6 ms·

> Freedom of Speech is not the right to be heard. If people don't like what you have to say, or how you are saying it, they are free to walk away. That's techn

by ggreer 8y ago

> Freedom of Speech is not the right to be heard. If people don't like what you have to say, or how you are saying it, they are free to walk away. That's technically correct, but it doesn't get at the core of the concept. If you read the original arguments in favor of freedom of speech, you'll see they don't focus on the rights of the speaker as much as the rights of the listener. John Milton, Thomas Paine, and John Stuart Mill all made the point (in various ways) that every time you stop someone from saying or publishing an idea, you are also preventing others who want to hear or read that idea from doing so. In addition, censorship requires delegating a censor. Effectively, that means you are letting someone else decide what you're allowed to read and hear. I don't know about everyone else, but there is no government body or private company that I trust with that power. Disclaimers, warnings, and age verification steps are fine, but memory-holing ideas? No thank you. In the case of Patreon, there is a man who people want to give money to. He wants to accept that money. There is no criminal activity on either side of the transaction. Yet Patreon is preventing these people from doing what they want because Patreon dislikes one paragraph of the man's boorish utterances. This is in direct contradiction to their stated policy (where the person has to endanger the safety of others) and there's a suspicious amount of partisan bias in the application of these policies. Patreon isn't the first company to behave this way, just the most recent. These actions increase political polarization, erode public trust in institutions and companies, and confirm the persecution complexes of many on the ends of the political spectrum. I'm sure the people in charge of these platforms feel like they're doing the right thing, but I think they are mistaken.

