Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Inside Patreon, the economic engine of internet culture

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 433 posts

Re: Inside Patreon, the economic engine of internet culture

#251

Post by s73ver »

Banthum wrote: post #242
s73ver wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The issue is that those rules are enforced energetically and stringently against dissidents, but are often not enforced or enforced in a lax way for orthodox activists. 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 p…

I'm sorry, but your examples are quite out of context. Read the story about Sarkeesian's thing. Those people were there specifically for harassment. I cannot be upset at her for calling him out, and I cannot be upset that he was banned.

As for the other one, you're gonna have to provide proof.

Re: Inside Patreon, the economic engine of internet culture

#252

Post by azernik »

nostrebored wrote: post #164
lr4444lr wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So those people advocating for those non-violent but illegal sit-ins during the Civil Rights era would've been marked for expulsion too?

The thing is, the reason they gave her for banning in the initial letter they sent her is actually consistent with international law -- she was raising funds to send out a search and rescue ship which returns refugees to Libya.

The reason they gave was fundraising for a ship that was blocking SAR ships taking refugees to Italy. They included footage of her actions blocking such a ship in the past, together with her actual fundraising appeal in which she referred to stopping boats.

Not sure if it's against international law when conducted in international waters, but that's definitely against Patreon's content policy of fundraising for activities that endanger human life.

Re: Inside Patreon, the economic engine of internet culture

#253

Post by door »

dna_polymerase wrote: post #142
bryanlarsen wrote: post #57

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.

even the most insane libertarian couldn't defend that position. by your definition doxing, targeted harassment and child pornagraphy is "free speech"

free speech means everyone can participate in a marketplace of ideas, where competing perspectives challenge each other to expose the truth. i don't think you could defend targeted harassment and advocacy of violence by that measure.

Re: Inside Patreon, the economic engine of internet culture

#254

Post by door »

dna_polymerase wrote: post #142
bryanlarsen wrote: post #57

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.

even the most insane libertarian couldn't defend that position. by your definition doxing, targeted harassment and child pornagraphy is "free speech"

free speech means everyone can participate in a marketplace of ideas, where competing perspectives challenge each other to expose the truth. i don't think you could defend targeted harassment and advocacy of violence by that measure.

Re: Inside Patreon, the economic engine of internet culture

#255

Post by [deleted] »

azernik wrote: post #229
dna_polymerase wrote: post #142

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.

That is a very US-centric view of free speech. In many other (developed, democratic) countries, a lot of the shit 8chan does would be viewed as incitement to violence, hate speech, and/or invasion of privacy. The absolutist conception of free speech in the US is an outlier.

[deleted]

Re: Inside Patreon, the economic engine of internet culture

#256

Post by Erwin »

dna_polymerase wrote: post #142
bryanlarsen wrote: post #57

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.

So does USA have free speech, given laws like this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threatening_the_President_of_t...

Re: Inside Patreon, the economic engine of internet culture

#257

Post by door »

ithought wrote: post #247
ngold wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The 1st Amendment is only an acknowledgment that the government can't infringe on a natural right that pre-existed. If a company wants to proclaim an open platform but selectively enforce speech restrictions, then in a sense it is diminishing natural rights. 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 a…

thats the nature of the free market - if you don't like patreon, start your own more nazi-friendly site and see how it goes (hint: poorly). the state is unique in that it has a monopoly on regulating speech - a state should have very very little power in regulating what can be said, because you can't avoid the state. you can always find an internet community that will allow you to say something truly vile.

Re: Inside Patreon, the economic engine of internet culture

#258

Post by syshum »

scottLobster wrote: post #213
syshum wrote: post #198

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…

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…

Sigh... Such a predictable response I should have address this in my original comment

Sure the Right of association, and I suppose property rights give them the legal ability to this.

However most of these platform publicly and loudly proclaim themselves as "Free Speech Platform", open to all points of view, open to all. Even in the public responses to the outcry over the bannings on Patreon their first statement was "See support free speech but...."

Once they add the but, they show themselves to not be supporters of free speech, instead they show themselves to be supporters of limited speech as defined by theit terms of that is acceptable speech.

Saying "We Support limited acceptable speech" however does not make for a good sound bite.

Claiming to support free speech while imposing speech codes, rules and terms is Fraud IMO.

So if platforms want to censor, want to limit speech fine, they need to stop claiming they support free speech when they do not. To do otherwise should be considered fraud

Most of these platform get to be very very large to the point of more or less monopolistic due to their claims of supporting free speech, then once they are the market dominate force they bait and switch their users and become a limited speech platform. That is a classic old as time form of fraud.

>>I think the scarier prospect is people thinking that property holders should be forced to act as law enforcement within their domains, and to make determinations about civil rights.

I am not even sure what that means or the point you are attempting to convey here, Nothing I stated indicated that property holders should be forced to act as law enforcement.....

>>Free speech simply says that you can't be arrested for speaking.

No, that is not what "free speech simply says" Free Speech is a ethical axiom. Even wikipedia does not have such a limited view of the concept, the first line in the Wikipedia entry on Freedom of Speech is "Freedom of speech is the right to articulate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship, or societal sanction" See the "or societal sanction" part.

Re: Inside Patreon, the economic engine of internet culture

#259

Post by door »

syshum wrote: post #198
ngold wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>>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…

no one is saying you can't say things, they are just saying you can't say things in certain places. there have ALWAYS been regulations, both legal and market, on what you can say on tv, radio, in newspapers. 50 years ago you could write your pro-nazi holocaust denying op ed but it isnt a violation of free speech when the new york times refused to publish it.

now we have large mainstream internet communities like reddit that also put justifiable limits on what can be said. no one is saying you cant start a racist irc channel or bbs board, they are saying that horrible things shouldn't be said on a massive platform that millions of people see

Re: Inside Patreon, the economic engine of internet culture

#260

Post by syshum »

s73ver wrote: post #251
Banthum wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is that those rules are enforced energetically and stringently against dissidents, but are often not enforced or enforced in a lax way for orthodox activists. 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 p…

I'm sorry, but your examples are quite out of context. Read the story about Sarkeesian's thing. Those people were there specifically for harassment. I cannot be upset at her for calling him out, and I cannot be upset that he was banned. As for the other one, you're gonna have to provide proof.

>> Read the story about Sarkeesian's thing. Those people were there specifically for harassment.

Maybe you need to read unbiased news because they were not, nor did they do anything that could even remotely considered harassment. Attending a talk of your political opposite is not harassment

Though I do think they went WAY over board on the reaction to being called "Garbage Human" but I understand why as they are correct if the roles where reversed the SJW reaction would have been FAR FAR more dramatic...

>>and I cannot be upset that he was banned.

He was banned? From where?

Post reply on HN