3 ms·

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 ow

by 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