Stream Star Amouranth Banned From Twitch, TikTok, And Insta (She’ll Be Fine)

Stream Star Amouranth Banned From Twitch, TikTok, And Insta (She’ll Be Fine)
Screenshot: Kotaku / Amouranth

Popular Twitch streamer Kaitlyn Siragusa, also known as “Amouranth,” was simultaneously banned from Twitch, TikTok, and Instagram on October 8th. The reasons are still unknown, but this marks the fifth time the infamous “hot tub” streamer has been banned from Twitch.

Twitch bans are usually accompanied by a specific clip that quickly illustrates why a streamer was banned, but it seems even Siragusa herself doesn’t know why she’s been banned from her longtime streaming platform. Her channel was demonetised following an earlier Twitch ban, but it appears that she is still considered a partner on the platform.

Kotaku reached out to Siragusa for comment but did not receive an immediate reply.

Read More: Amouranth Is Twitch’s Smartest Troll, But She’s On Thin Ice

Similarly, Amouranth has also been banned from Instagram and TikTok, and has not made public the reason why she’s been silenced on those platforms as well.

Nevertheless, Siragusa seems to be taking her banishment in stride. She’s taken to Twitter to mock her predicament of being “deplatformed,” and made a YouTube video poking fun at the coincidence of her being banned alongside the recent Twitch, Facebook, and Instagram hacks.

Read More: Only Three Per cent Of Twitch’s Top-Earning Streamers Are Women, Apparently

Siragusa was ranked the number-one most-watched female Twitch streamer in Q3 of 2021 with 12.1 million views, according to Sideqik. Siragusa won’t be hurting financially despite the triple ban. Through her monetisation on OnlyFans and Fansly, she claims to net $US1.3 million a month.

Based on her reaction to the news on Twitter and YouTube, Siragusa seems undecided as to whether she plans on returning to Twitch. When she asked her followers what Twitch’s “new meta” should be, she said would take their suggestions “into consideration” if she ever returns to the platform. On both her Twitter and YouTube channel, she said she would be focusing on content creation on her other platforms. Siragusa also expressed interest in creating a venture capital “thot tank” for other creators like herself who make NSFW content that isn’t “super brand friendly.”

In short, Twitch’s most successful female streamer doesn’t seem too worried about her latest bans, though she might need some help coming up with a better name for that venture capital thing, should she decide to pursue it.

Comments

  • Sooo… just another Tuesday, then?

    It’s an interesting idea to replace any troublesome links in the digital content distribution chain that are squeamish about NSFW content. With enough capital, you really could set up your own version of pretty much any of those links. Payment processors don’t want to touch your sites? Cool, what’s it take to set up your own payment processor? Make it happen… Web services? Same deal. Streaming platform? Hell, heaps of people are getting in on that. Throw millions of dollars at something, it can probably happen.

    I suppose the real problem becomes avoiding the pitfalls that make those links in the chain so squeamish in the first place. Because I’m very sure it’s not out of prudishness.

    When payment processors stopped handling transactions for PornHub, it wasn’t because they suddenly all became born-again puritan evangelists or were worried about what those types might say about them. It was because their legal departments advised them they could be exposed to prosecution for being (knowingly or unknowingly) involved in businesses that were profiting from sex crimes. (Eg: revenge porn, amateurs who haven’t signed the appropriate paperwork, SVU shit, etc.) It’s why PornHub then did their big amateur purge – to dampen that liability. Similarly, if Twitch were to allow its partners to cross the line into full-blown porn on the platform, a whole new set of regulations and legal complications come into play.

    Hopping off Twitch and setting up shop doesn’t stop those considerations from affecting the venture. There’s a reason mainstream entertainment and pornography are found in separate places despite a massive overlap in their audience.

    • You’re being far too generous to payment providers and content hosts.

      You say you’re “very sure it’s not out of prudishness” and then go on to quote extreme cases like revenge porn. I mean, come on dude, look at the article we’re commenting on. It sure as hell is very much indeed about a bit of cleavage and some light sexually suggestive content.

      And you vastly understate the difficulty of introducing, for example, alternative payment processors. Seriously, even PayPal is completely beholden to two companies – Mastercard and Visa. To come up with an alternative you’d literally need to start your own bank, then launch your own credit card, then get people to actually be willing to put money in it. Even massive companies such as Apple have yet to pull that kind of thing off.

      Seriously, even with cryptocurrency, every day there’s another hurdle.

      And start your own host? Dude, just look how difficult it’s been for platforms such as Parler to keep a toe hold. If even Donald Trump and his rabid supporters can’t avoid the usual platforms then you know that coming up with a working alternative is not a simple process.

      There is indeed a reason mainstream entertainment and pornography are found in separate places despite a massive overlap in their audience. It’s because the first is typically funded by advertisers and the second is traditionally funded by customers. That’s what ultimately tripped up both PornHub and Siragusa. These are free platforms but the suggestive content is used to attract eyeballs to ads, which makes traditional advertisers hella squeamish.

