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

291–300 of 433 posts

Re: Inside Patreon, the economic engine of internet culture

#291

Post by scottLobster »

FireBeyond wrote: post #269
scottLobster wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No and no, I'm not advocating anything of the sort. My point is simply that property holders, at least in America, are under no obligation to enforce rights. They are under obligation to not commit crimes, and as a nation we've decided that a business refusing service on the basis of skin color is a crime. Refusing to rebroadcast or support the opinions of someone you don't like is at present not a crime, and I since…

> 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 are many, many gun owners who argue exactly that. That "gun free zones" are anti-Co…

It isn't. However those arguments are against PUBLIC gun free zones, with an extension to businesses; and there is a debate to be had there that will probably need a supreme court case to decide. However I've yet to hear anyone say that you should be allowed to carry a gun into someone else's home against their will. In fact most gun owners would say you'd be well within your rights to shoot an armed intruder on your property.

It's directly analogous to my previous example. It is illegal for businesses to deny service on the basis of skin color. It isn't, however, illegal for a private residence to do so.

Re: Inside Patreon, the economic engine of internet culture

#292

Post by Sleeep »

stale2002 wrote: post #273
scottLobster wrote: post #213

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…

" forcing people to listen is only going to worsen the situation you describe." Personally I don't think these companies should be legally forced to support freedom of discourse on their platforms by the government. I think that consumers should force the companies to support free speech, and they should punish companies that support censorship by boycotting those companies into bankruptcy. The world is a better plac…

I love censorship! Without moderation once a site gets big enough it devolves into the least common denominator - spam, shit posts, abuse, and trolling. See YouTube comments for one example.

This site itself is highly censored (in the form of rules and moderation) so you aren't even upholding your own ideals by commenting here.

Re: Inside Patreon, the economic engine of internet culture

#293

Post by specialist »

syshum wrote: post #282
specialist wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a very libertarian (puerile) view of free speech. The rest of us understand principles like civility, that your rights stop where mine begin, don't yell "fire!" in a crowded theater, balancing rights and responsibilities, and that hatespeech is a form of assault.

No "Hate Speech" is not a form of assault, nor should it be treated as such Further the entire concept of "hate Speech" is rife for abuse and is antithesis of Free Speech. How do you objectively define "Hate Speech", do you trust government to define this, that is a scary thought if you do...

What's the most hateful thing someone ever told you? Or that you heard (witnessed)?

How did it make you feel?

Re: Inside Patreon, the economic engine of internet culture

#294

Post by cdcox »

I do wonder how Google, Facebook and the ad sphere sees Patreon. A fair number of creators I've seen use Patreon to go ad free. It seems small but growing with strong network effects, and a clear path to profitability. In a lot of places on the internet it's almost a household name. It also is relatively platform agnostic and there is a lot of room for it to grow into. This seems like it might be a deep threat to the current power players of the internet and the current structure of the internet.

On the other hand, you could have said the same thing about Kickstarter a few years ago, but then it hit its growth limits and became just another, still slowly growing but no longer earth changing, feature of the internet landscape.

Re: Inside Patreon, the economic engine of internet culture

#295

Post by btym »

Simon_says wrote: post #231
azernik wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If those activities are crimes in a country, then prosecute the crime. It shouldn't be up to a random middle-man like Patreon to be judge and jury and make those (sometimes very difficult) decisions. It's akin to my grocery deciding to not sell me an apple because I'm a suspected murderer. There are better and more formalized methods to deal with violations of social norms.

>It's akin to my grocery deciding to not sell me an apple because I'm a suspected murderer.

In this analogy, you're probably suspected of fruit-related crimes. Patreon isn't obligated to enable criminal behavior.

Re: Inside Patreon, the economic engine of internet culture

#296

Post by stale2002 »

Sleeep wrote: post #292
stale2002 wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" forcing people to listen is only going to worsen the situation you describe." Personally I don't think these companies should be legally forced to support freedom of discourse on their platforms by the government. I think that consumers should force the companies to support free speech, and they should punish companies that support censorship by boycotting those companies into bankruptcy. The world is a better plac…

I love censorship! Without moderation once a site gets big enough it devolves into the least common denominator - spam, shit posts, abuse, and trolling. See YouTube comments for one example. This site itself is highly censored (in the form of rules and moderation) so you aren't even upholding your own ideals by commenting here.

I'm not the one censoring people on Hacker News, and I don't have the ability to unilaterally boycott a site and have it matter.

That's not how boycotts work.

If I were able to convince millions of people to my side, THEN I would start doing the boycott stuff.

That is the only way to have boycotts work. You have to get millions of people to be on your side and everyone has to do it all at once.

But if I had a magic wand that I could wave that would make this happen, then I'd absolutely do so.

It'd be like if I criticized a dictator and you responded by saying "well, if you hate our Supreme leader so much, then why don't you form a revolutionary movement and see how THAT works for you".

Re: Inside Patreon, the economic engine of internet culture

#297

Post by btym »

_xhok wrote: post #287
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.

That's technically true, but the Patreon CEO has claimed that they're committed to free speech, which is false if they're going to kick out screaming lunatics who are protected under the definition of free speech. If so they shouldn't get credit for it.

There is no single definition of free speech. Even the relatively permissive American definition of free speech has exceptions for hate and violence.

Re: Inside Patreon, the economic engine of internet culture

#299

Post by [deleted] »

btym wrote: post #297
_xhok wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's technically true, but the Patreon CEO has claimed that they're committed to free speech, which is false if they're going to kick out screaming lunatics who are protected under the definition of free speech. If so they shouldn't get credit for it.

There is no single definition of free speech. Even the relatively permissive American definition of free speech has exceptions for hate and violence.

[deleted]

Re: Inside Patreon, the economic engine of internet culture

#300

Post by nostrebored »

fweespeech wrote: post #235
nostrebored wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not necessarily true. I believe in the US, fundraising would make you an accessory, just as encouraging someone's criminal action where they have clear intent to commit a crime would be. Fundraising for legal actions is certainly speech, and the effort Southern was supporting was in accordance with international law.

> This is not necessarily true. I believe in the US, fundraising would make you an accessory, just as encouraging someone's criminal action where they have clear intent to commit a crime would be. And now you understand why they booted Lauren Southern. Money is fungible and she fund raised for an activity that was legally dubious.

It's not legally dubious. Fundraising money with an explicitly legal purpose is legal. The potential for misuse at some future date does not an accessory make
Post reply on HN