>>79485534Unfortunately, your argument is flimsier than Gura's grip. Indeed many vtubers participate in handcam streams, but such practice is hardly surprising on the internet, home of the media mix. That shouldn't compel us to dilute the meaning of vtuber as it is rightly understood.
As I've stated, on a common use level, every reasonable person understands "vtuber" as referring to youtubers who perform with a virtual avatar based in digital technology. Indeed, the notion of "vtubing" did not exist until such technologies as motion capture and live2d emerged as new means of producing video content. That technology is the basis of the term.
So we see that the essential component of vtubing is the virtual avatar, and to show one's real flesh negates the essentially virtual part of vtubing. You might go on to argue that the presence of the aforementioned technologies is sufficient to quality content as "vtubing" but in fact the presence of flesh renders the avatar a mere prop for the live-action performer. Again, as I said, in exposing their flesh they are no longer "virtual" just plain youtubers.
We must protect the purity of vtubing as essentially, wholly virtual, or vtubing has lost all meaning!
