> Ms. Hart said. “You cannot say those words on our platform. It doesn’t matter who you’re directing them at.” This needs to be challenged. The New York Times

> Ms. Hart said. “You cannot say those words on our platform. It doesn’t matter who you’re directing them at.” This needs to be challenged. The New York Times author Bowles is referencing a video by name where the Youtuber Benjamin explains his position. This video is not linked to. There are other hyperlinks in the article, though. The author chose to not give the interested reader easy access to the opinion from the subject of the story. Why not? We have a completely one-sided story where the only the Patreon side have their say. Is this online journalism? I will provide the links: The video is properly titled "The Patreon Witch Trials (#PatreonPurge 2)": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkON93drONQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkON93drONQ Its predecessor is titled "You Cannot Trust Patreon (#PatreonPurge 1)": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ThPdCicEsg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ThPdCicEsg Youtuber Benjamin claims the incident that got him banned did not happen on Patreon (and that Patreon only has rules for Patreon users what they can and cannot say on Patreon). Patreon employee Hart claims it happened on Patreon. These are two opposite statements, they cannot be both true. If you've read the article and watched the videos and thus now know both sides of the story, whose statement do you think is right?