4 ms·

Doesn't make a lot of sense 1. "Your fuzzy position on “adult content” vs. “porn” gives you the freedom to discriminate at will. And it makes content creators

Doesn't make a lot of sense 1. "Your fuzzy position on “adult content” vs. “porn” gives you the freedom to discriminate at will. And it makes content creators live in fear of that discrimination, itself leading to self censorship of important viewpoints." 2. "[...] we also must listen to and represent those who simply make porn. Who want to be creative with their porn, yes, but most importantly want to be self directed." So it's not about the fuzzy position of Patreon but about disallowing porn it seems.

Hurricanecane 9y ago
Those two things seem to be separate enough. Not only is there a very blurry line in between the two, but also creation of the disallowed content is much safer to do there than to apply to a shady studio to get yourself out there. So the second question would propably be why is porn disallowed in the first place? Is it the payment processors who don't want to deal with chargebacks? Something to do with investors, perhaps their own "morals"?
csydas 9y ago
Elsewhere in the letter it is described that Patreon employees had explicitly given approval for pornographic Patreon accounts, only to have this retracted later. I do feel that their point gets lost in the letter, but ultimately their complaint is simple; there's a niche market and niche opportunities for their specific groups to make pornography for their target audience, and very few means for receiving payment. Patreon previously was a good work-around for the issues with many payment processors refusing to allow pornography, but by being a Patreon campaign, they could avoid this. The letter signees were under the impression that Patreon was okay with this, but now Patreon is saying they are not. If the above is accurate, then I really get why they're confused and frustrated. I feel they're presenting things in reverse order or taking too long to get to the core point (they want to make porn as they had before without being penalized by payment processors), and Patreon was a solution that made everyone happy, though apparently something changed for Patreon.

Hurricanecane 9y ago

Those two things seem to be separate enough. Not only is there a very blurry line in between the two, but also creation of the disallowed content is much safer to do there than to apply to a shady studio to get yourself out there. So the second question would propably be why is porn disallowed in the first place? Is it the payment processors who don't want to deal with chargebacks? Something to do with investors, perhaps their own "morals"?

csydas 9y ago

Elsewhere in the letter it is described that Patreon employees had explicitly given approval for pornographic Patreon accounts, only to have this retracted later. I do feel that their point gets lost in the letter, but ultimately their complaint is simple; there's a niche market and niche opportunities for their specific groups to make pornography for their target audience, and very few means for receiving payment. Patreon previously was a good work-around for the issues with many payment processors refusing to allow pornography, but by being a Patreon campaign, they could avoid this. The letter signees were under the impression that Patreon was okay with this, but now Patreon is saying they are not. If the above is accurate, then I really get why they're confused and frustrated. I feel they're presenting things in reverse order or taking too long to get to the core point (they want to make porn as they had before without being penalized by payment processors), and Patreon was a solution that made everyone happy, though apparently something changed for Patreon.