jakelazaroff 8y ago
Listeners are perfectly free to go elsewhere to hear racist speech — Gab exists, 4chan exists, and there are plenty of smaller sites dedicated to this as well. Insofar as they want to support someone monetarily, no one can prevent them from using Bitcoin.
- zepto 8y ago
  Bitcoin is failing and if that’s the best option for free speech, it proves that the mainstream actually doesn’t support it.
  - krapp 8y ago
    > Bitcoin is failing and if that’s the best option for free speech, it proves that the mainstream actually doesn’t support it. Bitcoin is an anarcho-capitalist currency, and the mainstream aren't anarchists. The mainstream doesn't object to it because they object to free speech, they object to it because they like banks with their FDIC insurance and laws.
    - jakelazaroff 8y ago
      "Object" is even probably too strong a term! The mainstream is mostly indifferent to it, because normal banking is better for virtually every transaction they want to make. Bitcoin is failing on its own (lack of) merits, not because people are mounting some campaign to destroy it.
  - okr 8y ago
    I do not see bitcoin as failing. If anyone can exchange bitcoin back to local currencies, then it works pretty well for value transfer. I can buy bitcoin now for $50, transfer it, and then someone exchanges bitcoin back to $50 minus the fees. Just like any other payment processor. If one wants to save up or speculate, well, thats a different matter.
- ggreer 8y ago
  This comment doesn't address my points at all. First, none of those sites are Patreon competitors. Second, I never claimed alternatives didn't exist. Third, in context it's pretty clear that Sargon is trying to insult racists. I don't know much about him, but from that clip it seems like his shtick is to get attention by making points in controversial ways. Well, mission accomplished (in every sense of the phrase). My points were 1. the parent's concept of free speech missed the mark and 2. Patreon has a double standard and a political bias, and that's not good for them or for society. I'm also not saying there should be laws policing Patreon's behavior. I'm saying that while Patreon and other tech companies believe they are doing good by removing content and sanctioning its creators, they are making a mistake. If they branded themselves as a utility (similar to a power company or bank), they could guarantee themselves a larger platform in the long term. At the same time, they'd let everyone read and hear what they wanted to read and hear. They'd reduce political polarization (which seems to be creeping into every aspect of life), eliminate the Streisand effect (I'd never heard of the Daily Stormer or Gab before hosting providers refused to take their money), and make it much harder for extremists to get sympathy.
  - jakelazaroff 8y ago
    I'm addressing point 1: > John Milton, Thomas Paine, and John Stuart Mill all made the point (in various ways) that every time you stop someone from saying or publishing an idea, you are also preventing others who want to hear or read that idea from doing so. But no one who wants to hear or read racism is prevented from doing so — they just can't do it on Patreon. The parent's concept of free speech is fully compatible with this point, specifically because alternatives exist (and will always exist, given liberal enough laws protecting freedom of speech).
    - nicky0 8y ago
      But the content in question was not on Patreon or even linked via Patreon. The ban was for comments made on an unrelated third party recording.
    - ggreer 8y ago
      Again, what Sargon said wasn't racist. It was stupid, offensive, and probably an impulsive attempt to get more eyeballs, but it wasn't racist. If what Sargon said was racist, then so is Steven Pinker's talk on language[1] (specifically the segment on profanity and racial slurs). > The parent's concept of free speech is fully compatible with this point, specifically because alternatives exist (and will always exist, given liberal enough laws protecting freedom of speech). This argument proves too much. Alternatives always exist; they just vary in how inconvenient they are. By the same logic, it would be OK if every online payment service banned Sargon and every bank refused to let him open an account. After all, an alternative still exists: His patrons could mail him cash every month. There's no bright line here, and of course I don't think Patreon should be compelled to do business with Sargon, but I tend to worry when popular platforms erode free speech norms by policing content. Patreon is the latest example of this, and they're particularly worrying because they're responsible for people's livelihoods. I'm not alone in this worry. As the article mentions, Sam Harris has cancelled his Patreon account. He's willing to forgo tens of thousands of dollars per month today rather than let his patronage grow and risk losing more in the future. That's quite the condemnation of Patreon's judgement and of similar policies by other companies. 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBpetDxIEMU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBpetDxIEMU
- repolfx 8y ago
  That would be a good argument if Gab didn't also keep getting shut down, deplatformed and generally targeted by lots of activists who would love to erase it from the net entirely. The goal of the sort of people doing this is that there are no alternatives. Not competing platforms, not self hosting, nothing. They want to erase all such thought from all public spaces and will not stop until they do. That is the problem.
- eli_gottlieb 8y ago
  >Listeners are perfectly free to go elsewhere to hear racist speech — Gab exists, 4chan exists, and there are plenty of smaller sites dedicated to this as well. Haven't various hosting and mirroring platforms refused to service some of these websites? I recall Gab in particular running into some trouble on that front. >Insofar as they want to support someone monetarily, no one can prevent them from using Bitcoin. Except for Bitcoin being non-convertible into legal tender without going through... oh look, a privately-owned payment processor.
elif 8y ago
The platform is not a neutral third party arbitrarily interfering with 2 legitimate parties' desire for speech. The platform, in this case and many, has its own reputation and business interests to consider primarily. Are the people in charge of these platforms doing the right thing for society at large? no. Are they doing what is best for their businesses health? There are definitely arguments for both sides in that case... If their largest demographic is liberal-ish millennials, they have a business interest to take a partisan view, which in the case of a public company can be argued as a legal obligation.
- ggreer 8y ago
  I totally get where you're coming from. Though our conclusions differ, I think our reasoning is very similar. I doubt these bans are purely mercenary. The CEO of Patreon seems to be doing this because he believes it's the right thing. If you watch his video responding to the ban of Lauren Southern last year[1] (a decision I agree with, BTW), he seems totally sincere. He also understands the magnitude of his responsibility to patrons. I think Patreon is being penny wise and pound foolish. Their social signalling helps them grab a larger chunk of a smaller pie. Every high profile ban alienates a small fraction of users, but it's a different fraction every time. It doesn't take many before Patreon's reputation is bad enough to dissuade new creators from using it. It might already be too late for them to turn around. 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmcK6GvgVPs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmcK6GvgVPs
grumdan 8y ago
> In the case of Patreon, there is a man who people want to give money to. He wants to accept that money. There is no criminal activity on either side of the transaction. Yet Patreon is preventing these people from doing what they want because Patreon dislikes one paragraph of the man's boorish utterances. Patreon isn't "preventing" the transaction, they are merely choosing not to facilitate it. Respecting individual rights does not oblige anyone to help others to do what they want to do.
- ggreer 8y ago
  > Patreon isn't "preventing" the transaction, they are merely choosing not to facilitate it. What is the distinction between these two terms? If Wells Fargo refuses to let me deposit checks because of something I said, are they preventing a transaction or merely choosing not to facilitate it? After all, I could open an account at another bank. If FedEx returns packages addressed to me because of something I said, are they preventing a transaction or choosing not to facilitate it? After all, other shipping companies exist. I can't find a bright distinction between the two terms, but there is a distinction between behavior directly related to business (such as where the money came from or what's being shipped) and unrelated things (such as what someone said in a livestream months ago).
  - TimothyBJacobs 8y ago
    In my mind, banks are infrastructure. There are a limited number of them, and you have to get a pretty specific charter to operate one (that I don't think is even being granted anymore?) Patreon isn't. Anyone can create a website where people donate money to creators.
    - Sacho 8y ago
      That's pretty vague. Where's the dividing line of "difficulty to set up" that differentiates banks from Patreon? There's actually more banks(even in my country) than websites dedicating to donating money to creators, as far as I know. Patreon supports recurring donations, so I'm guessing they have PCI compliance - your line is above "any guy with a website" but below "bank", but can you try pinning it down? Are Mastercard and Visa infrastructure?
manangatangy 8y ago
This states the issue clearly and accurately. Very well said.

