4 ms·

Actually implement Patreon's rules of conduct and abide by them. What Patreon has been doing doesn't even fit with what Jack Conte said they were doing, and wha

Actually implement Patreon's rules of conduct and abide by them. What Patreon has been doing doesn't even fit with what Jack Conte said they were doing, and what their terms of service actually say. The reason given why Sargon of Akkad was banned, was because he used some unsavory language to try and offend white nationalists on a YouTube stream apart from Patreon and not on his own channels. And yet, some searching revealed that Patreon has other creators who use the same language on Patreon who were not banned. Furthermore, there is funding of groups engaging in violence on Patreon, but this isn't being banned in accordance to their terms of service. (Many say this is because those groups are farther left leaning.) How does Go Fund Me keep from turning into the mother of all money laundries?

toufiqbarhamov 8y ago
I’m totally disinterested in a political discussion here, I’m just asking about how your idea could comply with anti-laundering, KYC laws and regulations. As to how GoFundMe works, they cooperate with law enforcement and say so in their TOS, as well as adhering to KYC for withdrawal. https://support.gofundme.com/hc/en-us/articles/360001977868-Requirements-to-Withdraw https://support.gofundme.com/hc/en-us/articles/360001977868-...
- stcredzero 8y ago
  There would have to be an implementation of KYC. My idea, at least initially, would be to vet lists of creators manually, based on current prominence in social media.
  - mirimir 8y ago
    That's only necessary if the service is subject to US jurisdiction, directly or indirectly. No service that's subject to any nation's jurisdiction could be considered truly "censorship-free". Because, you know, said nation could censor it.
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      This is true, but I'm not so sure I'd want to operate at anything approaching WikiLeaks levels of giving the middle finger to governments. A service that goes by both the letter and spirit of the law in terms of Free Speech, out of the reaches of collusive interference of powerful business people and political activists is something currently lacking, and a good place to start. I'd have a terms of service not too different from the one Patreon had published at the time of Jack Conte's interview. Such a site would also be "protecting a brand," but the political facet of the brand would be one of enabling the funding of civil and reasoned (though perhaps controversial) discourse. Granted, that's going to be a real can of worms.
      - mirimir 8y ago
        Yes, that would be a fine service to have. Operating solely under US jurisdiction, it would be virtually immune to government censorship. Given strong protection of free speech in the US Constitution. And so it could be as censorship-free as its operators desired, without interference from private third parties. But all bets are off if other nations have jurisdiction. Consider the pressure that Google is facing to apply "The Right to be Forgotten" to all searches globally. Or pressure from the UK and Australia to censor mention of legal stuff under protective order. Or China, seeking to block coverage of its Muslim "reeducation efforts".
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
alasdair_ 8y ago
>The reason given why Sargon of Akkad was banned, was because he used some unsavory language to try and offend white nationalists on a YouTube stream This is obscuring what was said. Specifically, he said: "You’re acting like a bunch of n * * * * * s, just so you know. You act like white n * * * * * s." and "Look, you carry on, but don’t expect me to then have a debate with one of your f * * gots.…Like why would I bother?…Maybe you’re just acting like a n * * * * r, mate? Have you considered that? Do you think white people act like this?" It's not even the words themselves, it's the deeper implication ("Do you think white people act like this?"). I see this as no different from a TV network firing a host who said a whole bunch of racist stuff that didn't happen to be said on the TV network. Why should they continue to give this person money if they don't want to?
- stcredzero 8y ago
  It's not even the words themselves, it's the deeper implication He's using the white supremacist's own racism against themselves. "Reading the deeper implication" has many likely interpretations of Sargon's internal mental state that are both non-racist and racist. That's quite far from "manifest observable behavior" Patreon claims in their TOS. They just have to cut off a father's income just before Christmas for a counter-troll on an obscure fringe live-stream from 10 months back? An organization making that much of a stretch is showing its hand. (Again, I don't approve of Sargon's language. It was definitely a mistake for him to say such a thing.) I see this as no different from a TV network firing a host Then how is it that someone did a search of Patreon's site and turned up tons of n-word occurrences? How is it that Patreon continues to fund groups that seem to encourage violence? If Patreon is reaching that far in Sargon's case to "protect their brand" yet have so many skeletons like that, so easily found, I highly doubt that "protecting their brand" is their actual underlying motivation. In any case, Patreon is a conduit for payment, not a network. Perhaps they're pivoting, but from where I stand, it's completely the wrong move. They've severely damaged their standing as a means of paying creators.
  - alasdair_ 8y ago
    >Then how is it that someone did a search of Patreon's site and turned up tons of n-word occurrences? Because these people don't matter to Patreon. >How is it that Patreon continues to fund groups that seem to encourage violence? Because these people don't matter to Patreon. >If Patreon is reaching that far in Sargon's case to "protect their brand" yet have so many skeletons like that, so easily found, I highly doubt that "protecting their brand" is their actual underlying motivation. It likely IS their motivation (or the more general motivation of making money anyway). Someone did some math and realized that continuing to give this person money will, on balance, be more harmful than not giving this person money. That really is the extent of it all. No one at Patreon likely gives a shit about the guy except that he is too controversial compared to the amount of money he makes them. Let's say Patreon makes 10% of the revenue this guy brings in. $15,000 is such an irrelevant amount compared to the amount of harm that continuing to support this guy monetarily could potentially cause that it would be insane to continue to bother sending him any money.

