21 ms·
I use Patreon (albeit in a pledge capacity) sparingly. Many years ago they dropped Naomi Wu[1][2][3]. This situation was particularly scary: she was making a de
by cepp 6y ago
I use Patreon (albeit in a pledge capacity) sparingly. Many years ago they dropped Naomi Wu[1][2][3]. This situation was particularly scary: she was making a decent chunk of her living through Patreon pledges, but because of the limited size of her audience, and marginalized position she had no recourse.
While I agree that they're not currently cancerous I do think they illustrate part of the broader problem with modern society: over-dependence on central infrastructure-like sources that are private and can change on a whim. It's great that people can make a living on Patreon, but this should be tempered by the inherent risk of being on a platform you don't control.
[1]: https://twitter.com/RealSexyCyborg https://twitter.com/RealSexyCyborg
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Wu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Wu
[3]: https://www.patreon.com/posts/18216256 https://www.patreon.com/posts/18216256
- D2187645 6y agoShe doxxed a Vice editor when she felt they failed to maintain a privacy agreement.
- virgilp 6y agoWhat happened exactly? As you wrote it, your comment might also be read as "She failed to maintain a privacy agreement when a Vice editor doxxed her". [edit] the third link above describes what happened
- bigiain 6y ago> She doxxed a Vice editor when she felt they failed to maintain a privacy agreement. Why is it that you choose to use "failed to maintain a privacy agreement" to describe the Vice editors publishing her personal information without consent, while using the much more loaded term "doxxed" when she did the same to them? Do you understand the difference in likely consequences for each party here? Is there any rational argument that can be made to exonerate the totally shitty behaviour of Vice and it's writers/editors in choosing to invade her privacy after having agreed not to?
- ithkuil 6y agoVice shouldn't be exonerated but do we live in an "eye for an eye" rule of law? (According to Wikipedia) she published Vice's editor-in-chief's home address. I assume she did that to "explain" how she felt threatened physically by ensuring that the editor in chief feels physically threatened as well? She could have acted differently. She could have taken legal means; perhaps asking for help to her patrons. Supporters can support in many ways and not only with money. Can somebody who knows more about the details explain why her behaviour should have been tolerated by Patreon?
- jayshua 6y agoObviously her doxxing was a poor choice. However, she didn't have much legal recourse. She lives in China, and viewed herself as being at risk of retaliation from the CCP due to some of the personal details Vice choose to release. (Despite knowing (from her) the danger it would put her in.) Many (most?) people feel that the doxxing was her only means of retaliation given the circumstances. Both actions are bad. But if I have to pick one to be "more" bad, I'd pick Vice's. Those two points are probably what's at the root of the calls against Patreon here. We don't live under eye-for-eye law. (Maybe China has some laws like that?) But people often view things in that light socially.
- Closi 6y agoI think the problem for Patreon is that they have a policy and it’s best to enforce it consistently, rather than apply it based on some judgement of moral right.
- jononor 6y agoShe was interrogated by the police not so long after. She posted that she was going with them when event happened, I recall. But afterwards the Twitter history was scrubbed... Unknown if it had any relation to the Vice case.
- mola 6y agoIf she has no recourse than the only form of justice she has available is an eye of an eye. She's a single person against a huge conglomerate like vice. Sadly, legal means are not relevant in that situation. If you don't want to live in an eye for an eye rule of law, attack the causes, not the victims.
- nemothekid 6y agoI’m very curious why you chose to phrase it that way. It sounds like to me she was doxxed by the editor, but you chose the phrase “failed to maintain a privacy agreement”
- D2187645 6y agoVice had not published the story yet, yet Wu believed they might doxx her when questioning details about a reddit controversy. Wu had preemptively doxxed the editor.
- ashtonkem 6y agoSeems to me a fairer statement would be “she doxxed a vice editor in revenge for them doxxing her”.
- D2187645 6y agoVice had not published the story yet, yet Wu believed they might doxx her when questioning details about a reddit controversy. Wu had preemptively doxxed the editor.
- Ruthalas 6y agoDoes she currently receive support on another crowd funding platform?
- bosswipe 6y agoRegardless of the back and forth accusations with Vice, a no doxing rule seems reasonable. Online mobs can be dangerous and are one of the thornier complexities of managing social networks.
- Traster 6y agoYeah, Patreon has to maintain their rules for their service. It doesn't matter how someone feels wronged, they don't get a pass. Can you imagine the road they would've been going down if they'd let Wu stay? Every single ToS violation would've been litigated through social media. Whether or not Vice did something wrong is a matter for Wu & Vice to resolve, not Patreon.