6 ms·

Our descendants are going to be seriously confused by our practice of limiting or taking away people's ability to earn money because they publicly used a wrong

by apk-d 8y ago

Our descendants are going to be seriously confused by our practice of limiting or taking away people's ability to earn money because they publicly used a wrong word. Or so I hope, at least.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
pavel_lishin 8y ago
> taking away people's ability to earn money On a single platform. Nobody's preventing Mr. Benjamin from making money; they're just not allowing him to use one specific platform. He's welcome to sign up for Hatreon, or to use a payment processor directly.
- apk-d 8y ago
  He's not welcome, Hatreon (first hearing of them now) was shut down after the payment processor suspended them. To the people downvoting: I stand by my statement and I've got karma to burn.
- harimau777 8y ago
  I think that the potential issue is that those other options are not realistically viable. In effect private companies have become the public square. Therefore, for all practical purposes, being banned from them is the same as being banned from the public discourse.
- cambalache 8y ago
  And when the new payment company bans him, then what? And are you OK if Twitter bans all left leaning people just because of their beliefs? I tend to favor the smallest government possible, because I think private companies tend to do a better work in many areas (not all of them) so I dont like government intervening. But when you have an almost defacto monopoly in certain areas (google, facebook, twitter) banning people who has not broken the law should be illegal, plain and simple.
  - pavel_lishin 8y ago
    > And when the new payment company bans him, then what? Then he'll learn a valuable lesson about what is and isn't owed to him in life. Why do you suppose that the world owes everyone a soapbox that dispenses money? > And are you OK if Twitter bans all left leaning people just because of their beliefs? I'd be miffed, but that's their right. For example, it seems like Tumblr is making almost that exact mistake, as did Livejournal before them. I'm annoyed by it, but in the end it's their court and all I can do is shake my head, take my ball, and head home. > But when you have an almost defacto monopoly in certain areas (google, facebook, twitter) banning people who has not broken the law should be illegal, plain and simple. Patreon isn't on that list, so I assume that your small-government philosophy allows for them to stop supporting Mr. Benjamin and his cohorts.
    - cambalache 8y ago
      So would you agree with a new black listing in Hollywood for example?
      - pavel_lishin 8y ago
        A what?
        cambalache 8y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist
        nkurz 8y ago
        The Hollywood blacklist—as the broader entertainment industry blacklist is generally known—was the practice of denying employment to screenwriters, actors, directors, musicians, and American entertainment professionals during the mid-20th century because they were accused of having Communist ties or sympathies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist He's asking whether you think it would be reasonable to reinstate this policy, but directed against "racists" instead of communists.
- fb-denier 8y ago
  One does not simply use a payment processor directly. Stripe and PayPal both deplatformed within a week the Patreon alternative that the guy went to after being kicked off Patreon (SubscribeStar). Hatreon was also deplatformed by their payment processor, as noted below. In another recent instance, MasterCard demanded that Patreon kick off another person for political reasons [1]. Social network Gab is now accepting USD payments only by mailed check for their premium tier. Of course, the pioneer modern instance of being financially deplatformed was Wikileaks, who was deplatformed by both Visa and MasterCard for political reasons. I've gained a new respect for Bitcoin from this incident. If you can't digitally send USD to another person to do legal things, USD has a problem. [1] https://twitter.com/Patreon/status/1029551216886341634 https://twitter.com/Patreon/status/1029551216886341634
  - darkpuma 8y ago
    > "MasterCard demanded that Patreon kick off another person for political reasons." If true that's disturbing. At a certain point you have to wonder if we're getting close to the spirit of Marsh v. Alabama (e.g the constitutionality of restricting speech in towns that are privately owned by corporations.)
    - zimpenfish 8y ago
      > If true that's disturbing. "Jihad Watch" seems a fairly obvious hate site.
      - PavlovsCat 8y ago
        What's a "hate site"? Anything the law would care about? If no, nuff said, if yes, why would anything but the law have to play gatekeeper?
  - thelasthuman 8y ago
    What's stopping these people from creating a "MasterRacecard" and fulfilling their payment processing?
- DonHopkins 8y ago
  How does Hatreon compare with Go-Fundie-Me?
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
endisukaj 8y ago
The right to free speech protects you from being persecuted by the government. Patreon and any other private company reserve the right to choose their customers (and workers) based on what they say. This has always been the case. There are countless examples, even in the past, where companies have fired employees for saying things they shouldn't have.
- atom-morgan 8y ago
  The issue is Jack Conte said behavior that isn't on "Patreon the platform itself" wouldn't be policed by Patreon. And here we are.
- jhawk28 8y ago
  The danger is related to the centralized power of aggregators becomes close to the power that governments have over a single part of society.
- ng12 8y ago
  Free speech as a concept has been around for a lot longer than the US government. The problem is if free speech is effectively banned from the internet due to the internet being controlled by a handful of private companies, do we still have free speech?
  - pavel_lishin 8y ago
    Let's stay on topic here; being banned from Patreon doesn't limit his speech at all.
    - ng12 8y ago
      But what happens when Patreon, Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, Reddit, Twitch and PayPal all work together to create collective censorship? Is your speech being limited if you're functionally blocked from the meaningfully accessible parts of the internet? Yes, these are all private companies. In fact someone already tried to create an alternative Patreon (called Hatreon, iirc) that was shut down by Visa. Allowing censorship by private companies doesn't work if private companies control who gets to exist on the internet.
exotree 8y ago
I don’t think they will be. It’s pretty easy to parse: these users don’t own Patreon; therefore, users whose speech they disagree with are not entitled to their services. This is honestly pretty well established. Patreon does not owe anyone a platform.
- krick 8y ago
  Sure, but it depends on how you (and the people of the future) view Patreon. It's true that Patreon does not owe anyone a platform, but neither does Facebook, or Amazon, or privately owned bank or ISP or mobile network operator. And you wouldn't really view an ISP or a bank just as "somebody, who sells you a service", right? There's only so much alternative when you choose an ISP in most of the regions, and pretty much no alternative when you "choose" Facebook. In fact, even if I don't want to have any business whatsoever with the banks, I can't avoid it. My employer just won't pay me in cash. And in some countries you won't be able to pay in cash for most services either. And, by the way, although I'm more fond of thinking of Patreon as "just a guy, who sells a service" than as a necessity, there's not so much of an alternative for it either. AFAIK.
avbor 8y ago
The English language is pretty large. There are a good number of alternatives to using the word he did that would be safe. He didn't have to use that word, but either did because he uses it often and is comfortable with it, or purposefully thought it would be a good use there. Both of which are questionable. I'd also argue that Patreon isn't obligated at all to help him earn money here. It's not a employee employer relationship here, and they can choose to not to continue to help a person that they deem harmful to other customers.
daverobbins1 8y ago
Hopefully our descendants are more confused by how we failed to get society to a place that allows people like this guy to exist.
- daverobbins1 8y ago
  Typo: I meant “doesn’t allow people like this guy to exist”. Society should chew up and spit out anyone who’s world view is based on hate and racism.
basic1 8y ago
Seems like many went to SubscribeStar, more because Patreon pulled a Tumblr and purged the adult content than political reasons.
pokemongoaway 8y ago
Typical HN. Hiding comments the admins don't agree with.
fb-denier 8y ago
Maybe not. We might be shocked that people in Europe in the past got tortured or executed for heresy and apostasy, but we're not really confused by it: if your words undermine the creeds that hold up the power structure, you are punished. It's not complicated.
namlem 8y ago
Our ancestors took away people's ability to earn a living, and sometimes much more than that, because of their ethnicity or sexual orientation. People can control what opinions they voice in public. No one is forced to make racist statements. I see nothing wrong with punishing people for their choices when those choices bring harm to others.

