7 ms·

Patreon signed its own death warrant when it started censoring certain artists and creatives it deemed to be "unacceptable". Throughout history the most creativ

• Barrin92 7y ago
  I have to seriously laugh at the idea of comparing Oscar Wilde, a gay dandy in Victorian England to the few racists that patreon has thrown off its platform. But I guess comparing the worst corners of the internet to great historical artists is worth an attempt. Either way I'm not really sure where the death talk is coming from because patreon seems to be doing fine.
  • geofft 7y ago
    They did also crack down on erotica a couple years back, but I thought they'd walked that back in some fashion. I do agree that the comment you're replying to is likely to be a dog-whistle for cracking down on racists. Anyway, there is news from the last day about Patreon setting up "Patreon Capital" where they offer loans to creators. I suppose the extrapolation is that they're doing this because their existing (useful-to-the-world) business isn't profitable enough for their VCs.
    • WorldMaker 7y ago
      The argument/extrapolation I've been hearing has more to do that Patreon maybe couldn't be trusted as "Patreon Capital" is a business model of known predators ("Pay-Day Loans" aka "Loan Sharks"). Whether or not Patreon needed to do it to make their VCs happier with their business model or if they thought the new business model would be more profitable or as their PR seems to imply they just thought it would a useful feature intended to help their "Creators", it smells like an escalation (to possibly "mob boss") in Patreon's relationship with their "Creators" and the "Creators" may be likely to bolt from distrust.
  • dntbnmpls 7y ago
    > I have to seriously laugh at the idea of comparing Oscar Wilde, a gay dandy in Victorian England to the few racists that patreon has thrown off its platform. The point is that one was vilified just like the "few 'racists' that patreon has thrown off its platform". Funnily enough Oscar Wilde himself was probably racist too. > Either way I'm not really sure where the death talk is coming from because patreon seems to be doing fine. It's in the tweets. "Anyway, the first sets of VCs have likely been paid off for their efforts (hence the ever-growing rounds) and the new move into "Business Loans, but for Morons" that Patreon is trying is all an attempt to pay back a line of credit they never will." But I agree that patreon should be fine as long as they don't face a viable competitor.
• nemothekid 7y ago
  I’m pretty sure they implemented a lot of this censorship because Visa got uncomfortable. Patreon would have had to kick them off anyways, or build it own payment network.
• deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
• jacques_chester 7y ago
  > Patreon signed its own death warrant when it started censoring certain artists and creatives it deemed to be "unacceptable". I think they signed their death warrant with unsustainably low cuts of revenue, personally. That something makes some folks very, very angry does not show that it makes many, many folks angry enough to impact a business. > Creativity and censorship cannot live side by side. This might be a tad hyperbolic. Creativity is ever-present and constraints create new forms, shapes, movements and pressures in art. Solzhenitsyn without Stalin was invisible. Goya without Napoleon probably made unremembered, unremarkable (but slightly creepy) portraits. And so on.
  • deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
• pcwalton 7y ago
  Maybe the "censorship" you're referring to is a bad thing (though note that without any further information about what you're describing, I'm inclined to be skeptical of that). But you definitely haven't shown any link between that and Patreon's financial troubles.
• smt88 7y ago
  > Creativity and censorship cannot live side by side. Nonsense. Child porn is "censored" from every developed country and, therefore, serious creative platform. Similarly, removing hard-core racists has not dampened creativity on Twitter, reddit, Facebook, or any other site. Most people can make brave, insightful, challenging art without crossing that line. Taika Waititi just made a movie where Hitler is a main character. It caused no controversy and was nominated for major awards. Private companies don't censor. The racists can go to their own site, like 4chan. Art will be fine without them.
  • P_I_Staker 7y ago
    I don't think child porn can be compared to hard core racism. Child porn both directly victimizes a real person (and specific one at that), and can't really be considered a political ideology. It's a huge stretch to argue otherwise. I don't think some of the bans on social media are hardcore racists. Even some of the really bad people that have gotten booted don't really fit that bill. Also, while I don't necessarily see bans that I think are harmful, I'm not sure I agree with the criteria used. There are several that appear to be judgement calls that someone's "bad news", and while mostly right, the specific things they've done to earn a ban haven't always been outside the norms for the platform. You can find plenty of really toxic stuff on twitter and reddit, specifically. It doesn't seem to be applied very fairly. I think you're exaggerating and your comment is a bit sensationalist.
    • smt88 7y ago
      > Child porn both directly victimizes a real person (and specific one at that), and can't really be considered a political ideology. Artificial child porn (using drawings or CGI) are also banned from those platforms. And there absolutely is an ideological undercurrent to a lot of it -- the argument that age-of-consent laws are oppressing people. I've even seen that argument on HN.
      • P_I_Staker 7y ago
        You can find any kind of loony toons argument for anything on the internet. The artificial media depicts the commission of a very heinous crime. Regardless, I disagree that everyone being banned from social media is a "hardcore racist". Even some of the bans that I think were in the public interest don't really fit the bill. There are too many people that are redefining "racism" to mean someone I disagree with on an issue (eg. immigration). I'm left-leaning and pro immigration reform, but I disagree with how the issue is being reframed.
