241–250 of 433 posts
Most adult credit card processing takes 10-15% before the business even sees anything, and they are only taking 5% total and providing a service.
In many ways it's an anti-trust issue because competitor platforms geared specifically towards adult content can't get those same rates.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>>Patreon is not a government body. Ok, and. Do you believe only governments are a threat to free speech? Free Speech is a concept that every person, every company, every government should work to up hold. While governments can and have been the source of censorship, that is not the only source. Today free speech is under massive assault not by Government but by Society at large, society it seems have lost all respec…
Maybe Free Speech wouldn't be under such an assault if people weren't saying that you have to allow everything, including harassment and doxxing, to not be "assaulting free speech". Not to mention that doxxing and harassment are not free speech in the first place.
E.g. Anita Sarkeesian publicly calling one of her online political opponents a shithead and garbage human from the stage at a conference. He was sitting in the audience quietly. Result: he (not she) gets barred from returning on the grounds that his presence was somehow threatening, while her open vicious insults are passed over.
E.g. Zoe Quinn's crash override network had a chat log leaked where they were organizing harassment and doxing. No consequence.
Double standards everywhere.
This is why they like super vague terms like harassment and hate speech. If the term has huge flexibility, the people with power have huge arbitrary power to apply it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What happens when sensible humans are no longer at the helm?
This question applies to every organization in the history of the world. It's logically impossible to design any kind of social system that can't be ruined by people.
If he had angels any system could work. If we had devils no system could work. The reality is in between.
I asked this before, but it wasn't really the place: 1. To those who donate to Patreons, how do you budget/think about/justify your donations? 2. Do you have a set budget? What if you really want to support someone suddenly, do you stop supporting someone else to do so, or reduce how much you give them? 3. When do you stop/reduce Patreon support? How long do you typically support someone? Until you feel they no longe…
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…
In my years on the internet I find the content works itself out, so I'm unsure why I'd pay anyone anything. Half the reason I like most of it is because it's free.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Patreon is not a government body. If you host a bake sale open to everyone in your house, you can and should kick out the screaming lunatics that keep making a mess. The screaming lunatics are free to host their own bake sale at their house.
If it's an online platform dedicated to bake sales, then it's fine to limit it to that. But things like Youtube aren't -- they are a dominant platform and it's at least immoral or an affront to Enlightenment ideals to selectively limit from speech they disagree with based on political views.
Laura Southern literally advocates for the death of migrants, pardon me for not giving a fuck about her losing an income stream.
Cite your sources, because you're objectively wrong. Stop saying that people literally advocate for death. This is something that has happened in the past, something that will probably happen in the future, and being a sensationalist about it just makes you an asshole.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No it isn't, it's an exercise in property rights and a reminder that most of the "internet" as we know it, including this very board, is private property. Barring a legally binding contract or criminal activity, no one is under any obligation to protect the civil rights of those on their property. If I wanted to hold a "whites only" house party and turn away minorities at the door, I can do that. If I refuse to allow…
Can an American business serve "whites only" ? Are you advocating that American businesses should have the right to restrict service based on skin color ?
Refusing to rebroadcast or support the opinions of someone you don't like is at present not a crime, and I sincerely hope it stays that way. Because otherwise you have to apply the same logic to other rights. And that sort of extremism leads to some crazy outcomes.
For example, in the US the 2nd amendment is, under the law, of equal importance as the 1st. So should I, as a gun owner, demand that I should be allowed to carry my firearm anywhere, on anyone's property; and claim that for them to deny me that right is a violation of my 2nd amendment rights? I'm pro-gun and even to me that sounds crazy, as it would to many pro-gunners who are usually big on personal property rights. There's a reason Full30.com exists.
Or how about the right to freedom of assembly (also part of the first amendment)? Should I be forced to allow protesters to use my property, as disallowing them violates their first amendment rights?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The alt-right is not "middle-of-the-road conservative". The alt-right is literal-not-figurative fascism with memes and, occasionally, good dress sense. If you consider white supremacists (oh, sorry, white nationalists (oh, sorry, ethno-nationalists )) to be "middle of the road conservatives," there is a profoundly deeper problem in your calculus.
I didn't say that they are middle-of-the-road conservative. The alt-right is a meaningless catch all that currently means "conservatives or nationalists with strong opinions who I disagree with". For reference, I don't belong to the alt right, and I am economically conservative, socially moderately liberal. What makes you think that Lauren Southern is a white supremacist? Do you think that someone should be allowed t…