by ggreer 8y ago

jakelazaroff 8y ago

Listeners are perfectly free to go elsewhere to hear racist speech — Gab exists, 4chan exists, and there are plenty of smaller sites dedicated to this as well. Insofar as they want to support someone monetarily, no one can prevent them from using Bitcoin.

zepto 8y ago
Bitcoin is failing and if that’s the best option for free speech, it proves that the mainstream actually doesn’t support it.
- krapp 8y ago
  > Bitcoin is failing and if that’s the best option for free speech, it proves that the mainstream actually doesn’t support it. Bitcoin is an anarcho-capitalist currency, and the mainstream aren't anarchists. The mainstream doesn't object to it because they object to free speech, they object to it because they like banks with their FDIC insurance and laws.
  - jakelazaroff 8y ago
    "Object" is even probably too strong a term! The mainstream is mostly indifferent to it, because normal banking is better for virtually every transaction they want to make. Bitcoin is failing on its own (lack of) merits, not because people are mounting some campaign to destroy it.
- okr 8y ago
  I do not see bitcoin as failing. If anyone can exchange bitcoin back to local currencies, then it works pretty well for value transfer. I can buy bitcoin now for $50, transfer it, and then someone exchanges bitcoin back to $50 minus the fees. Just like any other payment processor. If one wants to save up or speculate, well, thats a different matter.
ggreer 8y ago
This comment doesn't address my points at all. First, none of those sites are Patreon competitors. Second, I never claimed alternatives didn't exist. Third, in context it's pretty clear that Sargon is trying to insult racists. I don't know much about him, but from that clip it seems like his shtick is to get attention by making points in controversial ways. Well, mission accomplished (in every sense of the phrase). My points were 1. the parent's concept of free speech missed the mark and 2. Patreon has a double standard and a political bias, and that's not good for them or for society. I'm also not saying there should be laws policing Patreon's behavior. I'm saying that while Patreon and other tech companies believe they are doing good by removing content and sanctioning its creators, they are making a mistake. If they branded themselves as a utility (similar to a power company or bank), they could guarantee themselves a larger platform in the long term. At the same time, they'd let everyone read and hear what they wanted to read and hear. They'd reduce political polarization (which seems to be creeping into every aspect of life), eliminate the Streisand effect (I'd never heard of the Daily Stormer or Gab before hosting providers refused to take their money), and make it much harder for extremists to get sympathy.
- jakelazaroff 8y ago
  I'm addressing point 1: > John Milton, Thomas Paine, and John Stuart Mill all made the point (in various ways) that every time you stop someone from saying or publishing an idea, you are also preventing others who want to hear or read that idea from doing so. But no one who wants to hear or read racism is prevented from doing so — they just can't do it on Patreon. The parent's concept of free speech is fully compatible with this point, specifically because alternatives exist (and will always exist, given liberal enough laws protecting freedom of speech).
  - nicky0 8y ago
    But the content in question was not on Patreon or even linked via Patreon. The ban was for comments made on an unrelated third party recording.
  - ggreer 8y ago
    Again, what Sargon said wasn't racist. It was stupid, offensive, and probably an impulsive attempt to get more eyeballs, but it wasn't racist. If what Sargon said was racist, then so is Steven Pinker's talk on language[1] (specifically the segment on profanity and racial slurs). > The parent's concept of free speech is fully compatible with this point, specifically because alternatives exist (and will always exist, given liberal enough laws protecting freedom of speech). This argument proves too much. Alternatives always exist; they just vary in how inconvenient they are. By the same logic, it would be OK if every online payment service banned Sargon and every bank refused to let him open an account. After all, an alternative still exists: His patrons could mail him cash every month. There's no bright line here, and of course I don't think Patreon should be compelled to do business with Sargon, but I tend to worry when popular platforms erode free speech norms by policing content. Patreon is the latest example of this, and they're particularly worrying because they're responsible for people's livelihoods. I'm not alone in this worry. As the article mentions, Sam Harris has cancelled his Patreon account. He's willing to forgo tens of thousands of dollars per month today rather than let his patronage grow and risk losing more in the future. That's quite the condemnation of Patreon's judgement and of similar policies by other companies. 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBpetDxIEMU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBpetDxIEMU
repolfx 8y ago
That would be a good argument if Gab didn't also keep getting shut down, deplatformed and generally targeted by lots of activists who would love to erase it from the net entirely. The goal of the sort of people doing this is that there are no alternatives. Not competing platforms, not self hosting, nothing. They want to erase all such thought from all public spaces and will not stop until they do. That is the problem.
eli_gottlieb 8y ago
>Listeners are perfectly free to go elsewhere to hear racist speech — Gab exists, 4chan exists, and there are plenty of smaller sites dedicated to this as well. Haven't various hosting and mirroring platforms refused to service some of these websites? I recall Gab in particular running into some trouble on that front. >Insofar as they want to support someone monetarily, no one can prevent them from using Bitcoin. Except for Bitcoin being non-convertible into legal tender without going through... oh look, a privately-owned payment processor.

