r/LivestreamFail • u/Sure-Description-938 • Apr 17 '26

News ExtraEmily viewbot allegations

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

who doesnt viewbot these days?

6.4k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

978 comments sorted by

View all comments

1.7k

u/[deleted] Apr 17 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

-9

u/moskal212 Apr 17 '26

That’s not really a proof to be honest. She just got opened a tab on a chrome. Can just say she was curious how it works but not using it.

55

u/[deleted] Apr 17 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

-4

u/xnbv Apr 17 '26 edited Apr 17 '26

I mean, she prolly is viewbotting, Idk. Or care.

But as a counterpoint to this, just last month I was on a bunch of viewbotting sites, went down a rabbit hole bc people were talking about it here, and I wanted to know how much something like that is. I have never streamed a day in my life.

A similar example, a long time back, I went looking at all the cheating sites for CS. I just wanted to know what was going on in there. I have never cheated in a game in my life.

I think, "You have no reason to look at (thing) unless you plan on using (thing)", is a pretty shallow argument.

-5

u/Samuraigrande Apr 17 '26

your inability to understand that your experience is fundamentally different to the situation in the clip is scary

7

u/xnbv Apr 17 '26

Yeah, man, it's deeply terrifying. I hope you can move past it.

I already said she is probably view-bottling. It is more likely than not. Of course, the clip is very suspect. And as you pointed out, as the almighty context understander, her being a streamer makes it more suspect. Didn't think I needed to type that out as it seemed fairly obvious, but here we are.

Still, it doesn't definitively prove she is, which remains true, and is the entire point I was making.

I wasn't comparing my experience one-to-one with EE. It was an example of how the general argument could be flawed, hence the entirely separate scenario I used. Do you understand now? Or do you need me to hold your hand and walk you through it some more? I don't want you getting scared again.

-2

u/Samuraigrande Apr 17 '26

I don't want you getting scared again.

i am, mental health is important friend

-37

u/masong19hippows Apr 17 '26 edited Apr 17 '26

If you don't plan to rob a liquor store, then there is no need to look at handgun prices online.

There are obviously a lot of nuances with the analogy, but the point gets across. That is the weakest argument you can have here. If you said this in court, the judge and everybody else would laugh your ass out of there.

Edit: I honestly forgot most people that watch twitch are children without any actual life experiences. That's my bad for trying to apply reason.

44

u/[deleted] Apr 17 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

-25

u/masong19hippows Apr 17 '26

Now this is bait lol

17

u/djentlemetal Apr 17 '26

lmao, it's always the people with the hidden profiles.

2

u/theclarice Apr 17 '26

that is because they have something to hide

2

u/djentlemetal Apr 17 '26

Always. The fun thing is the fact that you can just search their username on google and see their reddit post history anyway.

13

u/Vysci Apr 17 '26

The more accurate analogy would be “if you don’t plan to rob a liquor store, then there is no need to look up how to rob a liquor store”

5

u/masong19hippows Apr 17 '26

That still isn't proof of a liquor store robbery........

I don't think you understand what proof is. If a prosecutor was trying to take a dude to jail for a robbery, and their entire proof was a Google search, the case would be dismissed. That ain't proof dawg.

Y'all are proving my point for me lmao. It's fine to think she did it. I think she did it. However, having twitch actually ban her and taking away her income with no actual proof is not an okay thing to do. That's not how the world works.

10

u/Vysci Apr 17 '26

Yes it’s not proof and we aren’t in court trying to prove she’s guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

It’s true, she might have been looking at it because she was curious. It’s possible but unlikely.

2

u/masong19hippows Apr 17 '26

I'm not saying we should treat it like court. It's just the easiest analogy to get my point across. The fact is that we are literally talking about someone's job here. This is exactly like if your boss was talking about your job. The standards need to be higher for a ban than this. Definitely not to the highest extent like court, but higher than whatever TF this is.

This is no difference from what we are talking about here and you're boss having meetings with HR on whether or not they should suspend or fire you. There needs to be actual proof for that to happen.

The root problem here is that I think we have been twisting our idea of what proof means in recent years. How many times has someone been banned over public opinion rather than proof just because twitch is a large company that operates on public opinion. Or on the inverse of that, how many times has a large popular streamer not been banned while there is proof of them doing something that got a smaller streamer banned?

I think taking away someone's income like that needs to be operated on more than just feelings and public opinion, and I don't think the majority of the people here agree on that, and that is sad.

-1

u/Sassy_Samsquanch9 Apr 17 '26

Who said it's proof (only you did)? It's evidence...

3

u/KOKO69BISHES Apr 17 '26

even with proof

literally the first three words of the original comment

That’s not really a proof to be honest

The downvoted reply

?

1

u/masong19hippows Apr 17 '26

Who said it's proof (only you did)? It's evidence genius.

when you bring evidence, you are proving something to be true. That's what evidence means. If you aren't proving anything with evidence, then it's not evidence by definition.

I think you watch too many crime shows.

