4 ms·

>I wonder if consumers could use forced arbitration in the same way. They can. Patreon is about to be hit really hard for playing thought policeman. https://w

>I wonder if consumers could use forced arbitration in the same way. They can. Patreon is about to be hit really hard for playing thought policeman. https://www.cernovich.com/patreon-mandatory-arbitration/ https://www.cernovich.com/patreon-mandatory-arbitration/

heartbeats 7y ago
I don't see why this is getting downvoted – it seems like a materially correct claim: > “You’re going to pay that money,” U.S. District Judge William Alsup said [to DoorDash] in court. “You don’t want to pay millions of dollars, but that’s what you bargained to do and you’re going to do it.” There really isn't much room for interpretation, is there? Patreon is a tiny company, $5 million is ~1% of their value. If nothing else it would cause trouble with the liquidity.
- tzs 7y ago
  It's probably being down voted for a couple of reasons. 1. The claim in the link that Patreon banning someone from using them to receive funding is tortious interference with a business relationship giving the people who wanted to donate that person a cause of action is extremely tenuous at best. For an act to be tortious interference there has to be something wrong about that act other than just that it impacted the relationship between two other parties. For example, if Patreon decided to kick off all black creators, that would be wrong regardless of whether or not it impacted any business relationships between those creators and others. A claim for tortious interference might be viable. The bannings being complained about don't fall into any such protected category as far as I know. 2. The link is to a site that is generally unreliable. The author is a major pusher of conspiracy theories, pedophilia accusations, and the like which almost never stand up to scrutiny. For those rare things he publishes that are not those kind of things, there should always be a better source you can link to. No one has time to fact check every article they read, so you want to get your articles from places that are mostly right with at most a rare goof, not places that are the other way around. Many people down vote for linking to the later kind of site, even if the particular article is one of their rare reasonable ones, because it makes more work for the reader than linking to a better site would have.
  - heartbeats 7y ago
    That is absurd. If you can't be bothered to read the comment, why vote on it? If you can't be bothered to click the link and skim it over, then how does your opinion add anything of value to the site's ranking system it doesn't already know?
  - tssva 7y ago
    Although I find the claim of tortuous interference as extremely tenuous as you do your description of what is required for an act to be "wrong" is poor bordering on incorrect. An act can be wrong for the purposes of tortuous interference if it is done to appropriate the benefits of the plaintiff's contract, is an independent or illegal wrong, or if the conduct was done for the sole purpose of injuring the plaintiff. In this case it will be extremely difficult to proof that Patreon acted solely to injure the defendants.
    - tzs 7y ago
      What I was trying to get at was the idea stated by the Supreme Court of Oregon in Top Serv. Body Shop, Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 582 P.2d 1365 (1978) [1], cited by the California court in Della Penna v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 11 Cal. 4th 376 (1995) [2]: > In summary, such a claim is made out when interference resulting in injury to another is wrongful by some measure beyond the fact of the interference itself. Defendant's liability may arise from improper motives or from the use of improper means. They may be wrongful by reason of a statute or other regulation, or a recognized rule of common law, or perhaps an established standard of a trade or profession which I came across in this article on the elements of tortuous interference claims under California law [3]. [1] https://law.justia.com/cases/oregon/supreme-court/1978/283-or-201-0.html https://law.justia.com/cases/oregon/supreme-court/1978/283-o... [2] https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/4th/11/376.html https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/4th/11... [3] https://www.businessjustice.com/what-are-the-elements-for-a-tortious-interference-claim-under-ca.html https://www.businessjustice.com/what-are-the-elements-for-a-...
      - tssva 7y ago
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

heartbeats 7y ago

I don't see why this is getting downvoted – it seems like a materially correct claim: > “You’re going to pay that money,” U.S. District Judge William Alsup said [to DoorDash] in court. “You don’t want to pay millions of dollars, but that’s what you bargained to do and you’re going to do it.” There really isn't much room for interpretation, is there? Patreon is a tiny company, $5 million is ~1% of their value. If nothing else it would cause trouble with the liquidity.

tzs 7y ago
It's probably being down voted for a couple of reasons. 1. The claim in the link that Patreon banning someone from using them to receive funding is tortious interference with a business relationship giving the people who wanted to donate that person a cause of action is extremely tenuous at best. For an act to be tortious interference there has to be something wrong about that act other than just that it impacted the relationship between two other parties. For example, if Patreon decided to kick off all black creators, that would be wrong regardless of whether or not it impacted any business relationships between those creators and others. A claim for tortious interference might be viable. The bannings being complained about don't fall into any such protected category as far as I know. 2. The link is to a site that is generally unreliable. The author is a major pusher of conspiracy theories, pedophilia accusations, and the like which almost never stand up to scrutiny. For those rare things he publishes that are not those kind of things, there should always be a better source you can link to. No one has time to fact check every article they read, so you want to get your articles from places that are mostly right with at most a rare goof, not places that are the other way around. Many people down vote for linking to the later kind of site, even if the particular article is one of their rare reasonable ones, because it makes more work for the reader than linking to a better site would have.
- heartbeats 7y ago
  That is absurd. If you can't be bothered to read the comment, why vote on it? If you can't be bothered to click the link and skim it over, then how does your opinion add anything of value to the site's ranking system it doesn't already know?
- tssva 7y ago
  Although I find the claim of tortuous interference as extremely tenuous as you do your description of what is required for an act to be "wrong" is poor bordering on incorrect. An act can be wrong for the purposes of tortuous interference if it is done to appropriate the benefits of the plaintiff's contract, is an independent or illegal wrong, or if the conduct was done for the sole purpose of injuring the plaintiff. In this case it will be extremely difficult to proof that Patreon acted solely to injure the defendants.
  - tzs 7y ago
    What I was trying to get at was the idea stated by the Supreme Court of Oregon in Top Serv. Body Shop, Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 582 P.2d 1365 (1978) [1], cited by the California court in Della Penna v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 11 Cal. 4th 376 (1995) [2]: > In summary, such a claim is made out when interference resulting in injury to another is wrongful by some measure beyond the fact of the interference itself. Defendant's liability may arise from improper motives or from the use of improper means. They may be wrongful by reason of a statute or other regulation, or a recognized rule of common law, or perhaps an established standard of a trade or profession which I came across in this article on the elements of tortuous interference claims under California law [3]. [1] https://law.justia.com/cases/oregon/supreme-court/1978/283-or-201-0.html https://law.justia.com/cases/oregon/supreme-court/1978/283-o... [2] https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/4th/11/376.html https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/4th/11... [3] https://www.businessjustice.com/what-are-the-elements-for-a-tortious-interference-claim-under-ca.html https://www.businessjustice.com/what-are-the-elements-for-a-...
    - tssva 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]