7 ms·

Patreon's tendency to police content that doesn't agree with their morals is commendable. They are a platform, not a monopoly. I hope they succeed, and I pers

Patreon's tendency to police content that doesn't agree with their morals is commendable. They are a platform, not a monopoly. I hope they succeed, and I personally hope that companies that have morals that I think are worse than theirs fail. They help people discover content, too. I think a "moral-neutral provider" is a terrible idea, because it provides a platform to people with deplorable morals. EDIT: Judging a company by their actions is a valid thing to do. It's remarkable to me that this is controversial.

Dylan16807 6y ago
If it was just about morals I might not mind. But they've shut down a lot of content and content providers in ways that don't seem to be based on any moral stance they're taking.
- VikingCoder 6y ago
  "a lot". Can you name some?
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
    I don't really feel like making a list, but you can look up how they've been weird and inconsistent with adult content, emphasis on inconsistent for how it doesn't feel like any kind of moral stance. The most recent one I saw was Patreon demanding an artist delete all adult images of a specific character on all websites because they found an old image where this weird monster thing didn't have breasts as a design choice. https://www.dailydot.com/irl/patreon-gay-hypnosis-artists/ https://www.dailydot.com/irl/patreon-gay-hypnosis-artists/ here's an article I guess?
    - VikingCoder 6y ago
      If I understand correctly, the content was entirely about hypnotizing people and having sex with them? Which means they couldn't legally consent? So it's entirely about non-consensual sex? So it's entirely about rape? I don't think you've chosen a very good Poster Child for the argument that Patreon was in the wrong.
      - Dylan16807 6y ago
        No that's not the one I was talking about, and that article talks about multiple cases and links to more at the bottom. And if you object to the consent issues with fictional hypnosis let me tell you about this story called fifty shades of gray...
hkai 6y ago
The idea that there can be an authority that tells good people from bad people is literally Nazi playbook.
- VikingCoder 6y ago
  I propose each person tries to tell good people from bad people, and I encourage each corporation to do the same. You're trying to pin on me that I was saying there should be a single authority, judging all people. I didn't say that, and I reject that view. Nazis were totalitarians that killed people. I'm saying a company should chose who it does business with, depending on what that person is doing. If someone wants to find another person to work with, they're welcome to try. If I agree that what they were doing is bad, then I hope they fail.
  - meigwilym 6y ago
    Ten years ago I would have joined in with the others. By now though, I see your point.
    - VikingCoder 6y ago
      Can you explain to me why others are downvoting? I think we should support companies that each of us think act responsibly, and avoid or boycott companies that each of us think is acting irresponsibly. How is that remotely controversial?
    - hkai 6y ago
      What happened in the last ten years?
  - hkai 6y ago
    The idea you describe sounds horrifying. It has been tried in the Soviet Union: if you deny a certain ideology, you'd be kicked out from university, from your job, from any public life. I don't see how copying suppression techniques from the world's most brutal regimes is making the world better.
smabie 6y ago
And by deplorable morals, you mean people that don't share your morals? So, like, most of the world I imagine? Morality is an opinion. And in my view, your electric company shutting off your power because they don't like who you are would be positively dystopian. Let's say Patreon took a strong moral stance that you absolutely disagreed with. Would you still think it commendable?
- VikingCoder 6y ago
  Yes, morality is an opinion. "Nazis are bad." That is indeed my opinion. If I found out that Amazon was working with Nazis, I would try to pressure Amazon to stop. What would you do? No, honestly. What would you do? Do you think Amazon should freely and proudly work with Nazis, "because of neutrality"? "So, like, most of the world I imagine?" No, I think there's a pretty low bar of morality that most of the world does in fact agree upon. I'm not asking for much more than that. Others might, and I might hope they lose out in the long run. To answer your questions: "Deciding to punch or not to punch old ladies is an important decision. I think it's commendable that Patreon is making a moral decision." Yes, it's implied that I commend Patreon because they are making the moral decision I agree with, not just that they have made a moral decision. "How to stop old ladies from getting punched" is a political discussion. "In general, people shouldn't punch old ladies" is a moral position. "We will not work with people who advocate punching old ladies" is a moral decision I would agree with. "We will exclusively work with people who advocate punching all old ladies" is a moral decision I would disagree with. Judging a company by their actions is a valid thing to do. It's remarkable to me that this is up for debate. And I would judge that power company as being morally wrong, unless I agreed with them that the person they shut off was repugnant. Should PG&E provide power to the California Nazi Party? Maybe not. If you want to make fun of me, perhaps you would enjoy this song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8e1aGEb2R90 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8e1aGEb2R90 Yes, some people make boycott decisions that I think are bad. Some boycotts are good, though.
