5 ms·

Social media platform now bans users for what they say off-platform

26 points by t0bia_s 5y ago

spacemanmatt 5y ago
Topping my list of crap I ditched mid-pandemic and don't miss: Social media
- chrischattin 5y ago
  You are on social media right now.
  - spacemanmatt 5y ago
    Sortakinda. I've been BBSing since I was 11 and I'm still ok with time-shifting message systems but the twatters and faceblokes made it gross. The non-advertising social networks seem to be more my speed.
    - ismayilzadan 5y ago
      How Patreon is in the same bucket as advertising social networks? I thought you have to pay for following people in Patreon.
      - spacemanmatt 5y ago
        I only use Patreon as a payment system for the premium communities I participate in. Those meet mostly on Discord and Twitch, though.
rvz 5y ago
Patreon: “When reviewing, we take into consideration the content shared on Patreon as well as any activity taking place outside our platform.” Oh dear. So you can get your account banned without even using it directly and saying anything outside of it and they will hold your money hostage as well. No different to YouTube then. A precedent has now been set by Patreon.
- Ekaros 5y ago
  They set that years ago. Kicking a content producer out of their platform for using wrong words on a third-party podcast not even on their platform...
  - t0bia_s 5y ago
    Link?
    - Ourgon 5y ago
      I think he's referring to 'Sargon of Akkad' (Carl Benjamin) being banned [1] for what essentially came down to insulting some trolls during an interview for another Youtube channel. [1] https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/01/04/anything-youve-ever-said-will-be-used-against-you/ https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/01/04/anything-youve-ever...
intunderflow 5y ago
Previously at Patreon: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30465394 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30465394
crate_barre 5y ago
Oh boy. We need an open protocol for social media already. It’s obvious the current platforms are too subjective and these idiots have become like mainstream news networks where they remove content based on how advertisers feel about their ads being displayed on those programs. That’s not what the internet is supposed to be. Need to end this soon honestly because Patreon ain’t my mother or Putin.
- gumby 5y ago
  > We need an open protocol for social media already. We have one and you are using it already: http. Just make your own blog. Add comments if you want. You can say or host whatever you want. > It’s obvious the current platforms are too subjective People chose platforms (HN, FB; Google, DDG; etc etc) because they make choices for the user. I can’t read every post my friends make on FB so I rely on FB to surface some that I will find interesting and provide as few uninteresting ones as possible. I use a search engine and ask it to choose for me which pages are likely the best to answer my question. The whole point of such tools is to be subjective. None have a monopoly so you are free to choose the one that makes the decisions that are as close to your desires as possible.
  - HKH2 5y ago
    > You can say or host whatever you want. I doubt it. Even if you self-host, you can't guarantee you won't be DDOSed.
  - crate_barre 5y ago
    The protocol is not handling push and users/following.
    - gumby 5y ago
      Sure it does, just use RSS. That’s how I read the web.
  - spacemanmatt 5y ago
    >> We need an open protocol for social media already. >We have one and you are using it already: http. Just make your own blog. Add comments if you want. You can say or host whatever you want. We need an open social directory. I continue to favor appropriating facebook's directory as a critical national infrastructure.
andybak 5y ago
I'm reserving judgement until I hear about this from a slightly less iffy organization. This doesn't inspire confidence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America%27s_Frontline_Doctors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America%27s_Frontline_Doctors
- t0bia_s 5y ago
  Why?
- emilfihlman 5y ago
  This is a pretty toxic way to handle news and I would say abuse on the discourse. As you can see in the article they reference a primary source directly, ie. her Twitter. So even if you don't like who comes bearing with the news, if you comment on the reliability of the bearer you should have a valid criticism against the source that everyone can validate.
  - andybak 5y ago
    I would argue it's a fairly healthy way to handle news. Wait for a broad range of coverage, discard outliers and sources which have a poor reputation.
- lampe3 5y ago
  Thanks for the Wikipedia link! The design alone of that website looks like a fake news or "alternative" news website. And in general ALL social media platforms are private companies they can ban whoever they want for what ever reason. Social Media companies are not your friend. They don't fight for your freedom. They don't have a soul or anything in that direction. Treat them as any other company which can screw you at any moment.
