The Sims 4 ABC baby challenge video... I guess all 100 baby challenge vids should be demonetised then. pic.twitter.com/Vz0zVDcee7

— Deligracy (@Deligracy) February 24, 2019

In the above tweet, Deligracy responds to YouTube's platform policies after her video was demonitized. Content creators struggle when the interface wrongfully flags content as inappropriate or violating copyright.

In the following three tweets, two Simmers discuss the impacts of YouTube's copyright claims on their content creation. Frequent and mis-applied copyright strikes and claims are caused by YouTube's ContentID interface, discussed in detail to the right.

@YouTube I got multiple copyright notices for the music that plays in my Sims 4 game. I can't mute the gameplay footage because that will mute my commentary. I don't want to have to re-record this either.

— 🚀Perfection. It isn’t real🚀 (@PhantomCelebi) September 3, 2018

Tbh, getting a copyright after we upload the video costs us time and hard work, i agree it is very irritating

— SimsFilms (@films_sims) September 3, 2018

This video discusses bits, an element of Twitch's interface. Bits are one of the many ways that livestream participants can interject into the content creation process and support a livestreamer's continuance on the platform, which impacts the content creation in the Simming ecology.

Digital Interfaces as Materials:

Digital Interfaces are a material force that shapes the Simming ecology's content creation in specific, measurable ways.

Social network site interfaces act as materials that influence the Simming ecology's content creation. Amber Buck claims "Composing on social network sites also means working with and against the affordances and constraints of these commercially owned sites" (32). The commercialization of these sites extends measurable influences into the capabilities of writers in the Simming ecology. Furthermore, these interfaces are both social and material. Clinnin and Manthey write, "A sociomaterial perspective on technology recognizes that a technological object is not a neutral tool, but the technology itself shapes its user and society as it is shaped by the user. Furthermore, technology is always embodied as it exists in relation to embodied users" (5). Though these digital interfaces seem neutral upon first glance, the underlying structures, algorithms, and development decisions determine what content is produced, who sees it, and what composing choices that authors need make when navigating barriers to reaching other Simmers.

boyd and Ellison define "social network sites" by their allowances: "web-based services that allow individuals to (1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system" (boyd and Ellison 211). In addition to these allowances, the social network sites discussed in this project (primarily YouTube, Twitch, and Twitter) provide interfaces for consuming, producing, hosting, or distributing content in digital spaces. For example, the promotion of content on Twitter can be made possible by interface options for "liking" and "retweeting" or "replying." Daniel Wuebben claims that the buttons that prompt sharing and liking on social network sites promote the possibility of viral content (69-73). Without these interface options, participants would be less prompted to "reshare" or distribute content to their respective friends. Therefore, the affordances that these buttons lend should not be dismissed; later, we will examine the effects that their absence can lend in streamer continuance. Initially, these interfaces seem to allow everything a Simming content creator would need--tools with which to navigate and negotiate digital connections and compositions.

Even with the presence of prompting buttons and interface options to "follow," "comment," or "share," invisible interface properties work to exert regulation, restraint, and control, often to the detriment of Simmers. In the first tweet to the left, Deligracy discusses her content's demonitization, which was automatically applied by YouTube's filtration interface. In this case, YouTube's materials enacted agency by repressing Deligracy's content and the potential it had to generate revenue and sustain further content creation. This interface isn't the only one limiting YouTube Simmers, however. In "Circulation Gatekeepers: Unbundling the Platform Politics of YouTube's Content ID," Dustin Edwards claims that Content ID is one of these barriers; he discusses the ways that YouTube's copyright program privileges corporate interests and imposes additional labor on everyday content creators. He writes that Content ID imposes "an algorithmic and automated filer-everything approach. The broader circulation ecology on YouTube is affected...Content ID exercises powerful gatekeeping control" (Edwards 65). Though the use of algorithms and automation seems to be a practice devoid of conscious bias, Edwards argues platforms, despite the way they present themselves, are not neutral, and that they make choices that are "informed by multiple interests and carried out through computational procedures...platforms have a say in how, and if, we encounter circulations. You can't participate in that which you don't encounter" (66). Therefore, one of the ways that YouTube's material interface influences the Simming ecology is through its Content ID system, which can serve to limit the reach and publication of Simming videos.

