It seemed like just another streaming-clip controversy until it exploded into full scale online theatre. Hasan Piker (known as HasanAbi) found himself under fire when a clip of his dog wearing an electronic collar went viral. The incident, which many interpreted as potential animal abuse, quickly morphed from Twitch chatter into a broader conversation about responsibility and creator culture. What began as a moment of viewer unease now involves politicians, other streamers and serious questions of public image.Now enters xQc, another heavyweight in the streaming world, who refused to accept Hasan’s explanation. xQc challenged the narrative, questioned the evidence and effectively said he wasn’t buying what Hasan was selling. The fact that the post caption you highlighted “Thought claw got stuck..thought he was getting a zyn..what page of book are we in..being a baby..the gate..even if Collargate was all fake..what abt clip pulling dog’s tail..tight collar” went viral shows just how fast these controversies expand beyond the original stream.xQc questions HasanAbi’s Collargate explanation amid JD Vance’s viral criticismThe moment that sparked this drama took place on October 7, 2025, when Hasan was streaming and his dog, Kaya, yelped while wearing what appeared to be an electronic collar. Viewers interpreted the sound and the device as a shock collar in action, setting off immediate backlash. Hasan responded by saying that the collar was not a shock device, but rather a vibration/cue collar with added features like a built-in AirTag and torch. The term “Collargate” took off quickly as critics and viewers alike pounced. What pushed this into virality was not just the clip itself, but the umbrella effect of big names jumping in: streamers like xQc dissecting the footage, and even politicians like JD Vance mentioning the episode in a podcast in the context of empathy and how we treat animals. The post you referenced captures that growing frustration even if we assume the entire thing was misinterpreted, the question remains: why is the dog’s tail being pulled? Why is the collar so tight? xQc zeroed in on these details, calling Hasan’s explanation “lacklustre” and raising the possibility that the collar had a shock function despite Hasan’s claims. Meanwhile, Hasan shared a demo of the collar, claiming it lacked prongs for electric shocks and that the slot was taped over. What keeps this story ticking is its multi-layered nature: a popular political streamer, animal welfare concerns, high-profile streaming personalities debating publicly, and now mainstream commentary. xQc’s challenge to Hasan positions him as the sceptic in the room: not just “Did he do something wrong?” but “Are you truthfully showing the device that proved your case?” The viral post is a manifestation of viewer frustration with perceived deflection rather than addressing the tail-pulling clip or tight collar, the conversation shifted to whether the creator’s claim holds up under scrutiny.In the end, while Hasan maintains his innocence and explains the mechanics of the collar, the questions haven’t faded. The simple truth is this: whether or not the shock feature existed, what struck many was the optics and trust. When your audience sees a dog yelp and a collar that looks like it might shock, the burden of explanation is heavy. And when a figure like xQc and even a politician like JD Vance weigh in, it shows how influencer culture now intersects with broader public accountability.