7 ms·

Being someone who pays ~zero attention to Twitter, and very little to "politics", I had no clue that there was a shitstorm happening over "censorship" by Patreo

Being someone who pays ~zero attention to Twitter, and very little to "politics", I had no clue that there was a shitstorm happening over "censorship" by Patreon. (Although I think that it probably is censorship, I'm not sure, so scare quotes.) Anyway, so searx.me shows me a NY Times article from today.[0] And it contains these ironic bits: > Patreon takes a highly personal approach to policing speech. While Google and Facebook use algorithms as a first line of defense for questionable content, Patreon has human moderators. They give warnings and reach out to talk to offenders, presenting options for “education” and “reform.” Some activists hope this will become a model for a better and kinder internet. [emphasis added] > “There are no automated takedowns,” Mr. Conte said. “As a creator myself dealing with these big tech platforms and getting an automated takedown notice, there’s no appeals process. You can’t talk to a human. And I never want to do that.” [emphasis added] Funny, that. Edit: And if this is truly a " fraud / financial flag", wouldn't one expect to see the same level of outreach? 0) https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/24/technology/patreon-hate-speech-bans.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/24/technology/patreon-hate-s...

xte 8y ago
A small note: how can ever a private company claim the right to decide about "hate speech", "illegal contents" etc? If they have suspects they have to go knock the police/other public authority door to signal what they suspect and after comply to the public authority decision. Nowadays to many people do not comprehend really this super-important concept... And many countries try to take advantage of it pushing private power.
- jrs95 8y ago
  "Hate speech" doesn't have a legal definition in the United States that I am aware of. If it does, it's still covered by the first amendment and legal. So its not a question of Patreon determining what is legal, they're determining what is acceptable to them.
  - xte 8y ago
    Ok, so my point is how a private company can ever determinate what is acceptable or not for them of their customers activities or idea. I do not know how USA legislation works, in EU a private company can't "discriminate" their customers based on their own personal assumption. If you run a company you may refuse a new customer or you may found a way to break a contract with an actual customer but nothing "suddenly", unnoticed and arbitrary or you face big troubles in curt.
    - jrs95 8y ago
      Businesses in the U.S. for the most part can discriminate however they want as long as it isn't on the basis of race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation.
      - xte 8y ago
        So you say that a company can legally lock out a customers without any reasonable notice and room to discuss? In EU for instance telcos, banks etc often change conditions without "negotiation" they simply inform their customers that starting from the next month/year/end of auto-renewal period there are new conditions visible "there" and if their customers refuse the change can end the contract without penalties having, in theory, enough time to switch to another company. This protection is not much effective in many cases since most telcos/banks etc offer nearly the same conditions and change them nearly at the same time so a "bad move" for a customer of company X typically is already present or about to arrive to others possible "competitors", regularly antitrust step into action but normally without enough strength and timing to really avoid many bad moves... However no one can act without enough time from the over part to respond and certainly not without keep receiving money on behalf of anyone... Oh, to clarify I hear about cases arrived in curt with motivation like "we have received (as proved by Postal Service) that communication, but inside the envelope there are only to white sheets..." and things of that level but still person to person actions with a formal responsible from both sides.
        dragonwriter 8y ago
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > A small note: how can ever a private company claim the right to decide about "hate speech", "illegal contents" etc? Very easily; private parties are, in fact, in many cases subject to punishment for failing to avoid involvement with illegal activity, which necessarily requires them to identify it. > If they have suspects they have to go knock the police/other public authority door to signal what they suspect and after comply to the public authority decision. No, this is generally false; the only time they have to do that is if they want consequences reserved to public authorities to be applied, or if they are engaged in an area of business activity subject to unusual legal protection (usually, regulated monopolies and similar.) > Nowadays to many people do not comprehend really this super-important concept... This concept is bizarre and has never been generally accepted, and is contrary to th foundations of most modern systems of law.
  - xte 8y ago
    > private parties are, in fact, in many cases subject to punishment for failing to avoid involvement with illegal activity That's true IF and only IF they know a crime and do not reported it to the competent authority. They are nor police nor curt to decide autonomously. Impromptu autonomous decisions should happen ONLY in case immediate of danger-life situations that's hard to happen for an internet company. > the only time they have to do that is if they want consequences reserved to public authorities to be applied Might be my limited English but... I do not understand what you say... If you know a crime you have to report it and competent authority act and instruct you on how to act... > This concept is bizarre and has never been generally accepted Mh, in the EU and in general since the ancient Roman law it's actually generally accepted... We decide after French Revolution to split power in executive, legislative and judicial authorities and those are the sole that can act.

