pleases you all, he could’ve made a 1 hr long apology and y’all still would have been shitting on him, he messed up…”

One Party Is Bad Enough…

While James faced critiques over attending Larray’s party, Tana has received particular backlash for attending at least three parties during the pandemic: one at Jake Paul’s home, Larray’s birthday bash, and another party on Saturday.

Outrage against her grew after an Instagram story she posted with Erika Costell Satursady made it seem like the two were making light the pandemic. In the now-expired Instagram live story, the two can be heard saying, “Listen, we don’t fucking care.”

The video quickly caused outrage, and users wrote things like, “Nobody is surprised at the fact that tana mongoose is out there partying everyday day and instead of posting an apology shes out there saying “we dont fucking care” during a whole ass pandemic.”

Although, it’s worth noting that many pointed out that both women were involved with Jake Paul, leading to theories that the post was actually about that.

The confusion was clarified on Sunday night, when Costell tweeted out, “Hey guys – I just want to apologize for the video that was posted last night on Tanas Instagram story. The comment we made as NOT intended as it was perceived. Saying “we don’t care” was about our previous “beef”. It was in no way related to the COVID-19 pandemic we are in.”

She went on to add that she understands why people were offended, calling her attendance “careless and stupid.”

“I am truly sorry to anyone I let down or upset in any way & I fully take accountability for my actions,” she added.

A few hours later, Tana followed up with her own apology on her Instagram story.

“Partying/going to any social gatherings during a global pandemic was such a careless and irresponsible action on my behalf. I fully hold myself accountable for this + will be staying inside,” she wrote.

Actions like that don’t deserve a platform and I want to fully apologize and be better than this. I’m sorry. While Erika and I were referring to past drama in our video the topic no longer matters – I need to be a example and person.”

Tana Mongeau apologizes for party with Erika Costell
Tana’s apology as seen on her Instagram Story, July 27, 2020.

While many appreciated that an apology and explanation was finally given, not everyone was buying it. Many pointed out that Tana is constantly giving apologies over the various controversies that she seems to find herself in. YouTuber Elijah Daniel directly called out Tana and Erika for partying, and later added that he was fed up with influencers constantly apologizing and not actually changing.

“hi influencers caught partying, this video is for you. spread this to your fans on ALL of your platforms (since you don’t mind spreading things!), then self quarantine for 14 days and come back and we will consider even reading your apologies.”

See What Others Are Saying: (Dexerto) (Vulture) (Newsweek)

Advertisements
Continue Reading

Industry

US Army Suspends Twitch Streaming Amid Recruitment Concerns and Free Speech Controversies

Published

on

  • The U.S. Army has faced substantial blowback for banning Twitch users asking about war crimes on its eSports channel, a move that potentially violates free speech laws.
  • The criticism has been so intense that the Army has now paused streaming on its Twitch channel, which it uses as a recruitment method. 
  • Also on Wednesday, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) filed a measure that aims to completely block the military from using Twitch to recruit. 
  • Separately, the Army has come under fire for seemingly hosting a fake giveaway that linked to a recruitment page. Twitch ultimately forced it to remove that giveaway, but the Army maintains that it was a legitimate giveaway.

Army Suspends Twitch Streaming

The United States Army has hit pause on the Twitch channel for its eSports team as of Wednesday, following mounting concerns that it has repeatedly violated First Amendment free speech laws by banning viewers who ask about everything from U.S. war crimes to Eddie Gallagher.

The news of the Army’s banning practice gained traction on July 8 when activist Jordan Uhl posted a clip of him asking about war crimes during a stream on the channel. Notably, the channel is used as a way for the Army to promote recruitment and talk with viewers about life in the military.

“What’s your favorite U.S. w4r cr1me?” Uhl asked after learning that “war crime” was already a banned phrase on the channel. 

Uhl also posted a link in the chatbox to the Wikipedia page for U.S. war crimes. He was then banned. 

“Have a nice time getting banned, my dude,” said Army recruiter and gamer Joshua “Strotnium” David.

On Saturday, Uhl was again banned for asking similar questions, this time on the Twitch channel for the Navy’s eSports team. Reportedly, others asking similar questions were also banned during that stream.

On Wednesday, the Knight First Amendment Institute then demanded that the Army and Navy change their banning practices. It also asked the Army to restore access for not only Uhl but also for 300 others who have been banned for similar comments. 

“When the government intentionally opens a space to the public at large for expressive activity, it has created a ‘public forum’ under the First Amendment, and it cannot constitutionally bar speakers from that forum based on viewpoint,” the Institute said in a letter to the two branches.

