151–160 of 433 posts
Corporation caught in a scandal over censoring political speech against the right? Better have the The Verge write a puff piece on them.
To be fair, Patreon also took down an Antifa publication ("It's Going Down") that was receiving ~$1,000 monthly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They kicked off 8chan but kept The Sarkeesian Effect so in my opinion they've got it exactly right. They keep up pretty nasty stuff in the name of free speech, but don't let you cross the line into doxing and the like. I much prefer having sensible humans at the helm than have something purely anonymous.
What happens when sensible humans are no longer at the helm?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
An AI would need to live a human life in a human body in order to understand what "benevolence to humans" means, and such an experience would make it functionally equivalent to a human with a cloud prosthesis.
Do we need to live in the body of dog to understand "benevolence to dogs"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They kicked off 8chan but kept The Sarkeesian Effect so in my opinion they've got it exactly right. They keep up pretty nasty stuff in the name of free speech, but don't let you cross the line into doxing and the like. I much prefer having sensible humans at the helm than have something purely anonymous.
There is no "getting it right" in free speech. Either you allow free speech or you don't, if you are keeping one controversial thing but kick out the other you gave up on free speech. You can't kick someone out because you think its right and claim allowing free spech.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They kicked off 8chan but kept The Sarkeesian Effect so in my opinion they've got it exactly right. They keep up pretty nasty stuff in the name of free speech, but don't let you cross the line into doxing and the like. I much prefer having sensible humans at the helm than have something purely anonymous.
What happens when sensible humans are no longer at the helm?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've seen Patreon kicking people off their platform for political reasons, so it is not decentralized, though certainly more so than alternatives existing before Patreon. The evolution will converge towards content creators being funded through decentralized crypto currency platforms so that the money cannot be prevented from getting to creators if someone wants to pay them. Something more along the lines of https://…
> I've seen Patreon kicking people off their platform for political reasons […] Have you? Are you thinking of Lauren Southern? Or maybe It's Going Down? The explanation from Patreon is very reasonable: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmcK6GvgVPs
The free speech is not necessary for the speech you agree with. It is for the speech, you don't agree with. Just because Patreon guys are fans of Antifa does not mean, they should bring their ideology to the business.
I definitely don't want politically driven judgement calls made on my behalf as to whether or not that creator should even be allowed to have my money, when that person hasn't actually done anything illegal. It's my money, and no business has any business telling me who I can and can't give money to, or why, and to step into that position is to trivialize competition. It's a bad move on Patreon's part, and it's completely antithetical to the service they should be providing: making it easier to find content you like by creators you like and then fund it so there's more. They don't do the former, and the latter is more and more only for "Patreon approved" creators. What is it they do that makes them invaluable or irreplaceable, because I'm not seeing it.
I've given thousands through Patreon but I've stopped using it for many reasons. I feel pretty justified in that decision just looking at their behavior, both lately and in the past. They've allowed pages to remain up for people who are provably doing nothing but harassing others (and advertising that behavior as the "activism" their Patreon page is funding), but taken others down just because they run a service which on principle refuses to police discussion but which isn't breaking any law because Patreon dislikes what people on that service say/do. Now they've removed someone because they disagree with something that person has done unrelated to their content creation being funded through Patreon (again, not even illegal behavior), and it looks entirely politically motivated.
I don't support Lauren and never have, but this kind of moral grandstanding and virtue signaling from Patreon just isn't acceptable to me, and definitely not from what is a glorified payment processing web interface. Tim Pool as usual has a fairly solid take on it, and I mostly agree with him: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_yIp7eQO1c.
This piece looks like a pretty desperate PR move.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For this to be the case, they would have to be applying the principle to everyone equally, which they apparently don't. This has given pause to some people -- for example, Sam Harris, one of the top artists on Patreon, is evacuating the service (even though this is likely to cost him a fair bit of money) to avoid the future potential to be financially pressured over ideology.
Patreon's pretty down-the-line: don't advocate that people break the law and don't harass people. They've thrown antifa off their site. They throw alt-right shitheads off their site. We've met a couple times, Jon, and I've heard you speak; despite your public persona being prickly, I kind of got the feeling you were wiser than this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess that I've seen less moderation of personal behaviors via these mechanisms in our current society over my lifetime, and I'm not sure that's a big problem. I'd argue that most of the peer pressure and social moors society (especially local society) pushes are typically a net negative, and as we grow globally, we're realizing that they don't usually make sense. NOTE: I'm mostly talking out of my ass here as I've…
> I'd argue that most of the peer pressure and social moors society (especially local society) pushes are typically a net negative, and as we grow globally, we're realizing that they don't usually make sense. It seems to me that Instagram, Facebook, and Snapchat are causing extreme narcissism to embed itself in younger cohorts, along with workers being more mobile causing family units to fall apart. The shitty parts…
There absolutely are negative aspects to these changes, but I think there's also a lot of good aspects to them as well. Instead of viewing these changes as good or bad, I guess I generally see them as "just different". Additionally, I think a lot of the bad sides to these issues seem to be ones that already existed to one degree or another, and hopefully this will increase our ability to fix them.
> The shitty parts of human behavior are being exploited by tech companies for obscene profits with no governance of their actions.
I absolutely agree with this though, and think that we should be doing a much better job here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> She was arrested for participation in this act of protest and then Patreon made the claim that her activities could have caused loss of life (which is ridiculous). You don't get to go into other countries, break their laws, and expect private corporations to back you to the hilt. They are under no obligation to put themselves at risk for your beliefs. That isn't a reasonable expectation by any stretch of the imagin…
Patreon had no liability in this situation. Patreon doesn't support the sale of software, and software as speech is a much murkier area than... actual, literal speech. This is effectively saying that investigative journalists shouldn't get too political in unpopular causes, lest they have their livelihood taken away from them. This is a suppression of free speech (not legally ofc) on a platform that syndicates politi…
1) You are arguing now that journalists should have legal immunity.
> Patreon had no liability in this situation. Patreon doesn't support the sale of software, and software as speech is a much murkier area than... actual, literal speech.
2) She was taking actions that physically prevented other people from taking actions. That isn't literal speech and is much further from speech than software is.
> This is taking a political stance; anyone on either side of rescue missions for refugees is funding something that is likely to cause loss of life. One is just politically en vogue.
3) No. This is you attempting to frame outrageous criminal acts as "politics".