  - rvz 5y ago
    > The design alone of that website looks like a fake news or "alternative" news website. So this must mean that this story is untrue right? > And in general ALL social media platforms are private companies they can ban whoever they want for what ever reason. > Social Media companies are not your friend. They don't fight for your freedom. They don't have a soul or anything in that direction. Correct. Private platforms can do private platform things like bots banning people instead of humans, removing apps off of platforms for any reason or none or de-platforming anyone they don't like even if the content is not on their platform. They can all do that and keep all your money. They are not your friends and they will never change. However, is there strong evidence that this particular story is untrue, misinformation or simply outright 'fake news' only because of the strangeness source itself? Unless cross-referencing the sources from Twitter, Patreon and the screenshots are somehow also faked?
zarzavat 5y ago
This seems like a non-story. Patreon isn’t a “social media platform”, it’s a fundraising tool for creators who generally post their content on other platforms. Given that, it makes sense that users could be banned based upon their actions outside of Patreon. They should give back the money though.
TrispusAttucks 5y ago
Very dangerous to our democracy.
app 5y ago
Oy. How does a site like this even make it to the front page? America's Frontline Doctors is a right-wing cutout full of the usual conspiracy theorists and ghouls: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America%27s_Frontline_Doctors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America%27s_Frontline_Doctors This domain is as fake news as they come.
jcpst 5y ago
Has this story been covered on a credible site?
- t0bia_s 5y ago
  Define credible site.
  - crate_barre 5y ago
sokoloff 5y ago
This doesn’t seem all that different from any of the other sanctions and embargoes that we call for (and applaud) as a society. “Patreon supports the KKK, Nazi Party, or Putin himself by taking payments, even though they never said it did anything bad specifically on Patreon.” I think a majority of people would be agree that Patreon should have the right to dissociate with those groups. (Many would argue they have an obligation to.) If they can decide that, why not you, I, or this person I’d never heard of? (All of which I’m arguing is fine.)
notafraudster 5y ago
This seems to be inherent to what Patreon is. Patreon is a thin layer to take money for subscriptions, generally in exchange for off-site content. Although people do make blog posts on Patreon to announce content, the general gist of the platform is that the person's content is elsewhere online. I would personally characterize Patreon as something closer to Venmo (or Paypal or VISA or...) than to a traditional social media platform. So it would stand to reason that any kind of code of conduct rules are enforced based strictly based on off-platform content. Like, you don't need to agree with the rule or the enforcement, I'm not trying to sidestep the debate about when and why a platform might ban people for what they say, I just mean the "off-platform" element highlighted in the title isn't really all that relevant here. If they only banned for on-platform and not off-platform then you'd just see users who fall afoul of rules stop using the blog post function on Patreon and just keep doing their content elsewhere. I think the choice to not name the social made platform, the user, what they said, or provide any context in the title is likely disingenuous and not in keeping with the best title practices for HN posts. It's a bummer because I think the actual policy debates around off-site conduct are kind of an interesting grey area, just not one that applies here.
- notafraudster 5y ago
  Looks like this got flagged so I can't edit, but obviously typo: "social made platform" in the second last paragraph should be social media platform.
- thelastknowngod 5y ago
  Agreed. The Russian central bank did not invade Ukraine but it provided a mechanism to pay for that invasion. Her Patreon account may not have actively promoted disinformation but it provided a mechanism to pay for that disinformation. Both needed their own versions of deplatforming for the same reason.
t0bia_s 5y ago
Why is it flagged?
dogzaddy 5y ago
This is the same America's Frontline Doctor's as this whole ordeal: https://www.inputmag.com/culture/a-fake-covid-19-press-conference-was-the-second-most-shared-video-yesterday https://www.inputmag.com/culture/a-fake-covid-19-press-confe...
Brian_K_White 5y ago
This is more like Square not processing payments for you if your business is any of a host of things they don't like, even though several of those things are legal. It's not great. It's basically discrimination. But it's legit. Maybe it shouldn't be legit, but so far, it is.