Later that same day, the Army announced it would suspend streaming on Twitch to “review internal policies and procedures, as well as all platform-specific policies.”

Still, a spokesperson for the Army has maintained that the branch did not violate free speech laws, arguing that people like Uhl were banned because the term war crimesis “meant to troll and harass the team.” 

AOC Files Measure to the Block Military from Twitch

Also on Wednesday, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) announced plans to file an amendment that would block the military from using video games and esports as recruitment methods. 

“It’s incredibly irresponsible for the Army and the Navy to be recruiting impressionable young people and children via live streaming platforms,” Ocasio-Cortez said.

“War is not a game,” she added while pointing to the Marine Corps, which is the only branch of the U.S. military that has refused to form an esports team.

For its part, the Marines have said it does not want to “gamify” combat since it is a military agency that deals in combat. 

“The Marine Corps’ decision not to engage in this recruiting tool should be a clear signal to the other branches of the military to cease this practice entirely,” Ocasio-Cortez said. 

Is the Army Violating the First Amendment on Twitch?

Uhl has maintained that he wasn’t simply trying to troll the Army eSports Team; rather, he said the reason he asked questions about war crimes was because he had heard rumors of people receiving bans by the Army and Navy for broaching such topics on their Twitch channels. 

“Was I undiplomatic? Sure,” Uhl said in an article posted on The Nation. “But if the military is going to use one of the world’s most popular platforms to recruit kids, then it shouldn’t be able to do so without some pushback. Right now, with the support of Twitch, gamers with the US military are spending hours with children as young as 13, trying to convince them to enlist.”

“While members of military e-sports teams offer the regular gaming skill set, they’re also on-screen talent and recruiters,” Uhl said. “Instead of approaching a recruiter behind a table in a school cafeteria, kids can hang out with one who is playing their favorite video games and replying to their chat messages for hours on end.”

While a normal Twitch streamer can generally moderate their channel however they want, public forums hosted by the government must abide by free speech laws. In fact, there’s even legal precedent to support this. 

For example, in June 2019, a federal appeals court ruled that President Trump can’t block critics from his Twitter account because it constitutes a public forum.

Despite that, in a statement, the Army originally argued that it banned Uhl because he had violated Twitch’s harassment policies.

“Team members are very clear when talking with potential applicants that a game does not reflect a real Army experience,” a spokesperson said following the July 8 incident. “They discuss their career experiences in real terms with factual events.”

“Team members ensure people understand what the Army offers through a realistic lens and not through the lens of a game meant for entertainment,” the spokesperson added. “This user’s question was an attempt to shift the conversation to imply that Soldiers commit war crimes based on an optional weapon in a game, and we felt that violated Twitch’s harassment policy.”

That spokesperson also went on to defend the Army by noting that it offers multiple career paths and that “the goal of the Army eSports Team is to accurately portray that range of opportunities to interested youth.”

Despite that, the statement quickly drew the ire of the American Civil Liberties Union, which responded on Twitter by saying, “Calling out the government’s war crimes isn’t harassment, it’s speaking truth to power. And banning users who ask important questions isn’t ‘flexing,’ it’s unconstitutional.” 

US Army Caught Seemingly Offering Fake Giveaways

In addition to free speech concerns, the Army has also found itself defending its recruitment practices on the platform.

Last week, Uhl accused the branch of “repeatedly” presenting viewers “with an automated chat prompt that says they could win a Xbox Elite Series 2 controller… and a link where they can enter the ‘giveaway.’” 

However, upon clicking that link, Uhl said he was redirected to a recruiting form with no additional information on the “contest, odds, total number of winners, or when a drawing will occur.”

The news prompted outrage among streamers and game developers who urged Twitch to take action against the Army’s esports channel. 

On Thursday, Twitch finally responded, telling Kotaku that it had forced the Army to stop advertising that giveaway, saying, “This promotion did not comply with our Terms, and we have required them to remove it.” 

Since then, an Army representative has said that, despite transparency issues, a legitimate giveaway system had been in place. 

“Each giveaway has its own URL and marketing activity code that directly connect the registrant to the specific giveaway,” the rep said. “An eligible winner is selected at random, and the prize is given out. Twitch asked our team to remove the giveaway for lack of transparency, and they did. The team is exploring options to use platforms for giveaways that will provide more external clarity.”

See what others are saying: (The New York Times) (Kotaku) (Vice)

Advertisements
Continue Reading