toufiqbarhamov 8y ago

I’m totally disinterested in a political discussion here, I’m just asking about how your idea could comply with anti-laundering, KYC laws and regulations. As to how GoFundMe works, they cooperate with law enforcement and say so in their TOS, as well as adhering to KYC for withdrawal. https://support.gofundme.com/hc/en-us/articles/360001977868-Requirements-to-Withdraw https://support.gofundme.com/hc/en-us/articles/360001977868-...

stcredzero 8y ago
There would have to be an implementation of KYC. My idea, at least initially, would be to vet lists of creators manually, based on current prominence in social media.
- mirimir 8y ago
  That's only necessary if the service is subject to US jurisdiction, directly or indirectly. No service that's subject to any nation's jurisdiction could be considered truly "censorship-free". Because, you know, said nation could censor it.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    This is true, but I'm not so sure I'd want to operate at anything approaching WikiLeaks levels of giving the middle finger to governments. A service that goes by both the letter and spirit of the law in terms of Free Speech, out of the reaches of collusive interference of powerful business people and political activists is something currently lacking, and a good place to start. I'd have a terms of service not too different from the one Patreon had published at the time of Jack Conte's interview. Such a site would also be "protecting a brand," but the political facet of the brand would be one of enabling the funding of civil and reasoned (though perhaps controversial) discourse. Granted, that's going to be a real can of worms.
    - mirimir 8y ago
      Yes, that would be a fine service to have. Operating solely under US jurisdiction, it would be virtually immune to government censorship. Given strong protection of free speech in the US Constitution. And so it could be as censorship-free as its operators desired, without interference from private third parties. But all bets are off if other nations have jurisdiction. Consider the pressure that Google is facing to apply "The Right to be Forgotten" to all searches globally. Or pressure from the UK and Australia to censor mention of legal stuff under protective order. Or China, seeking to block coverage of its Muslim "reeducation efforts".
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

alasdair_ 8y ago

>The reason given why Sargon of Akkad was banned, was because he used some unsavory language to try and offend white nationalists on a YouTube stream This is obscuring what was said. Specifically, he said: "You’re acting like a bunch of n * * * * * s, just so you know. You act like white n * * * * * s." and "Look, you carry on, but don’t expect me to then have a debate with one of your f * * gots.…Like why would I bother?…Maybe you’re just acting like a n * * * * r, mate? Have you considered that? Do you think white people act like this?" It's not even the words themselves, it's the deeper implication ("Do you think white people act like this?"). I see this as no different from a TV network firing a host who said a whole bunch of racist stuff that didn't happen to be said on the TV network. Why should they continue to give this person money if they don't want to?

stcredzero 8y ago
It's not even the words themselves, it's the deeper implication He's using the white supremacist's own racism against themselves. "Reading the deeper implication" has many likely interpretations of Sargon's internal mental state that are both non-racist and racist. That's quite far from "manifest observable behavior" Patreon claims in their TOS. They just have to cut off a father's income just before Christmas for a counter-troll on an obscure fringe live-stream from 10 months back? An organization making that much of a stretch is showing its hand. (Again, I don't approve of Sargon's language. It was definitely a mistake for him to say such a thing.) I see this as no different from a TV network firing a host Then how is it that someone did a search of Patreon's site and turned up tons of n-word occurrences? How is it that Patreon continues to fund groups that seem to encourage violence? If Patreon is reaching that far in Sargon's case to "protect their brand" yet have so many skeletons like that, so easily found, I highly doubt that "protecting their brand" is their actual underlying motivation. In any case, Patreon is a conduit for payment, not a network. Perhaps they're pivoting, but from where I stand, it's completely the wrong move. They've severely damaged their standing as a means of paying creators.
- alasdair_ 8y ago
  >Then how is it that someone did a search of Patreon's site and turned up tons of n-word occurrences? Because these people don't matter to Patreon. >How is it that Patreon continues to fund groups that seem to encourage violence? Because these people don't matter to Patreon. >If Patreon is reaching that far in Sargon's case to "protect their brand" yet have so many skeletons like that, so easily found, I highly doubt that "protecting their brand" is their actual underlying motivation. It likely IS their motivation (or the more general motivation of making money anyway). Someone did some math and realized that continuing to give this person money will, on balance, be more harmful than not giving this person money. That really is the extent of it all. No one at Patreon likely gives a shit about the guy except that he is too controversial compared to the amount of money he makes them. Let's say Patreon makes 10% of the revenue this guy brings in. $15,000 is such an irrelevant amount compared to the amount of harm that continuing to support this guy monetarily could potentially cause that it would be insane to continue to bother sending him any money.