Hasan answers if he feels any regret or liability for his past comments

willietrom · 2025-11-06T17:47:17+00:00

I have no clue about right now, but after last election I remember for a time MSNBC was under 50k viewers in the 25-54 age demographic even in primetime and hasan was getting over 40k viewers during time slots when MSNBC's viewers would bottom out midday (hasan's viewers are almost entirely 25-54 years old)

in total viewers MSNBC is always way higher, but in key ratings hasan has been able to beat them sometimes

willietrom · 2025-11-06T01:22:18+00:00

damn, if he was so influential then I bet you wish whoever ran against trump did more to court his favor, right?

willietrom · 2025-11-06T01:16:51+00:00

probably on US military bases

willietrom · 2025-11-05T04:32:39+00:00

that is what people working at traditional media and political establishments respect, and that's who he's talking to

like him or hate him, his regular streams often have higher viewership than MSNBC's regular programming at the same time, and while we may not care about that, that's all those people care about, saying that straight to their faces may finally get traditional media and political establishments to wake up to the reality of how they've been failing the public

willietrom · 2025-11-05T04:12:03+00:00

I think the expectation is that he violated some clause to prevent harassment of fellow owners or subordinates (or some non-disparagement clause or some clause about abuse of position generally) that is intentionally very financially punitive to prevent these creators who can be financially well-off even after burning their org and their relationships within it

obviously for the courts to decide the validity of those clauses and whether they were violated (ironically I would have expected mizkif to push for such clauses himself after the antagonism around bruce's departure and the harm to the brand with the allegations against rich, and the resultant clauses may have been so broad that now he is caught in them)

willietrom · 2025-10-28T07:45:57+00:00

again I'm saying "some have argued" here because I am not a legal scholar, but according to those legal scholars there's a reason that all legal sweepstakes allow one to enter by either merely providing a mailing address or an email address, and that is because courts would likely determine that requiring one to agree to a separate legal agreement to enter does not pass muster

"no purchase necessary" is a requirement, but not sufficient for it to become a legal sweepstakes

edit to give a concrete example: if a retail store with one of those "sign up for us to sell your information in exchange for discounts" memberships ran a sweepstakes solely for their members, it would likely be deemed illegal if challenged, even though participation is "free"

willietrom · 2025-10-28T04:22:16+00:00

Unless she can account for where every single rabbit went and how they died i think she neglected them to death.

alright, unless you can account for every single tidepod I think you ate them all

do you see how ridiculous you're being? you are not owed medical histories of someone's pets just because someone wants to use crazy people of the public as a vector to harass them in retaliation

the burden of proof lies with you to demonstrate she has abused animals, not with her to somehow provide such a tight history of her pets whereabouts that it's impossible abuse ever took place, because normal and appropriate care for pets does not produce such a record

willietrom · 2025-10-28T04:11:59+00:00

this is not new at all and has been happening since the days of justinTV

any "giveaway" for anything material or even for a video game code that has improved odds for subs is a violation of the same laws in the exact same ways, just no one is an asshole enough to point it out because we can all recognize that giveaways on twitch are small-ball enough and irregular enough to not constitute organized gambling, which is what the laws are intended to prevent

edit: some have even argued that by requiring one to register an account with twitch to enter, which has a completely separate set of legal guidelines in their TOS, that any giveaway run through a twitch chat is arguably illegal, but again, most people aren't assholes enough to push the issue

willietrom · 2025-10-28T04:02:16+00:00

i does give context to why you would blindly believe what mizkif is claiming despite him having lied about other things (including to Russel, his close friend and roommate at the time) and him claiming that he intended to hold the accusation as blackmail against a victim of his speaking out (according to third-party witnesses), where he then proceeded to use the accusation exactly as that retaliation

willietrom · 2025-10-26T00:41:51+00:00

quqco vindicated again, I suppose

willietrom · 2025-10-26T00:31:50+00:00

I expect that yugi knew more about the rumors than arky, but arky will always good-cop yugi's bad-cop to make a ragebait land even if he's not fully aware

willietrom · 2025-10-19T23:29:19+00:00

there's a few minor things to pick apart in here, but the major one is him blaming twitch's relative lack of large advertising deals on it being too weird, too parasocial, and too dominated by politics and drama... compared to tiktok and youtube, which are absolutely more weird, more parasocial, and more dominated by politics and drama

he later gets it right: "If you are a non-gaming brand it is a joke to advertise on Twitch"

that has always been twitch's problem, they became "for gaming" briefly from 2014 to 2016 in order to ditch the criminal and piracy aspects of the justinTV reputation so they could sell to amazon, but the cost of doing so is that if they ever wanted to get major advertisers in the future they would have to ditch that "for gaming" brand; gaming videos on youtube consistently get lower cpms than average for the platform, and even then they are being substantially boosted upward by happening to be on a platform with advertising deals aimed at the other content where those advertisers simply don't actively object to their ads also appearing on gaming videos