  - frenchy 6y ago
    > Yes, morality is an opinion. Quite frankly: no, unless you subscribe to the sort of philosophy that that believes there is such thing as morality. It's an attractive philosophy, but nobody I've met has ever actually behaved that way. If I punched your face and gave you a bloody nose, you would almost certainly not act like I simply have an alternative opinion about where my knuckles belong. Edit: I think we might have a difference in how we're using language. An opinion, as I'm using the term, is a belief that we don't strongly believe that other people ought to believe as well.
imtringued 6y ago
Policing content based on morals makes no sense. There is no arbiter of morals so whatever policing there will be is going to be highly subjective. You police content because your business is generating publicity for your customers and thereby you are endorsing and supporting your customers and which also means directly helping their cause. If Patreon makes "Nazis" famous then Patreon's reputation will reflect that. Of course the owners of Patreon don't want their platform to be associated with Nazis whether that is because it is bad for business, the owners don't like nazis, the payment provider has decided to cut off Nazis or any other reason. What it certainly doesn't have to do with is "morals". When someone is talking about morals in the way you did then they are usually talking about their own morals. >"I hope they succeed, and I personally hope that companies that have morals that I think are worse than theirs fail." This is a good example of you talking about your own morals. There is no objective criteria for "worse morals". The only way you can make a statement about morals being worse is from your own viewpoint. The worst thing about your comment is that you are implying that your own morals are the only good ones. >EDIT: Judging a company by their actions is a valid thing to do. It's remarkable to me that this is controversial. The problem is not Patreon in this case. You are the problem.
- VikingCoder 6y ago
  > Policing content based on morals makes no sense. Sure it does. And pretty much everyone does it. There are things that are legal but wrong. Policing wrong content makes sense. > There is no arbiter of morals Each person decides what is moral. > so whatever policing there will be is going to be highly subjective. Yes, that's true. It's a marketplace of ideas, and each of us should shop accordingly. > If Patreon makes "Nazis" famous then Patreon's reputation will reflect that. Yes, and that's as it should be. Someone who allows Nazi propaganda is wrong. Someone who polices Nazi propaganda, and removes it, is right. How are you not agreeing with me? > Of course the owners of Patreon don't want their platform to be associated with Nazis whether that is because it is bad for business, the owners don't like nazis, the payment provider has decided to cut off Nazis or any other reason. What it certainly doesn't have to do with is "morals". I think you don't know what the definition of morality is: "Morality: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior." It is absolutely about morals. In your example, Patreon would be saying that Nazis are wrong, and have bad behavior. What do you think morals are? > When someone is talking about morals in the way you did then they are usually talking about their own morals. Yes, each person has their own ideas about what is right and wrong or good and bad behavior. > This is a good example of you talking about your own morals. There is no objective criteria for "worse morals". The only way you can make a statement about morals being worse is from your own viewpoint. Yes, absolutely. And I support people who share morals similar to my own, and I try to not support people with morals widely different from my own. If Hacker News was flooded with content from MAPs (Minor-Attracted Person) trying to normalize pedophelia, then I would stop coming to Hacker News, and seek out another community kept that content off of it. > The worst thing about your comment is that you are implying that your own morals are the only good ones. Each person thinks their morals are the best ones. That's... literally... how morals work. But no, you misstated my position - I do think other people have morals that are similar enough to my own, and so also good. (I don't think my own morals are the only good ones.) I look for compatibility. Some people are in favor of forced sterilization for criminals. I think that's wrong. Some people think it's okay for a woman to wear white to someone else's wedding. I mean, yeah, that's wrong too, but it doesn't matter to me anywhere near as much as the first one. You shouldn't buy blood diamonds. You shouldn't shop someplace that sells them. Even as an option to their customers. That's my morals. Yes, I think my morals are the best ones. I suspect you think yours are the best, too. You may think Freedom of Speech is the most important principle, and all other rights or concerns are less important. You may be okay with libel, slander, harassment, inciting violence, violating copyright, sharing a "recipe for playdough" that actually produces cyanide gas, animal abuse, snuff films, advocating for race wars, etc. I think someone who could police that content, and chooses not to, is wrong. > The problem is not Patreon in this case. You are the problem. I think either a) you're misunderstanding me, which may be my fault, or 2) you haven't considered the content that gets policed all of the time, and if you did, you'd agree with policing it.