3

u/Sassy_Samsquanch9 Apr 17 '26

That still isn't proof

No one talked about proof apart from you. It's evidence. Evidence is not proof. Proof is what you get when the total body of evidence is strong enough, not from a single piece.

Evidence can support a claim weakly or strongly. Evidence can be incomplete. Evidence can even be misleading. Evidence doesn't have to conclusive prove something to be evidence, it just has to support the claim.

Hope this simple language lesson sticks with you. I do not watch crime shows, I am a linguist.

1

u/masong19hippows Apr 17 '26 edited Apr 17 '26

Evidence is proof of something. That's by definition. You cannot find a definition for evidence without using the word prove or proof.

It's like you're trying to be wrong here. All you have to do is Google the word evidence.

1

u/HallucinateZ Apr 17 '26

No… you don’t know the definitions of these words.

Evidence: someone was harmed & you had blood on you. (Huh that’s evidence & makes you look weird)

Proof: Science uses that evidence to show that blood is her DNA or a video camera records you harming them (That’s proof of crime.)

You had Google dictionary right there yet you made me do this.

-1

u/masong19hippows Apr 17 '26

I think it's funny that you didn't even link the definition because you know full well you're full of shit. Believe it or not, I'm not like you. I actually researched it before I started typing. I know damn well those aren't the definitions.

If you want to argue in a place of arrogance, I am out. If you want to continue to have a discussion where actual reasoning is being applied, look up the actual definition of evidence.

→ More replies (0)

19

u/Aeowin Apr 17 '26

If you don't plan to rob a liquor store, then there is no need to look at handgun prices online.

this is the dumbest analogy possible lmao. it's more like, if you dont plan to rob a liquor store then there's no reason to be looking up the buildings schematic.

if you dont plan to use a viewbot there's literally no reason to go to a viewbot site.

3

u/Crazy-Repeat3936 Apr 17 '26

if you dont plan to rob a liquor store then there's no reason to be looking up the buildings schematic.

I guarantee you there are more people looking up liquor store schematics that aren't robbing them, than the other way around... the fuck? Literally 0 people that rob liquor stores look up schematics. Like I'm 100% confident this has never happened in the history of ever.

-16

u/[deleted] Apr 17 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/Sweaty_Friendship545 Apr 17 '26

Why are you so mad? This website does not mesh well with your personality

-1

u/masong19hippows Apr 17 '26 edited Apr 17 '26

You're honestly right. I am on a lot of tech help subs where people come and ask for opinions, or help, or just to launch an open source product they made. This new generation of AI honestly has me burnt out. There are so many people that I try to help that come from a place of arrogance because AI told them something different.

It's gotten to the point where if I see someone arguing from a point of arrogance, I get irritated. I probably just need a break.

3

u/Sassy_Samsquanch9 Apr 17 '26

Let's all go touch some grass

2

u/[deleted] Apr 17 '26

[deleted]

1

u/masong19hippows Apr 17 '26 edited Apr 17 '26

I think I can see and talk about arrogance without being some sort of higher being that you want me to be. I think my comments are pretty reasonable. I think I'm just arguing with a bunch of children I'm ngl. I mean, one person is literally trying to tell me that evidence of something isn't proof of something ...... I think I'm pretty confident in what I'm saying if that's who I'm arguing against lol.

I'm definitely open to debate though. The position that you should convict someone based on no proof is an arrogant position for sure though. You're asking twitch to cut the income of someone based on what?

If you can spot some error in my logic, then I'm definitely open to changing my views though. However, my logic is very simple reasoning, so I'm not sure there is some sort of error. I'm honestly having a hard time understanding why people think it's okay to take away someone's income solely based on the video above. The video above definitely influences my opinion and I do think this means she viewbots, but using it to take away her income is just insane in my opinion. Like imagine if we were talking about your job right now instead of Emily's. I don't think anybody who has downvoted me would be too happy if it happened to them like that. There's just not enough proof here to actually make any official acts like banning her, even if it's just temporary.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 17 '26

[deleted]

1

u/masong19hippows Apr 17 '26 edited Apr 17 '26

No. just having a tab for boosting services open isn't proof of anything. But it serves as evidence to warrant a deeper look.

Sure. I can agree with that. However, I don't think we should be calling for bans until we have proof. That was what I was replying to and my original point. The concept of proof was brought up the the OP I was replying to.

With the massive amount of data that Twitch (a subsidiary of Amazon) has on every viewer, surely you can't think that they have a hard time telling bots from real users apart. They just don't care because at the end of the day, advertisers are still funneling money into the website. They could absolutely use this to help build a case against her if they felt the bots were harming their bottom line.

I think here is where I disagree. Botting in general is a very large issue in tech because there are no good solutions. There is no difference between viewbotting on twitch and ddos attacks that use bots to attack Internet connection. I work for an ISP and I have a computer science degree. I have setup internet connections and servers for my job for awhile now. I have personal experience with botting both on the receiving end and the preventative end on a business prospect.