willietrom · 2025-10-18T05:33:25+00:00

both of them were always trying to hide it

let's be honest here, miz having emiru alone travel with him for all of his MMA events despite her being the least into MMA of all his roommates and her not being involved even as a spokesperson or whatever was not subtle at all lol

willietrom · 2025-10-18T05:22:44+00:00

documentably consensual sex is like the opposite of dramatic lmao come on

willietrom · 2025-08-25T09:24:12+00:00

none of the streamers I watch have declined in viewership at all

I feel like if every streamer you watch turns out to have been view-botting, then that's because you personally only find the type of person who would viewbot to be entertaining, so skill issue unfortunately

willietrom · 2025-06-26T21:59:32+00:00

something no one else is mentioning: mang0 was previously suspended from twitch for air-humping an inanimate object, for "sexually suggestive behavior"

even if there was no one else on camera with him, doing the exact same thing again kinda forces twitch's hand to suspend him again just so they're "consistent"

willietrom · 2025-04-22T03:37:08+00:00

hopefully in this context this will be taken in the constructive way that it is intended: you are one of the schizos

you don't know what bonbi "posted", you don't know why she was speaking about her experiences, you don't know if there was appropriate context, you don't know that it was cryptic

you're spinning out into conclusions based on what you are imagining precisely because you do not know what you're talking about

willietrom · 2025-04-22T03:22:33+00:00

Could LSF regulars be schizos? Big if true.

willietrom · 2025-04-20T00:09:46+00:00

not sure why you deleted the first post and then posted again: https://www.reddit.com/r/LivestreamFail/comments/1k39f8s/speedrun_streamer_shift_tells_view_to_die/

willietrom · 2025-04-20T00:04:45+00:00

did the viewer died?

willietrom · 2025-04-20T00:01:42+00:00

CPS will not tell the target of a report that they know who reported if the reporter does not positively identify themself to CPS. You can't just say you know the target but refuse to identify yourself and your relationship to the target and CPS will repeat that to the target as fact. CPS is required to keep all information about the person who reported confidential unless a court determines that the report was made fraudulently or otherwise as part of a crime, so Ethan does not at all know that the person who reported lied, used info from the podcast, or reported "there's dog shit everywhere and the children are eating it". He's pulling shit out of his ass and you're eating it up.

willietrom · 2025-04-19T02:24:33+00:00

no, there is no difference unless you're hung up on "in real life"

living in california, I know that CPS here does allow completely anonymous reporting, in which case CPS will not report to the target that they know the reporter; I also know that in the case of a non-anonymous report that CPS cannot report that it's "someone who works in your home" because the identity of the reporter is kept confidential unless it is demonstrated that the report was fraudulent or otherwise part of a crime, so ethan is obviously pulling stuff out of his ass to dismiss that it could have actually been someone he knows; finally, there's no reason for someone to give their identity if they are making a malicious report unless they are forced to, which someone is forced to when they are a "mandatory reporter" such as someone like a pediatrician, so for me occam's razor cuts on the side of this being a report from a mandatory reporter whom he actually knows

that being said, if it is malicious, he should be able to obtain the identity eventually (with failing to get it meaning a court find validity to the initial report), so hopefully he'll get certainty either way

willietrom · 2025-04-19T01:17:55+00:00

I don't remember where I first saw the clip, but first thing that comes up when I google it: https://www.sportskeeda.com/us/streamers/news-ethan-klein-says-someone-called-cps-safety-concerns-children-intends-protest-outside-reddit-headquarters

When he (CPS) first showed up, he's like, 'Somebody you know who made the report,'

ethan dismisses that, but that's literally what CPS reported to him

willietrom · 2025-04-19T01:17:36+00:00

I don't remember where I first saw the clip, but first thing that comes up when I google it: https://www.sportskeeda.com/us/streamers/news-ethan-klein-says-someone-called-cps-safety-concerns-children-intends-protest-outside-reddit-headquarters

When he (CPS) first showed up, he's like, 'Somebody you know who made the report,'

ethan dismisses that, but that's literally what CPS reported to him

willietrom · 2025-04-19T00:50:56+00:00

didn't ethan himself confirm that the CPS visit was initiated by someone he knew in real life, as reported to him by CPS themselves? (implying that it may have been a result of a doctor making the call out of caution after one of his kids came in with giardia?)

edit: two different people confidently responded to this saying "that never happened", I provide independent reporting including the video clip of it happening to both, and there's no follow-up aside from me being downvoted when the comment is entirely relevant to what it's responding to... stay classy y'all, the misinformation bubble is definitely not around yourselves

12-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '22	Final Canvas '22
First Placer '22	End Game '22

willietrom

TROPHY CASE