elif 8y ago

The platform is not a neutral third party arbitrarily interfering with 2 legitimate parties' desire for speech. The platform, in this case and many, has its own reputation and business interests to consider primarily. Are the people in charge of these platforms doing the right thing for society at large? no. Are they doing what is best for their businesses health? There are definitely arguments for both sides in that case... If their largest demographic is liberal-ish millennials, they have a business interest to take a partisan view, which in the case of a public company can be argued as a legal obligation.

ggreer 8y ago
I totally get where you're coming from. Though our conclusions differ, I think our reasoning is very similar. I doubt these bans are purely mercenary. The CEO of Patreon seems to be doing this because he believes it's the right thing. If you watch his video responding to the ban of Lauren Southern last year[1] (a decision I agree with, BTW), he seems totally sincere. He also understands the magnitude of his responsibility to patrons. I think Patreon is being penny wise and pound foolish. Their social signalling helps them grab a larger chunk of a smaller pie. Every high profile ban alienates a small fraction of users, but it's a different fraction every time. It doesn't take many before Patreon's reputation is bad enough to dissuade new creators from using it. It might already be too late for them to turn around. 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmcK6GvgVPs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmcK6GvgVPs

grumdan 8y ago

> In the case of Patreon, there is a man who people want to give money to. He wants to accept that money. There is no criminal activity on either side of the transaction. Yet Patreon is preventing these people from doing what they want because Patreon dislikes one paragraph of the man's boorish utterances. Patreon isn't "preventing" the transaction, they are merely choosing not to facilitate it. Respecting individual rights does not oblige anyone to help others to do what they want to do.

ggreer 8y ago
> Patreon isn't "preventing" the transaction, they are merely choosing not to facilitate it. What is the distinction between these two terms? If Wells Fargo refuses to let me deposit checks because of something I said, are they preventing a transaction or merely choosing not to facilitate it? After all, I could open an account at another bank. If FedEx returns packages addressed to me because of something I said, are they preventing a transaction or choosing not to facilitate it? After all, other shipping companies exist. I can't find a bright distinction between the two terms, but there is a distinction between behavior directly related to business (such as where the money came from or what's being shipped) and unrelated things (such as what someone said in a livestream months ago).
- TimothyBJacobs 8y ago
  In my mind, banks are infrastructure. There are a limited number of them, and you have to get a pretty specific charter to operate one (that I don't think is even being granted anymore?) Patreon isn't. Anyone can create a website where people donate money to creators.
  - Sacho 8y ago
    That's pretty vague. Where's the dividing line of "difficulty to set up" that differentiates banks from Patreon? There's actually more banks(even in my country) than websites dedicating to donating money to creators, as far as I know. Patreon supports recurring donations, so I'm guessing they have PCI compliance - your line is above "any guy with a website" but below "bank", but can you try pinning it down? Are Mastercard and Visa infrastructure?

manangatangy 8y ago

This states the issue clearly and accurately. Very well said.