xte 8y ago

A small note: how can ever a private company claim the right to decide about "hate speech", "illegal contents" etc? If they have suspects they have to go knock the police/other public authority door to signal what they suspect and after comply to the public authority decision. Nowadays to many people do not comprehend really this super-important concept... And many countries try to take advantage of it pushing private power.

jrs95 8y ago
"Hate speech" doesn't have a legal definition in the United States that I am aware of. If it does, it's still covered by the first amendment and legal. So its not a question of Patreon determining what is legal, they're determining what is acceptable to them.
- xte 8y ago
  Ok, so my point is how a private company can ever determinate what is acceptable or not for them of their customers activities or idea. I do not know how USA legislation works, in EU a private company can't "discriminate" their customers based on their own personal assumption. If you run a company you may refuse a new customer or you may found a way to break a contract with an actual customer but nothing "suddenly", unnoticed and arbitrary or you face big troubles in curt.
  - jrs95 8y ago
    Businesses in the U.S. for the most part can discriminate however they want as long as it isn't on the basis of race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation.
    - xte 8y ago
      So you say that a company can legally lock out a customers without any reasonable notice and room to discuss? In EU for instance telcos, banks etc often change conditions without "negotiation" they simply inform their customers that starting from the next month/year/end of auto-renewal period there are new conditions visible "there" and if their customers refuse the change can end the contract without penalties having, in theory, enough time to switch to another company. This protection is not much effective in many cases since most telcos/banks etc offer nearly the same conditions and change them nearly at the same time so a "bad move" for a customer of company X typically is already present or about to arrive to others possible "competitors", regularly antitrust step into action but normally without enough strength and timing to really avoid many bad moves... However no one can act without enough time from the over part to respond and certainly not without keep receiving money on behalf of anyone... Oh, to clarify I hear about cases arrived in curt with motivation like "we have received (as proved by Postal Service) that communication, but inside the envelope there are only to white sheets..." and things of that level but still person to person actions with a formal responsible from both sides.
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
dragonwriter 8y ago
> A small note: how can ever a private company claim the right to decide about "hate speech", "illegal contents" etc? Very easily; private parties are, in fact, in many cases subject to punishment for failing to avoid involvement with illegal activity, which necessarily requires them to identify it. > If they have suspects they have to go knock the police/other public authority door to signal what they suspect and after comply to the public authority decision. No, this is generally false; the only time they have to do that is if they want consequences reserved to public authorities to be applied, or if they are engaged in an area of business activity subject to unusual legal protection (usually, regulated monopolies and similar.) > Nowadays to many people do not comprehend really this super-important concept... This concept is bizarre and has never been generally accepted, and is contrary to th foundations of most modern systems of law.
- xte 8y ago
  > private parties are, in fact, in many cases subject to punishment for failing to avoid involvement with illegal activity That's true IF and only IF they know a crime and do not reported it to the competent authority. They are nor police nor curt to decide autonomously. Impromptu autonomous decisions should happen ONLY in case immediate of danger-life situations that's hard to happen for an internet company. > the only time they have to do that is if they want consequences reserved to public authorities to be applied Might be my limited English but... I do not understand what you say... If you know a crime you have to report it and competent authority act and instruct you on how to act... > This concept is bizarre and has never been generally accepted Mh, in the EU and in general since the ancient Roman law it's actually generally accepted... We decide after French Revolution to split power in executive, legislative and judicial authorities and those are the sole that can act.