The German opinion blogger Tim “Kuchen.tv” Heldt will not become a Twitch partner. In response to an inquiry to Twitch, he was informed that his program largely consists of “reactionary” content. Kuchen.tv first had to be educated to understand what that meant, but was then shocked. He is not that right-wing.
What does he do?
- Kuchen.tv is a so-called opinion blogger: He essentially shows videos and content from others, interrupts them, and shares his opinion on them. He has just over 1 million subscribers on YouTube and also streams on Twitch.
- He has formats in which he comments on current events on Twitch and YouTube: His latest videos dealt with a contribution from funk, stating that hiking is racist, the Twitch ban of Scurrows, or with wrong decisions by Twitch.
- In recent weeks, Kuchen.tv seems to be focusing on creating content on YouTube, to which the German Twitch streamer MontanaBlack reacts. It seems that Kuchen.tv wants to grow and earn money.
Here’s what he says about his own situation: The streamer explains in a video where he criticizes Twitch that he no longer has a partner contract with Twitch:
“In the Cake News, I said that I don’t get the partnership because I make editorial content, so like reactions. However, Tobias Huch pointed out to me that it doesn’t say that at all. It says reactionary. That basically means I have outdated political worldviews. Translated, that means: I’m super-right for Twitch. How do they come to that?”
Kuchen.tv then shows a series of examples where he has expressed himself exemplary and progressively. He has been making videos about openness to the world and tolerance for years.
So he has:
- Criticized UEFA for not allowing the Allianz Arena to be lit in rainbow colors
- In addition, he has criticized the AFD in videos
- Advocated for Black Lives Matter
“So how do they come to the conclusion that I am so hardcore right that they can’t offer me a partnership?”
He stands behind LGBTQ and will also support the people.
Fans of kuchen.tv criticize Twitch for lack of freedom of opinion
How is that commented on? Under the video, it says:
- “You’re not a Twitch partner because you don’t have the right opinion and worldview? That must be this freedom of opinion.”
- “Kuchen may have made a few mistakes in his past, but that doesn’t matter because he has learned from them, and now he is such a good person. He is really likable and his news always makes my day better.”
- “Twitch has simply played out freedom of opinion. Very good.”
The segment starts at 1:11 minutes:
Twitch reacts allergically to riots, not necessarily to opinions
What’s behind this: The fundamental criticism is correct: Twitch seems to have a wide discretion in whom they allow as a partner and whom they do not. This appears arbitrary and non-transparent. The same applies to their banning policy.
A clear standard is hard to recognize:
- For years, the controversial opinion blogger “Destiny” was a staple on Twitch. But he was also permanently banned from the platform after 11 years, after he became embroiled in a feud with a trans activist and alluded to the high suicide rate among transgender individuals.
- The streamer IcePoseidon was also permanently banned, because he published his address and a bomb threat was made against his plane.
- Streamers like Trainwreck, Tfue, or Tyler1 seem to have a very long leash regarding what they can say on Twitch and when interventions occur. It seems that they have a certain license to misbehave, as if to say: “They are just like that – everyone knows that. Let them be.” It seems that only clear racist words need to be spoken for something to happen.
Twitch doesn’t seem to react specifically to “politically right-wing content,” but rather to conflicts and controversies, to riots in other social media like Twitter.
So Twitch often reacts to shitstorms on Twitter with bans on Twitch, like in the case of the legendary Malta-“Ey, Memo, guck Mal” video from MontanaBlack.
This only became a scandal after HandofBlood shared a clip of it on Twitter:
But even then, no clear pattern is discernible. The “strip incident” from December 2020 had hardly any negative consequences for those involved.
Therefore, Kuchen.tv and MontanaBlack also say that Twitch allegedly treated women preferentially.
Public image apparently decides who becomes a partner
Why doesn’t kuchen.tv get a partner contract? One can only speculate. It is probably not the case that Twitch assigns someone 30 hours to thoroughly review and evaluate Kuchen.tv’s entire body of work over the years in a partner application.
His public image and what is known about him will make the difference.
Someone like kuchen.tv, who makes a living by criticizing others and starting feuds, like recently with Shurjoka, doesn’t seem to be an ideal partner for Twitch to advertise with.
Individual videos about the Allianz Arena will not change anything, when upon a cursory examination of Kuchen.tv one comes across terms like “lawsuits for incitement to hatred” and previous convictions for anti-Semitic jokes (via vice). While these are indeed some years ago, they shape his image.
Just recently, Kuchen.tv was sued again. He had labeled the streamer “Shurjoka” as extremist, i.e., unconstitutional. The streamer did not want to put up with that.
In the conflict with Shurjoka, Kuchen.tv acted aggressively, stating that the streamer wanted to take on a victim role and was using her gender to protect herself from criticism.