• mrandish 7y ago
  > Patreon signed its own death warrant when it started censoring The challenge is that what one person sees as 'censorship' another person can see as 'curation' or even a 'safe space'. I'm a passionate advocate of free speech rights but I've learned to separate 'constitutional free speech' (what the government can censor by law) from 'private free speech' (what individuals, organizations and businesses can be justified in censoring (or not) on their own property - whether physical or digital). In today's world of hair-trigger triggering, outrage porn and virtue signaling almost no person or business can reasonably sustain a fully permissive content policy (ie allowing everything that's arguably legal). It now goes beyond brand image to include the Venn overlap of sensitivities between customers, employees, partners, suppliers, shareholders, etc. While an individual may desire to be fully permissive, if a large enough percentage of stakeholders withhold participation because they refuse to associate with someone who even passively permits X, Y or Z to exist elsewhere on their platform - then your company, platform or effort can quickly become non-viable.
• mikekchar 7y ago
  > Patreon signed its own death warrant when it started censoring certain artists and creatives it deemed to be "unacceptable". If they did, then I, for one, am completely OK with that. It's a business and if deciding to limit their business dealings with only certain people puts them underwater, then that's a decision that they should be allowed to make. In every population there are distinguishing features of it's populace. One person is blue, another is green, a third is purple. It is possible to discriminate who you interact with. Perhaps I only want to interact with blue people, or I specifically don't want to interact with purple people. For the blue or purple people, this may suck, but in reality this is actually the norm. Businesses regularly discriminate based on how much money people are willing to spend :-). Certain establishments may have dress codes. There may be rules that people carrying weapons are not allowed on the premises, even if those people are usually allowed to carry weapons. While I intentionally encoded the populace as blue, green and purple colours, I could assign blue = has at least $100 to spend, green = wears clothing, and purple = not carrying a weapon. I can legitimately discriminate based on these things and the law will back me up for the most part (just try sitting around in a Michelin restaurant with no intention to buy anything -- the police will eventually cart you away). Discrimination gets even more complicated. While we may have blue, green and purple people, we will also have people who hate blue, green or purple people. It might be a bit strange to insist that a customer be poor or that they must carry a weapon, but it's not actually unheard of for a nude beach to insist that the visitors are nude (although that may not fly in some parts of the world). So as well as being able to choose that I will only sell to you if you are blue, green or purple, I can reasonable say that I won't sell to blue people, or I won't sell to green people. This is, of course discrimination, but as the difference between "will" and "won't" is a logical operation, it's easy to flip our logic. Blue = does not have money, Green = is wearing clothes, and Purple = is carrying weapons. I will say that I not service those people and that's entirely legitimate pretty much anywhere in the world. So why are we up in arms about discrimination? Because for people who are denied service it sucks. Sometimes we take a category of people and we say, "You aren't allowed to discriminate based on this". Unfortunately, we do sometimes run into problems and especially we run into problems when a culture has historically treated a certain category of person extremely poorly, the culture tends to continue to do so unthinkingly. So it makes a great deal of sense to choose certain categories and say, "You are not allowed to discriminate based on this" or even "You must discriminate based on this" (remember, "not allowed to" and "must" are essentially the same thing with the logic of the action inverted). Now, it is categorically not sensible to extend this to all forms of discrimination. A restaurant can't operate if it must provide service to people who won't pay, for example. There is a certain amount of discrimination that must occur in order to provide meaningful service. It's completely unreasonable in the general case to say, "You must never discriminate" (which is the same as "You must always discriminate" -- again, just by moving where you put the "not" in your sentence). This is especially true because, as I said, for everything you can discriminate about, you can also discriminate on the opposite. You can't simultaneously satisfy the people who believe that nobody should be nude and the people who believe that some people should be allowed to be nude. You have to pick one or the other. In most places in the western world, it defaults to "nobody should be allowed to be nude" and society encourages this discrimination, much to the chagrin of nudists. When we talk about deplatforming, it can be a serious problem. Imagine if a group of people decided that women should not be able to raise funds. They may be able to band together and ensure that it was impossible. This would have a seriously bad effect on society. That's why there is a law that says you can't do this with respect to the category of gender (in most countries). Similarly in most countries you can't do it based on race, or religion or sexual orientation. But don't be fooled! It is only a very small selection of categories that are protected! In many places in the world, it is impossible to get a bank account if you are not a resident. It's quite a reasonable requirement after all and stops a lot of money laundering. But, as an immigrant, I can tell you that getting your first bank account set up in a foreign country can be a harrowing experience -- and it can seriously impact your life. However, on balance, the advantages of the discrimination probably outweigh the disadvantages which is why almost no country has laws about that kind of thing. And this, in a nutshell, is why I think it is completely reasonable for Patreon to choose who they do business with, as long as they aren't discriminating against a category that is protected by the society in which they operate.