Dylan16807 6y ago

If it was just about morals I might not mind. But they've shut down a lot of content and content providers in ways that don't seem to be based on any moral stance they're taking.

VikingCoder 6y ago
"a lot". Can you name some?
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  I don't really feel like making a list, but you can look up how they've been weird and inconsistent with adult content, emphasis on inconsistent for how it doesn't feel like any kind of moral stance. The most recent one I saw was Patreon demanding an artist delete all adult images of a specific character on all websites because they found an old image where this weird monster thing didn't have breasts as a design choice. https://www.dailydot.com/irl/patreon-gay-hypnosis-artists/ https://www.dailydot.com/irl/patreon-gay-hypnosis-artists/ here's an article I guess?
  - VikingCoder 6y ago
    If I understand correctly, the content was entirely about hypnotizing people and having sex with them? Which means they couldn't legally consent? So it's entirely about non-consensual sex? So it's entirely about rape? I don't think you've chosen a very good Poster Child for the argument that Patreon was in the wrong.
    - Dylan16807 6y ago
      No that's not the one I was talking about, and that article talks about multiple cases and links to more at the bottom. And if you object to the consent issues with fictional hypnosis let me tell you about this story called fifty shades of gray...

hkai 6y ago

The idea that there can be an authority that tells good people from bad people is literally Nazi playbook.

VikingCoder 6y ago
I propose each person tries to tell good people from bad people, and I encourage each corporation to do the same. You're trying to pin on me that I was saying there should be a single authority, judging all people. I didn't say that, and I reject that view. Nazis were totalitarians that killed people. I'm saying a company should chose who it does business with, depending on what that person is doing. If someone wants to find another person to work with, they're welcome to try. If I agree that what they were doing is bad, then I hope they fail.
- meigwilym 6y ago
  Ten years ago I would have joined in with the others. By now though, I see your point.
  - VikingCoder 6y ago
    Can you explain to me why others are downvoting? I think we should support companies that each of us think act responsibly, and avoid or boycott companies that each of us think is acting irresponsibly. How is that remotely controversial?
  - hkai 6y ago
    What happened in the last ten years?
- hkai 6y ago
  The idea you describe sounds horrifying. It has been tried in the Soviet Union: if you deny a certain ideology, you'd be kicked out from university, from your job, from any public life. I don't see how copying suppression techniques from the world's most brutal regimes is making the world better.

smabie 6y ago

And by deplorable morals, you mean people that don't share your morals? So, like, most of the world I imagine? Morality is an opinion. And in my view, your electric company shutting off your power because they don't like who you are would be positively dystopian. Let's say Patreon took a strong moral stance that you absolutely disagreed with. Would you still think it commendable?

VikingCoder 6y ago
Yes, morality is an opinion. "Nazis are bad." That is indeed my opinion. If I found out that Amazon was working with Nazis, I would try to pressure Amazon to stop. What would you do? No, honestly. What would you do? Do you think Amazon should freely and proudly work with Nazis, "because of neutrality"? "So, like, most of the world I imagine?" No, I think there's a pretty low bar of morality that most of the world does in fact agree upon. I'm not asking for much more than that. Others might, and I might hope they lose out in the long run. To answer your questions: "Deciding to punch or not to punch old ladies is an important decision. I think it's commendable that Patreon is making a moral decision." Yes, it's implied that I commend Patreon because they are making the moral decision I agree with, not just that they have made a moral decision. "How to stop old ladies from getting punched" is a political discussion. "In general, people shouldn't punch old ladies" is a moral position. "We will not work with people who advocate punching old ladies" is a moral decision I would agree with. "We will exclusively work with people who advocate punching all old ladies" is a moral decision I would disagree with. Judging a company by their actions is a valid thing to do. It's remarkable to me that this is up for debate. And I would judge that power company as being morally wrong, unless I agreed with them that the person they shut off was repugnant. Should PG&E provide power to the California Nazi Party? Maybe not. If you want to make fun of me, perhaps you would enjoy this song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8e1aGEb2R90 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8e1aGEb2R90 Yes, some people make boycott decisions that I think are bad. Some boycotts are good, though.
- frenchy 6y ago
  > Yes, morality is an opinion. Quite frankly: no, unless you subscribe to the sort of philosophy that that believes there is such thing as morality. It's an attractive philosophy, but nobody I've met has ever actually behaved that way. If I punched your face and gave you a bloody nose, you would almost certainly not act like I simply have an alternative opinion about where my knuckles belong. Edit: I think we might have a difference in how we're using language. An opinion, as I'm using the term, is a belief that we don't strongly believe that other people ought to believe as well.