      Of course, chasing soft porn off of free platforms is one thing, but the real problem arises when corporations start trying to impose their PG morality on paying customers, as is increasingly becoming the case, such as we’ve recently seen with sites such as OnlyFans.

      You are very wrong. The vast majority of these problems are indeed the result of a form of prudishness, regardless of whether that prudishness starts from a place of anti-porn left wing feminism or a conservative fear of nip slips.

      • “You say you’re “very sure it’s not out of prudishness” and then go on to quote extreme cases like revenge porn. I mean, come on dude, look at the article we’re commenting on. It sure as hell is very much indeed about a bit of cleavage and some light sexually suggestive content.”

        What are you on about? I didn’t think I’d need to walk you along, but here: revenge porn is merely one example of a sex crime (yes, it is literally a crime in many countries). PornHub’s move to appease payment providers was done to ease their concerns about that kind of criminal content being mixed in (because it provably was) with their more ‘respectable’ professionally-produced content. There was a concern about legal liability. That was the reason, not puritanical prudishness.

        Provided all the consenting adults have followed the appropriate regulations, those same payment processors have, do, and will continue to cheerfully provide service to all manner of debased behaviour that utterly excludes the possibility that they might be prudes. Are you with me so far?

        Now, SEPARATELY when we look at Twitch specifically facing the prospect of allowing their partners to put them in the position of hosting camgirl softcore porn that that starts to stray into becoming literally classed as sex-work, this comes with a whole host of regulations and laws that the company doesn’t want to have to deal with, not the least of which because it would require that it split its audience (because of, y’know… the law. Many laws. In many countries).

        This isn’t to say that the guidelines written by Twitch specifically aren’t informed by a degree of prudishness on the part of the influential stakeholders, but it definitely shows business reasons (which are start and finish the most important reasons for an Amazon entity) for non-prudes to ALSO be against crossing enough lines that they face wearing fines or getting regulated to the point that their audience is split, which has all other kinds of hassles and impact on profitability.

        As for all the alternative links in the chain stuff, you disprove yourself with your own examples. Crypto is running wild, despite its ‘new hurdle every day’ problems, and the Parler folks have actually found sympathetic payment providers and hosts, coming back online as quickly as February and returned to the iOS App store in May. Notably, interviews with their providers have strengthened my point: service was provided on the strength of evidence that the platform was taking appropriate steps to ensure the platform and its users weren’t violating the law (in that instance around hate speech, calls to violence, etc). Now, I didn’t say it’d be EASY, but all the evidence is that with enough money it’s possible.

        The only way in which we agree that prudishness is involved, is in the prudishness of laws that regulate porn. Adhering to prudish regulation isn’t in itself prudish. It’s just standard compliance.

        • You keep taking about porn as if it has anything at all to do with a Twitch streamer showing a bit of cleavage. Seriously mate, it’s 2021. It’s been half a century since any reasonable person considered a bit of cleavage porn.

    • I’m not surprised, say what you want about her but she clearly has a mind for what she does, being successful on one platform is a massive workload in itself.

  • She tweets “I could probably 3% FIRE”
    FIRE = Financially Independent, Retire Early movement. Looked it up, instead of watching scantily clad gamers.

    3% FIRE generally means that provided she spends no more than 3% of her net wealth each year, she will never run out of money for the rest of her life, because, well, average returns on safe conservative investment, and math.

    I think she’s been popular for, say, 18 months? Article says $AUD 2 million per month from twitch. She’s probably got other assets.
    But let’s say her net wealth is $2m x 18 = $36m. 3% x $36m = $1.08m per year , or 90k per month. $3k per day. (Statistically, BTW, that’s pretty much top 0.1% in the WORLD).
    It’s not $2m per month (that’s why she says “COULD … FIRE” I guess) , but more than enough to live very well.
    Come for the hot tubs, stay for the financial content!

    • thats also likely to be gross income and thus before any federal and state taxes that would be paid…i doubt she’d have the number and types of accountants and lawyers that would beable to find her a shitload of loophole to minimise the tax paid

  • I don’t use twitch, instagram, twitter or (for 2 years) facebook. I have no doubt there’s some interesting content but 2 million dollars a month for doing exactly what? I did look at the youtube clip and one more that was popular and it’s a young woman with (in my view) fake breasts in her underwear doing nothing.

    Where does all this money come from and what does it get whoever contributes?

    Does me being a very old man excuse me from being disappointed in the online world? When I was young and first working at a computer games company we were running trials of downloading Spectrum games, before the internet was a thing, and knew how exciting the future was looking. All I see now is the mainstream full of lowest common denominator nonsense and news website full of twitter comments from nobodies.

    Being 59 is great!

Show more comments

Log in to comment on this story!