39 ms·

It's sad that Patreon is paying a price for kicking an abusive person off their platform, but forced arbitration needs to die, and I hope cases like these end t

It's sad that Patreon is paying a price for kicking an abusive person off their platform, but forced arbitration needs to die, and I hope cases like these end the practice entirely.

RaptorJ 6y ago
seems unlikely while Epic Systems vs. Lewis remains US law
- binarymax 6y ago
  Legally they won't be going away. My point is that if having arbitration clauses is more expensive and disruptive than not, it will deter companies from using them.
toomuchtodo 6y ago
It’s not sad at all. If you want to decide what speech you want on your platform, there’s a cost. Patreon deserves this.
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  No, the cost here is because Patreon tried to screw over users and wound up with a loophole that let them do it back. It has little to do with free speech.
  - toomuchtodo 6y ago
    I think we’ll disagree, but I’m excited to see others use arbitration weaponization like this against other platforms when they unilaterally take action against users (free speech or otherwise). Cheap force multiplier.
    - ceejayoz 6y ago
      I do agree. I'm excited to see forced arbitration hurt companies that intended to use it to hurt their users. I'm a bit disappointed to see it benefit a Holocaust denier at the same time.
      - toomuchtodo 6y ago
        I’m a staunch supporter of absolute free speech (as much as possible, caveat “Fire!” in a crowded theater). Denying the Holocaust doesn’t put anyone in imminent danger. I don’t agree with the speech, but I’ll defend the right to speak it (rights are not for the speech we all agree with, but that which is most contentious). The existence of auschwitz is undeniable; you can visit it. If someone wants to look like a fool, let them. If you believe the fool, equally a fool. If fools are responsible for the suppression of fundamental rights, the system is broken and an immune response should be expected.
        ceejayoz 6y ago
        Holocaust deniers have every right to speak their views in the US. They don't have the right to demand a specific platform; just like they can't demand an oped in the New York Times, they can't demand Patreon carry it. I also subscribe to the concept of the paradox of intolerance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance) - that having a tolerant society requires intolerance of certain beliefs. There's some good evidence that deplatforming works. (https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/bjbp9d/do-social-media-bans-work https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/bjbp9d/do-social-media-ba...)
        InfiniteRand 6y ago
        To play devil's advocate for a moment, would the Holywood Blacklist in the 50's count as Holywood studios denying a platform to writers associated with an ideology they believed to be dangerous?
        ceejayoz 6y ago
mindlar 6y ago
Patreon would have been fine if they hadn't cancelled a comedian for having political views that they don't like. Pretty much every comedian has said things that others find offensive. The Patreon arbitration is the beginning of the revolt against cancel culture and the censorship of conservative voices on various platforms.
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  Patreon would've also been fine if they'd just avoided forced arbitration. A class action suit would've flopped early on (as Patreon has every legal right to ban a Holocaust denier from their private platform) and been substantially cheaper as a result. DoorDash's arbitration clause enabled the same attack, with no free speech concerns at play.
- panarky 6y ago
  When you say "political views they don't like", it sounds like he wanted more or less taxes, more or less regulation, more or less public transit. Let's be clear, he's a holocaust denier, and that's not just an unpopular "political view". He has every right to say it to whoever will listen, but private companies should not be forced to amplify that shit.
  - lliamander 6y ago
    > he's a holocaust denier From what little I've seen, Owen Benjamin rejects that description of himself, so I'd be interested to hear why you think he is. Worth noting that outlets that reported him as a "holocaust denier" also claimed that he would definitely lose this lawsuit, which was clearly false. Not only did Patreon lose, but the judge went so far as to point out that the cases they cited undermined their own case. > He has every right to say it to whoever will listen, but private companies should not be forced to amplify that shit. Private companies have an obligation to honor their Terms of Service, which Owen did not violate, and why he and his fans filed for arbitration in the first place.
    - unity1001 6y ago

It's sad that Patreon is paying a price for kicking an abusive person off their platform, but forced arbitration needs to die, and I hope cases like these end the practice entirely.

RaptorJ 6y ago

seems unlikely while Epic Systems vs. Lewis remains US law

binarymax 6y ago
Legally they won't be going away. My point is that if having arbitration clauses is more expensive and disruptive than not, it will deter companies from using them.

toomuchtodo 6y ago

It’s not sad at all. If you want to decide what speech you want on your platform, there’s a cost. Patreon deserves this.

ceejayoz 6y ago
No, the cost here is because Patreon tried to screw over users and wound up with a loophole that let them do it back. It has little to do with free speech.
- toomuchtodo 6y ago
  I think we’ll disagree, but I’m excited to see others use arbitration weaponization like this against other platforms when they unilaterally take action against users (free speech or otherwise). Cheap force multiplier.
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    I do agree. I'm excited to see forced arbitration hurt companies that intended to use it to hurt their users. I'm a bit disappointed to see it benefit a Holocaust denier at the same time.
    - toomuchtodo 6y ago
      I’m a staunch supporter of absolute free speech (as much as possible, caveat “Fire!” in a crowded theater). Denying the Holocaust doesn’t put anyone in imminent danger. I don’t agree with the speech, but I’ll defend the right to speak it (rights are not for the speech we all agree with, but that which is most contentious). The existence of auschwitz is undeniable; you can visit it. If someone wants to look like a fool, let them. If you believe the fool, equally a fool. If fools are responsible for the suppression of fundamental rights, the system is broken and an immune response should be expected.
      - ceejayoz 6y ago
        Holocaust deniers have every right to speak their views in the US. They don't have the right to demand a specific platform; just like they can't demand an oped in the New York Times, they can't demand Patreon carry it. I also subscribe to the concept of the paradox of intolerance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance) - that having a tolerant society requires intolerance of certain beliefs. There's some good evidence that deplatforming works. (https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/bjbp9d/do-social-media-bans-work https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/bjbp9d/do-social-media-ba...)
        InfiniteRand 6y ago
        To play devil's advocate for a moment, would the Holywood Blacklist in the 50's count as Holywood studios denying a platform to writers associated with an ideology they believed to be dangerous?
        ceejayoz 6y ago

mindlar 6y ago

Patreon would have been fine if they hadn't cancelled a comedian for having political views that they don't like. Pretty much every comedian has said things that others find offensive. The Patreon arbitration is the beginning of the revolt against cancel culture and the censorship of conservative voices on various platforms.

ceejayoz 6y ago
Patreon would've also been fine if they'd just avoided forced arbitration. A class action suit would've flopped early on (as Patreon has every legal right to ban a Holocaust denier from their private platform) and been substantially cheaper as a result. DoorDash's arbitration clause enabled the same attack, with no free speech concerns at play.
panarky 6y ago
When you say "political views they don't like", it sounds like he wanted more or less taxes, more or less regulation, more or less public transit. Let's be clear, he's a holocaust denier, and that's not just an unpopular "political view". He has every right to say it to whoever will listen, but private companies should not be forced to amplify that shit.
- lliamander 6y ago
  > he's a holocaust denier From what little I've seen, Owen Benjamin rejects that description of himself, so I'd be interested to hear why you think he is. Worth noting that outlets that reported him as a "holocaust denier" also claimed that he would definitely lose this lawsuit, which was clearly false. Not only did Patreon lose, but the judge went so far as to point out that the cases they cited undermined their own case. > He has every right to say it to whoever will listen, but private companies should not be forced to amplify that shit. Private companies have an obligation to honor their Terms of Service, which Owen did not violate, and why he and his fans filed for arbitration in the first place.
  - unity1001 6y ago