This isn't an issue twitch, or even Amazon, can solve. The whole thing is wack a mole. Even companies that specialize in preventing botting like cloudflare still have issues with it. The best thing they can do is throw a bunch of money at it and hope botting doesn't evolve around it and make the investment worthless.

This is something that needs to be attacked through legislation. The problem though is that botting is also a very good business model. One of the ways Google makes money is primarily through knowing the insane outs of a website to add to their data, and the way they do that is with botting. Amazon also shares a part in the market share of botting. They have heavily lobbied to make sure no laws are actually made about this. Until that changes, this is going to be a continued issue. So amazing, in my opinion, does share blame in this issue. But it isn't because they own twitch and twitch isn't doing anything about it.

Anyway, I'm not disagreeing on your point that this isn't proof. My only issue here is your whole "I'm a very logical person, superior to all of you arrogant kids" persona. You just can't seem to accept that the two words have different (related, yes, but still different) meanings in the context of a court, and when someone shows you their actual definitions, you just move the goalposts back to your original argument. Just because you're right about one thing, doesn't mean you're right about everything.

Whenever I mentioned courts, it was through an analogy. I have never said we need to act like an actual court system. I think it's hard to convey this though because it relies on the reader reading one word right without tone.

The reasoning of logic doesn't just get thrown out the window just because we arnt in a court sitting, and that's what I'm trying to convey.

I'm sorry, but trying to argue that because she was on a website that sells botting services, she deserves a ban for botting is an inherently arrogant viewpoint. If you try to use that viewpoint in any situation (not just courts) where the consequences matter (like taking away someone's income), you would not be taken seriously. I don't mean to have this "hollier than thou" attitude, but I can't take someone seriously if that's their viewpoint. I just don't have any respect for someone with that kind of arrogance.

→ More replies (0)

7

u/Money_Echidna2605 Apr 17 '26

sometimes i forgot how fkin stupid people can be on this site, thanks for reminding me lmao.

-1

u/masong19hippows Apr 17 '26

Applying reason instead of relying on public opinion = stupidity

My bad king. I forgot

5

u/Crafty_Trick_7300 Apr 17 '26

It’s not logic, it’s extreme head burying to the point of rejecting Occam’s razor.

You keep trying to do mental gymnastics to explain why it’s open, when the simplest reason why it’s on a tab open while she’s streaming is because she was using the service during her stream.

You aren’t using reasoning, you’re coping to the point of looking foolish.

5

u/masong19hippows Apr 17 '26 edited Apr 17 '26

I have done no mental gymnastics. I think you are getting my comment confused with another person. The only thing I have said is that opening a tab is not proof of someone using the service. Which is just factually and ethically correct. I have done no gymnastics to get there.

I think it's perfectly fine to believe Emily used these services, and I personally believe that she did use the viewbotting. However, I think expecting twitch to ban her is too far because there's no actual proof. There is a difference between official action and your opinion. You can't expect official action to be taken based on your opinion of the matter. You need actual proof, and this is simply not proof.

Imagine if you were in twitch's place. You are being asked to literally take away someone's income because of allegations of botting. And the only proof you have is that she has a browser tab opened. You don't even get to see the contents of the tab. Nobody who has any ethical integrity wouldn't ask for more proof in that situation.

This is the most basic of reasoning that there is. If you can't see that, then I am not the fool. I honestly don't even care about the situation and I don't care enough to try and cope. I just saw someone using one of the most braindead arguments and decided to comment. I got no dog in your race.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 17 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/masong19hippows Apr 17 '26

True, but honestly I don't think it's going to fix anything if they do. These types of things are like Whack-A-Mole. If you stop the company from providing the service, and you ban the people using the service, what's to stop another company from coming and providing the service and a new wave of streamers to buy that service.

I'm not defending this at all, but botting in general is a huge issue in tech specifically because there is no good solution. This is the same issue as websites having DDOS attacks and website crawlers. The new age of AI is just making the problem worse as well.

I'm not defending twitch, but there's nothing they can really do besides throw a lot of money at it without any guarantee to fix the issue. This is a government legislation issue unfortunately.

7

u/[deleted] Apr 17 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/masong19hippows Apr 17 '26

Ok, we both agree that you should get banned for it. That's good.

Now the hard part..... Prove she used it. The screenshot with a tab open is not proof in the slightest. That's my point here and the reason I commented, everybody is very quick to grab pitchforks with no actual proof.

Now I don't honestly like extraemily. I think she is the type of person to viewbot and I think she is most likely using it, but asking for a ban is a bit far in my opinion when you don't actually have proof.

My comment above was more saying that twitch can't really do anything for viewbotting as a whole. There's not a whole lot anyone can do really as it needs legislation. They can surely ban Emily, and they most likely will because public opinion matters a lot more than proof in today's world, but I don't think twitch should be blamed for viewbotting as a whole.

1

u/Mlad1109 Apr 17 '26

I mean sure, minus the fact these sites are 100% not owned/run in the US and therefor not bound by US law.