> 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

> 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.