26 points by t0bia_s 5y ago

spacemanmatt 5y ago

Topping my list of crap I ditched mid-pandemic and don't miss: Social media

chrischattin 5y ago
You are on social media right now.
- spacemanmatt 5y ago
  Sortakinda. I've been BBSing since I was 11 and I'm still ok with time-shifting message systems but the twatters and faceblokes made it gross. The non-advertising social networks seem to be more my speed.
  - ismayilzadan 5y ago
    How Patreon is in the same bucket as advertising social networks? I thought you have to pay for following people in Patreon.
    - spacemanmatt 5y ago
      I only use Patreon as a payment system for the premium communities I participate in. Those meet mostly on Discord and Twitch, though.

rvz 5y ago

Patreon: “When reviewing, we take into consideration the content shared on Patreon as well as any activity taking place outside our platform.” Oh dear. So you can get your account banned without even using it directly and saying anything outside of it and they will hold your money hostage as well. No different to YouTube then. A precedent has now been set by Patreon.

Ekaros 5y ago
They set that years ago. Kicking a content producer out of their platform for using wrong words on a third-party podcast not even on their platform...
- t0bia_s 5y ago
  Link?
  - Ourgon 5y ago
    I think he's referring to 'Sargon of Akkad' (Carl Benjamin) being banned [1] for what essentially came down to insulting some trolls during an interview for another Youtube channel. [1] https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/01/04/anything-youve-ever-said-will-be-used-against-you/ https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/01/04/anything-youve-ever...

intunderflow 5y ago

Previously at Patreon: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30465394 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30465394

crate_barre 5y ago

Oh boy. We need an open protocol for social media already. It’s obvious the current platforms are too subjective and these idiots have become like mainstream news networks where they remove content based on how advertisers feel about their ads being displayed on those programs. That’s not what the internet is supposed to be. Need to end this soon honestly because Patreon ain’t my mother or Putin.

gumby 5y ago
> We need an open protocol for social media already. We have one and you are using it already: http. Just make your own blog. Add comments if you want. You can say or host whatever you want. > It’s obvious the current platforms are too subjective People chose platforms (HN, FB; Google, DDG; etc etc) because they make choices for the user. I can’t read every post my friends make on FB so I rely on FB to surface some that I will find interesting and provide as few uninteresting ones as possible. I use a search engine and ask it to choose for me which pages are likely the best to answer my question. The whole point of such tools is to be subjective. None have a monopoly so you are free to choose the one that makes the decisions that are as close to your desires as possible.
- HKH2 5y ago
  > You can say or host whatever you want. I doubt it. Even if you self-host, you can't guarantee you won't be DDOSed.
- crate_barre 5y ago
  The protocol is not handling push and users/following.
  - gumby 5y ago
    Sure it does, just use RSS. That’s how I read the web.
- spacemanmatt 5y ago
  >> We need an open protocol for social media already. >We have one and you are using it already: http. Just make your own blog. Add comments if you want. You can say or host whatever you want. We need an open social directory. I continue to favor appropriating facebook's directory as a critical national infrastructure.

andybak 5y ago

I'm reserving judgement until I hear about this from a slightly less iffy organization. This doesn't inspire confidence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America%27s_Frontline_Doctors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America%27s_Frontline_Doctors

