4 ms·

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 sa

by 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.
  - halbritt 8y ago
    > It also seems way easier to start up something like Patreon than a FB competitor. I think you're probably right. I feel like it's a semantic argument, but it's still worth having, especially when it comes to creating legislation. There are other options and it's probably not that difficult for another company to disrupt Patreon's business model. There's still the winner-take-all phenomena in tech that makes more or less difference depending on whether your platform has a broad or narrow userbase. If one were creating anti-monopoly legislation, then this distinction might be critical.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - waterhouse 8y ago
    Here's one competitor to Patreon. They were effectively shut down by VISA refusing to process payments for them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatreon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatreon Here's another competitor to Patreon. They have been crippled by PayPal and Stripe refusing to process payments for them. They sound optimistic about finding replacement payment processors, and it's certainly their duty to their customers to try their best, but so far it hasn't happened. https://www.subscribestar.com/posts/5617 https://www.subscribestar.com/posts/5617 Elsewhere in this thread there are people pointing to indications that Patreon's banning choices were due to pressure from their own payment processors. It's probably easy to create a Patreon competitor. If you want it to not get shut down, though, I imagine you'll have to implement ban policies at least as strict as Patreon itself. So maybe Patreon isn't a monopoly, but on the other hand, it doesn't make sense to say "It's fine if Patreon chooses whatever policies they like because, if the policies are bad, you can just start up a competitor with better policies". The relevant monopolies/oligopolies seem to be the payment processors.

by ggreer 8y ago

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.
- halbritt 8y ago
  > It also seems way easier to start up something like Patreon than a FB competitor. I think you're probably right. I feel like it's a semantic argument, but it's still worth having, especially when it comes to creating legislation. There are other options and it's probably not that difficult for another company to disrupt Patreon's business model. There's still the winner-take-all phenomena in tech that makes more or less difference depending on whether your platform has a broad or narrow userbase. If one were creating anti-monopoly legislation, then this distinction might be critical.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- waterhouse 8y ago
  Here's one competitor to Patreon. They were effectively shut down by VISA refusing to process payments for them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatreon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatreon Here's another competitor to Patreon. They have been crippled by PayPal and Stripe refusing to process payments for them. They sound optimistic about finding replacement payment processors, and it's certainly their duty to their customers to try their best, but so far it hasn't happened. https://www.subscribestar.com/posts/5617 https://www.subscribestar.com/posts/5617 Elsewhere in this thread there are people pointing to indications that Patreon's banning choices were due to pressure from their own payment processors. It's probably easy to create a Patreon competitor. If you want it to not get shut down, though, I imagine you'll have to implement ban policies at least as strict as Patreon itself. So maybe Patreon isn't a monopoly, but on the other hand, it doesn't make sense to say "It's fine if Patreon chooses whatever policies they like because, if the policies are bad, you can just start up a competitor with better policies". The relevant monopolies/oligopolies seem to be the payment processors.