imtringued 6y ago

Policing content based on morals makes no sense. There is no arbiter of morals so whatever policing there will be is going to be highly subjective. You police content because your business is generating publicity for your customers and thereby you are endorsing and supporting your customers and which also means directly helping their cause. If Patreon makes "Nazis" famous then Patreon's reputation will reflect that. Of course the owners of Patreon don't want their platform to be associated with Nazis whether that is because it is bad for business, the owners don't like nazis, the payment provider has decided to cut off Nazis or any other reason. What it certainly doesn't have to do with is "morals". When someone is talking about morals in the way you did then they are usually talking about their own morals. >"I hope they succeed, and I personally hope that companies that have morals that I think are worse than theirs fail." This is a good example of you talking about your own morals. There is no objective criteria for "worse morals". The only way you can make a statement about morals being worse is from your own viewpoint. The worst thing about your comment is that you are implying that your own morals are the only good ones. >EDIT: Judging a company by their actions is a valid thing to do. It's remarkable to me that this is controversial. The problem is not Patreon in this case. You are the problem.

VikingCoder 6y ago
> Policing content based on morals makes no sense. Sure it does. And pretty much everyone does it. There are things that are legal but wrong. Policing wrong content makes sense. > There is no arbiter of morals Each person decides what is moral. > so whatever policing there will be is going to be highly subjective. Yes, that's true. It's a marketplace of ideas, and each of us should shop accordingly. > If Patreon makes "Nazis" famous then Patreon's reputation will reflect that. Yes, and that's as it should be. Someone who allows Nazi propaganda is wrong. Someone who polices Nazi propaganda, and removes it, is right. How are you not agreeing with me? > Of course the owners of Patreon don't want their platform to be associated with Nazis whether that is because it is bad for business, the owners don't like nazis, the payment provider has decided to cut off Nazis or any other reason. What it certainly doesn't have to do with is "morals". I think you don't know what the definition of morality is: "Morality: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior." It is absolutely about morals. In your example, Patreon would be saying that Nazis are wrong, and have bad behavior. What do you think morals are? > When someone is talking about morals in the way you did then they are usually talking about their own morals. Yes, each person has their own ideas about what is right and wrong or good and bad behavior. > This is a good example of you talking about your own morals. There is no objective criteria for "worse morals". The only way you can make a statement about morals being worse is from your own viewpoint. Yes, absolutely. And I support people who share morals similar to my own, and I try to not support people with morals widely different from my own. If Hacker News was flooded with content from MAPs (Minor-Attracted Person) trying to normalize pedophelia, then I would stop coming to Hacker News, and seek out another community kept that content off of it. > The worst thing about your comment is that you are implying that your own morals are the only good ones. Each person thinks their morals are the best ones. That's... literally... how morals work. But no, you misstated my position - I do think other people have morals that are similar enough to my own, and so also good. (I don't think my own morals are the only good ones.) I look for compatibility. Some people are in favor of forced sterilization for criminals. I think that's wrong. Some people think it's okay for a woman to wear white to someone else's wedding. I mean, yeah, that's wrong too, but it doesn't matter to me anywhere near as much as the first one. You shouldn't buy blood diamonds. You shouldn't shop someplace that sells them. Even as an option to their customers. That's my morals. Yes, I think my morals are the best ones. I suspect you think yours are the best, too. You may think Freedom of Speech is the most important principle, and all other rights or concerns are less important. You may be okay with libel, slander, harassment, inciting violence, violating copyright, sharing a "recipe for playdough" that actually produces cyanide gas, animal abuse, snuff films, advocating for race wars, etc. I think someone who could police that content, and chooses not to, is wrong. > The problem is not Patreon in this case. You are the problem. I think either a) you're misunderstanding me, which may be my fault, or 2) you haven't considered the content that gets policed all of the time, and if you did, you'd agree with policing it.