In a tweet included on the left, a Simmer describes receiving multiple copyright claims due to the presence of Sims music in her gameplay video on YouTube. This issue may be confusing for Simmers because The Sims 4's development and promotion team actively encourages publishing gameplay videos and content on YouTube. In these tweets, @films_sims responds to @PhantomCelebi's account, discussing the impacts that copyright claims and strikes have on Simming content creation: "getting a copyright after we upload the video costs us time and hard work."

The material influence of YouTube's ContentID program impacts content creation through placing extensive barriers between Simmers and their wider community. The interface options lent to YouTube creators who have received claims or strikes also places non-corporate composers at a disadvantage. Protection through Content ID is restricted to "large-scale rights owners" and designed with large corporations in mind (Edwards 67-68). If a YouTube video is flagged for copyright by the algorithm, the video composer can appeal, but claims, strikes, and how they are settled is decided entirely by the copyright holder rather than a third party (Edwards 67). Consequences for claims and strikes include loss of revenue, loss of privileges, and even permanent bans; meanwhile, content creators can only combat claims on three videos at once (Edwards 70). Therefore, the material structure of the Content ID filter and algorithm exerts control over the Simming ecology's YouTube content through forcing content creators to perform extra labor in planning for and responding to claims or strikes. This additional labor may not be possible for all creators, and it certainly discourages them from continuing to create content. Over time, these issues may negatively impact the ecology's stability on YouTube's platform.

Interface connectivity options can also enact a shaping influence. For example, Ellison et al. noted that bidirectional connections on Facebook influenced the nature of the findings they gathered about bridging ties (140). (See the system of interpersonal interactions for more information on social capital and bridging). In a similar way, Twitch's allowances and restrictions shape the Simming Ecology's content creation. While comments in YouTube videos are placed below the frame and are made after the video's making is complete, on Twitch, chat feedback is live as the stream proceeds, and throughout the stream's duration, the content creator responds to chat messages while they play The Sims 4. Streamers also have the option to display viewer feedback live on their main screen. Through visual and auditory cues, content creators can privilege participants who donate (as discussed in Wild4Games's video on the left) or otherwise support the content ("Widgets"). While the power of authorship typically remains more centralized in the streamer's possession rather than the chat participants', the ability to "interject" and influence the content creation mid-stream is a dynamic granted by Twitch's livestream interface. As a result, content creation in this space is full of rapid-fire exchange, and composing decisions relating to other systems (ideas, purposes, interpersonal interactions) are negotiated in the span of moments, rather than days.

Interface materials on Twitch can also exert influence over the Simming ecology through encouraging or discouraging viewership, participation, and production. Currently, streamers must reach affiliate status to be granted access to interface options like a subscription button. To qualify for and be accepted as an "affiliate," streamers must reach and maintain a variety of streaming goals including: "An average of 3 concurrent viewers or more over the last 30 days" ("Joinging the Affiliate Program"). While this requirement seems easy, maintaining an average of 3 viewers requires a consistent presence of viewers, and this sort of reach isn't simple to attain. When searching for active livestreams, those with more viewers show up first. This can limit the capability of new streams to garner attention. In this way, the gathering of social capital and financial benefits can be afforded or inhibited by Twitch's interface, and lack of access to these benefits over time can contribute to Simmers' decisions to discontinue creating content. Research by Zhao et al. suggests that Twitch's interface impacts the likelihood that streamers will continue producing content on the platform: "Live streamers' perceived website attractiveness had a substantial impact on their continuance broadcasting intentions for Twitch. In addition, performance expectancy had the greatest influence on perceived website attractiveness...Therefore, managers could...make significant improvements, such as relaxing the subscription threshold, as many participants had yet to access the subscription feature" (Q. Zhao et al. 417). Essentially, this study suggests that streamers' expectations about their content's performance (growth, subscriber counts, etc.) contributed to whether or not streamers continued streaming, and to help retain content creators, Twitch could consider adjusting its interface to offer encouraging features, like subscription, to content creators with lower follower counts. Interfaces as materials can therefore exert agency through encouraging Simmers or discouraging Simmers to continue livestreaming as a form of content creation.

Just like hardware, interfaces are materials that impact the Simming ecology through what they afford and deny. Interfaces can determine who is able to create and publish content, who is able to view said content, and what kinds of feedback Simmers can receive. Placement within feeds and the ability of Simmers to easily access or be prompted to access specific content makes a large difference in which channels and accounts garner large numbers of connections, social capital, and financial rewards. Ultimately, this system's dynamic exchanges impact the activity throughout the wider of the ecology.