by apk-d 8y ago

Our descendants are going to be seriously confused by our practice of limiting or taking away people's ability to earn money because they publicly used a wrong word. Or so I hope, at least.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

pavel_lishin 8y ago

> taking away people's ability to earn money On a single platform. Nobody's preventing Mr. Benjamin from making money; they're just not allowing him to use one specific platform. He's welcome to sign up for Hatreon, or to use a payment processor directly.

apk-d 8y ago
He's not welcome, Hatreon (first hearing of them now) was shut down after the payment processor suspended them. To the people downvoting: I stand by my statement and I've got karma to burn.
harimau777 8y ago
I think that the potential issue is that those other options are not realistically viable. In effect private companies have become the public square. Therefore, for all practical purposes, being banned from them is the same as being banned from the public discourse.
cambalache 8y ago
And when the new payment company bans him, then what? And are you OK if Twitter bans all left leaning people just because of their beliefs? I tend to favor the smallest government possible, because I think private companies tend to do a better work in many areas (not all of them) so I dont like government intervening. But when you have an almost defacto monopoly in certain areas (google, facebook, twitter) banning people who has not broken the law should be illegal, plain and simple.
- pavel_lishin 8y ago
  > And when the new payment company bans him, then what? Then he'll learn a valuable lesson about what is and isn't owed to him in life. Why do you suppose that the world owes everyone a soapbox that dispenses money? > And are you OK if Twitter bans all left leaning people just because of their beliefs? I'd be miffed, but that's their right. For example, it seems like Tumblr is making almost that exact mistake, as did Livejournal before them. I'm annoyed by it, but in the end it's their court and all I can do is shake my head, take my ball, and head home. > But when you have an almost defacto monopoly in certain areas (google, facebook, twitter) banning people who has not broken the law should be illegal, plain and simple. Patreon isn't on that list, so I assume that your small-government philosophy allows for them to stop supporting Mr. Benjamin and his cohorts.
  - cambalache 8y ago
    So would you agree with a new black listing in Hollywood for example?
    - pavel_lishin 8y ago
      A what?
      - cambalache 8y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist
      - nkurz 8y ago
        The Hollywood blacklist—as the broader entertainment industry blacklist is generally known—was the practice of denying employment to screenwriters, actors, directors, musicians, and American entertainment professionals during the mid-20th century because they were accused of having Communist ties or sympathies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist He's asking whether you think it would be reasonable to reinstate this policy, but directed against "racists" instead of communists.
fb-denier 8y ago
One does not simply use a payment processor directly. Stripe and PayPal both deplatformed within a week the Patreon alternative that the guy went to after being kicked off Patreon (SubscribeStar). Hatreon was also deplatformed by their payment processor, as noted below. In another recent instance, MasterCard demanded that Patreon kick off another person for political reasons [1]. Social network Gab is now accepting USD payments only by mailed check for their premium tier. Of course, the pioneer modern instance of being financially deplatformed was Wikileaks, who was deplatformed by both Visa and MasterCard for political reasons. I've gained a new respect for Bitcoin from this incident. If you can't digitally send USD to another person to do legal things, USD has a problem. [1] https://twitter.com/Patreon/status/1029551216886341634 https://twitter.com/Patreon/status/1029551216886341634
- darkpuma 8y ago
  > "MasterCard demanded that Patreon kick off another person for political reasons." If true that's disturbing. At a certain point you have to wonder if we're getting close to the spirit of Marsh v. Alabama (e.g the constitutionality of restricting speech in towns that are privately owned by corporations.)
  - zimpenfish 8y ago
    > If true that's disturbing. "Jihad Watch" seems a fairly obvious hate site.
    - PavlovsCat 8y ago
      What's a "hate site"? Anything the law would care about? If no, nuff said, if yes, why would anything but the law have to play gatekeeper?
- thelasthuman 8y ago
  What's stopping these people from creating a "MasterRacecard" and fulfilling their payment processing?
DonHopkins 8y ago
How does Hatreon compare with Go-Fundie-Me?

