4 ms·

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

by 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
  - halbritt 8y ago
    This is concerning for the same reason that the government seems to be concerned that Facebook seems to have an anti-conservative bias. Patreon, like Facebook, has a de facto monopoly. The outstanding question is what is to be done about it.
    - TimothyBJacobs 8y ago
      If you take a very specific definition of Patreon's business, donate a monthly amount to creators in return for nothing, recognition, or virtual/physical benefits, then perhaps you could say they have a defacto monopoly. But if you take a slightly wider look at supporting creators whose content you enjoy, then not at all. You have Twitch subscriptions, YouTube supports/members/whatever they are calling it these days, PayPal, multiple variations of crowdfunding platforms, etc... It also seems way easier to start up something like Patreon than a FB competitor.
nkurz 8y ago
Patreon has ... a political bias, and that's not good for them What makes you think that their bias is not good for them as a business? To me, it seems quite possible that were they to take the "principled" stance you advocate, they would soon find themselves facing much larger problems. Either their payment processors would cut them off, or they would face a larger and better organized boycott by those who prefer their current bias. Even if I'd prefer them to take a different stance for the long term benefit society, I don't see it helping them in the short term to do so.
- ggreer 8y ago
  > What makes you think that their bias is not good for them as a business? Well it caused me to cancel all of my subscriptions. It caused Sam Harris to cancel his account. It caused a lot of people to look for alternatives. I'm pretty sure this decision hurt Patreon's bottom line. > Either their payment processors would cut them off, or they would face a larger and better organized boycott by those who prefer their current bias. I don't think that's true, at least not with most of the Patreon bans. Nobody was organizing a boycott of Patreon for this, and Patreon's blog post didn't say they were pressured by payment processors. Another example: When Cloudflare stopped hosting The Daily Stormer, it was because Cloudflare's CEO didn't like them claiming that Cloudflare was a secret supporter of their racist ideology. And today Cloudflare seems to have no trouble with payment processors or boycotts despite hosting the Westboro Baptist Church's website.[1] 1. https://www.godhatesfags.com/ https://www.godhatesfags.com/
  - barry-cotter 8y ago
    Patreon would absolutely have rolled all this back already if it was up to them. It isn’t. The MasterCard Visa cartel can destroy their business tomorrow without recourse or appeal, just like they can Stripe or PayPal. When wannabe Patreon competitor SubscribeStar took on Carl Benjamin all eight of their payment processors dropped them. This is not a Patreon thing. https://twitter.com/nickmon1112/status/1076886857445711872?s=21 https://twitter.com/nickmon1112/status/1076886857445711872?s... Thread where a journalist finds evidence to that effect. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1U0mQjUA0T5INc_GDkwPJ2mfhO7tbaIogisSqqxHw0hc/mobilebasic https://docs.google.com/document/d/1U0mQjUA0T5INc_GDkwPJ2mfh... Transcript of a call from the Patreon censorship department with a creator.

by ggreer 8y ago

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
- halbritt 8y ago
  This is concerning for the same reason that the government seems to be concerned that Facebook seems to have an anti-conservative bias. Patreon, like Facebook, has a de facto monopoly. The outstanding question is what is to be done about it.
  - TimothyBJacobs 8y ago
    If you take a very specific definition of Patreon's business, donate a monthly amount to creators in return for nothing, recognition, or virtual/physical benefits, then perhaps you could say they have a defacto monopoly. But if you take a slightly wider look at supporting creators whose content you enjoy, then not at all. You have Twitch subscriptions, YouTube supports/members/whatever they are calling it these days, PayPal, multiple variations of crowdfunding platforms, etc... It also seems way easier to start up something like Patreon than a FB competitor.

nkurz 8y ago

Patreon has ... a political bias, and that's not good for them What makes you think that their bias is not good for them as a business? To me, it seems quite possible that were they to take the "principled" stance you advocate, they would soon find themselves facing much larger problems. Either their payment processors would cut them off, or they would face a larger and better organized boycott by those who prefer their current bias. Even if I'd prefer them to take a different stance for the long term benefit society, I don't see it helping them in the short term to do so.

ggreer 8y ago
> What makes you think that their bias is not good for them as a business? Well it caused me to cancel all of my subscriptions. It caused Sam Harris to cancel his account. It caused a lot of people to look for alternatives. I'm pretty sure this decision hurt Patreon's bottom line. > Either their payment processors would cut them off, or they would face a larger and better organized boycott by those who prefer their current bias. I don't think that's true, at least not with most of the Patreon bans. Nobody was organizing a boycott of Patreon for this, and Patreon's blog post didn't say they were pressured by payment processors. Another example: When Cloudflare stopped hosting The Daily Stormer, it was because Cloudflare's CEO didn't like them claiming that Cloudflare was a secret supporter of their racist ideology. And today Cloudflare seems to have no trouble with payment processors or boycotts despite hosting the Westboro Baptist Church's website.[1] 1. https://www.godhatesfags.com/ https://www.godhatesfags.com/
- barry-cotter 8y ago
  Patreon would absolutely have rolled all this back already if it was up to them. It isn’t. The MasterCard Visa cartel can destroy their business tomorrow without recourse or appeal, just like they can Stripe or PayPal. When wannabe Patreon competitor SubscribeStar took on Carl Benjamin all eight of their payment processors dropped them. This is not a Patreon thing. https://twitter.com/nickmon1112/status/1076886857445711872?s=21 https://twitter.com/nickmon1112/status/1076886857445711872?s... Thread where a journalist finds evidence to that effect. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1U0mQjUA0T5INc_GDkwPJ2mfhO7tbaIogisSqqxHw0hc/mobilebasic https://docs.google.com/document/d/1U0mQjUA0T5INc_GDkwPJ2mfh... Transcript of a call from the Patreon censorship department with a creator.