t0bia_s 5y ago
Why?
emilfihlman 5y ago
This is a pretty toxic way to handle news and I would say abuse on the discourse. As you can see in the article they reference a primary source directly, ie. her Twitter. So even if you don't like who comes bearing with the news, if you comment on the reliability of the bearer you should have a valid criticism against the source that everyone can validate.
- andybak 5y ago
  I would argue it's a fairly healthy way to handle news. Wait for a broad range of coverage, discard outliers and sources which have a poor reputation.
lampe3 5y ago
Thanks for the Wikipedia link! The design alone of that website looks like a fake news or "alternative" news website. And in general ALL social media platforms are private companies they can ban whoever they want for what ever reason. Social Media companies are not your friend. They don't fight for your freedom. They don't have a soul or anything in that direction. Treat them as any other company which can screw you at any moment.
- rvz 5y ago
  > The design alone of that website looks like a fake news or "alternative" news website. So this must mean that this story is untrue right? > And in general ALL social media platforms are private companies they can ban whoever they want for what ever reason. > Social Media companies are not your friend. They don't fight for your freedom. They don't have a soul or anything in that direction. Correct. Private platforms can do private platform things like bots banning people instead of humans, removing apps off of platforms for any reason or none or de-platforming anyone they don't like even if the content is not on their platform. They can all do that and keep all your money. They are not your friends and they will never change. However, is there strong evidence that this particular story is untrue, misinformation or simply outright 'fake news' only because of the strangeness source itself? Unless cross-referencing the sources from Twitter, Patreon and the screenshots are somehow also faked?

zarzavat 5y ago

This seems like a non-story. Patreon isn’t a “social media platform”, it’s a fundraising tool for creators who generally post their content on other platforms. Given that, it makes sense that users could be banned based upon their actions outside of Patreon. They should give back the money though.

TrispusAttucks 5y ago

Very dangerous to our democracy.

app 5y ago

Oy. How does a site like this even make it to the front page? America's Frontline Doctors is a right-wing cutout full of the usual conspiracy theorists and ghouls: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America%27s_Frontline_Doctors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America%27s_Frontline_Doctors This domain is as fake news as they come.

jcpst 5y ago

Has this story been covered on a credible site?

t0bia_s 5y ago
Define credible site.
- crate_barre 5y ago

sokoloff 5y ago

This doesn’t seem all that different from any of the other sanctions and embargoes that we call for (and applaud) as a society. “Patreon supports the KKK, Nazi Party, or Putin himself by taking payments, even though they never said it did anything bad specifically on Patreon.” I think a majority of people would be agree that Patreon should have the right to dissociate with those groups. (Many would argue they have an obligation to.) If they can decide that, why not you, I, or this person I’d never heard of? (All of which I’m arguing is fine.)

notafraudster 5y ago

This seems to be inherent to what Patreon is. Patreon is a thin layer to take money for subscriptions, generally in exchange for off-site content. Although people do make blog posts on Patreon to announce content, the general gist of the platform is that the person's content is elsewhere online. I would personally characterize Patreon as something closer to Venmo (or Paypal or VISA or...) than to a traditional social media platform. So it would stand to reason that any kind of code of conduct rules are enforced based strictly based on off-platform content. Like, you don't need to agree with the rule or the enforcement, I'm not trying to sidestep the debate about when and why a platform might ban people for what they say, I just mean the "off-platform" element highlighted in the title isn't really all that relevant here. If they only banned for on-platform and not off-platform then you'd just see users who fall afoul of rules stop using the blog post function on Patreon and just keep doing their content elsewhere. I think the choice to not name the social made platform, the user, what they said, or provide any context in the title is likely disingenuous and not in keeping with the best title practices for HN posts. It's a bummer because I think the actual policy debates around off-site conduct are kind of an interesting grey area, just not one that applies here.

notafraudster 5y ago
Looks like this got flagged so I can't edit, but obviously typo: "social made platform" in the second last paragraph should be social media platform.
thelastknowngod 5y ago
Agreed. The Russian central bank did not invade Ukraine but it provided a mechanism to pay for that invasion. Her Patreon account may not have actively promoted disinformation but it provided a mechanism to pay for that disinformation. Both needed their own versions of deplatforming for the same reason.

t0bia_s 5y ago

Why is it flagged?

dogzaddy 5y ago

This is the same America's Frontline Doctor's as this whole ordeal: https://www.inputmag.com/culture/a-fake-covid-19-press-conference-was-the-second-most-shared-video-yesterday https://www.inputmag.com/culture/a-fake-covid-19-press-confe...

Brian_K_White 5y ago

This is more like Square not processing payments for you if your business is any of a host of things they don't like, even though several of those things are legal. It's not great. It's basically discrimination. But it's legit. Maybe it shouldn't be legit, but so far, it is.