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

endisukaj 8y ago

The right to free speech protects you from being persecuted by the government. Patreon and any other private company reserve the right to choose their customers (and workers) based on what they say. This has always been the case. There are countless examples, even in the past, where companies have fired employees for saying things they shouldn't have.

atom-morgan 8y ago
The issue is Jack Conte said behavior that isn't on "Patreon the platform itself" wouldn't be policed by Patreon. And here we are.
jhawk28 8y ago
The danger is related to the centralized power of aggregators becomes close to the power that governments have over a single part of society.
ng12 8y ago
Free speech as a concept has been around for a lot longer than the US government. The problem is if free speech is effectively banned from the internet due to the internet being controlled by a handful of private companies, do we still have free speech?
- pavel_lishin 8y ago
  Let's stay on topic here; being banned from Patreon doesn't limit his speech at all.
  - ng12 8y ago
    But what happens when Patreon, Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, Reddit, Twitch and PayPal all work together to create collective censorship? Is your speech being limited if you're functionally blocked from the meaningfully accessible parts of the internet? Yes, these are all private companies. In fact someone already tried to create an alternative Patreon (called Hatreon, iirc) that was shut down by Visa. Allowing censorship by private companies doesn't work if private companies control who gets to exist on the internet.

exotree 8y ago

I don’t think they will be. It’s pretty easy to parse: these users don’t own Patreon; therefore, users whose speech they disagree with are not entitled to their services. This is honestly pretty well established. Patreon does not owe anyone a platform.

krick 8y ago
Sure, but it depends on how you (and the people of the future) view Patreon. It's true that Patreon does not owe anyone a platform, but neither does Facebook, or Amazon, or privately owned bank or ISP or mobile network operator. And you wouldn't really view an ISP or a bank just as "somebody, who sells you a service", right? There's only so much alternative when you choose an ISP in most of the regions, and pretty much no alternative when you "choose" Facebook. In fact, even if I don't want to have any business whatsoever with the banks, I can't avoid it. My employer just won't pay me in cash. And in some countries you won't be able to pay in cash for most services either. And, by the way, although I'm more fond of thinking of Patreon as "just a guy, who sells a service" than as a necessity, there's not so much of an alternative for it either. AFAIK.

avbor 8y ago

The English language is pretty large. There are a good number of alternatives to using the word he did that would be safe. He didn't have to use that word, but either did because he uses it often and is comfortable with it, or purposefully thought it would be a good use there. Both of which are questionable. I'd also argue that Patreon isn't obligated at all to help him earn money here. It's not a employee employer relationship here, and they can choose to not to continue to help a person that they deem harmful to other customers.

daverobbins1 8y ago

Hopefully our descendants are more confused by how we failed to get society to a place that allows people like this guy to exist.

daverobbins1 8y ago
Typo: I meant “doesn’t allow people like this guy to exist”. Society should chew up and spit out anyone who’s world view is based on hate and racism.

basic1 8y ago

Seems like many went to SubscribeStar, more because Patreon pulled a Tumblr and purged the adult content than political reasons.

pokemongoaway 8y ago

Typical HN. Hiding comments the admins don't agree with.

fb-denier 8y ago

Maybe not. We might be shocked that people in Europe in the past got tortured or executed for heresy and apostasy, but we're not really confused by it: if your words undermine the creeds that hold up the power structure, you are punished. It's not complicated.

namlem 8y ago

Our ancestors took away people's ability to earn a living, and sometimes much more than that, because of their ethnicity or sexual orientation. People can control what opinions they voice in public. No one is forced to make racist statements. I see nothing wrong with punishing people for their choices when those choices bring harm to others.