>>28950269>>28949672lmao that is one of the most biased articles i've ever read. It honestly reads like a fairy tale. I mean look at this shit:
Streamer's actions
>Focusing on community>Getting non-monetary rewards>Enriching social capital>Becoming a non-commercial influencerAnd the best one, Viewer's social actions
>Co-experiencing with other viewers>Meeting new people (lmao)>Rewarding the streamer (contradicts the non-monetary point that was pointed out before)>Shopping (??? is this their way of representing sponsors lol?)>Deviant behavior banned (fucking RUMAO)What is this Barney's Playground? I read the whole article and not one SINGLE negative point come up, the title of the article is "Interpersonal Relations and Social Actions on Live Streaming Services.
A Systematic Review on Cyber-social Relations" and you're telling me in whatever research they did not find a single negative example of streamer - viewer social dynamic? Get the fuck out of here, the article i pasted earlier about TV shows gave some positives even if the result was negative. This one fails to explore any notion of negativity, thats absolutely ridiculous, what did they use as sources? Fucking PBS streams with an audience of toddlers?
Also i went to the sources and why the fuck are like 70% of the articles by chinese authors? Idk, seems kinda sus to me. I'm all for reading opposing viewpoints but come on, read that whole thing its so one sided its comical.
