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

381–390 of 433 posts

Re: Inside Patreon, the economic engine of internet culture

#381

Post by IGI-111 »

door wrote: post #302
syshum wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. The New York times also never publicly advertised themselves as a "Free Speech Platform" that was "open to all persons and views" >they are saying that horrible things shouldn't be said on a massive platform that millions of people see Well one, it is clear you you…

if you think that calling racism or nazism horrible is "subjective" then you clearly have no solid principles and this conversation is over i think you're wrong about christianity, and we can debate whether or not advocacy of it should be allowed on a public platform. i think comparing it to nazism, targeted harassment, child porn/revenge porn, and hate speech (really the only things banned on reddit for example) is…

You're forgetting that politics are inherently subjective.

There is no way for you to make up a rule about what should be banned besides "I don't agree with it".

Re: Inside Patreon, the economic engine of internet culture

#382

Post by IGI-111 »

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.

>Those people were there specifically for harassment.

This is a lie. And you don't have a fact to back it up.

Re: Inside Patreon, the economic engine of internet culture

#383

Post by vinceguidry »

technomalogical wrote: post #62
vinceguidry wrote: post #33

If anybody at Patreon is reading this, here's some feedback. I spend maybe $20 a month on Patreon. The main thing keeping me from spending more is the interface makes artists appear more money-grubbing than they might want to. I don't want to scroll down someone's feed only to find half of the content is locked. This is a negative user experience and makes me want to click off the site and go do something else. Sugge…

On the flip side, not knowing about that content means you might not increase your pledge to a level where you could access it.

The main problem is that there's a lot of content that I like on Patreon, enough to give a small amount of money towards, but I don't like it enough to want to pay $40+ a month for it. And getting constantly beaten over the head with "why aren't you paying $40-60??" just leaves me cold. I know damn well why I'm not paying more, you don't have to remind me all the time.

Re: Inside Patreon, the economic engine of internet culture

#384

Post by amscanne »

wfo wrote: post #345
AlwaysBCoding wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They've already fucked it up. Here's an hour long interview with Patreon's CEO, Jack Conte, where he goes through some ridiculous mental gymnastics trying to justify why it's ok he is kicking conservative journalists off his platform. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofpbDgCj9rw

Yes, now white supremacists trying to make sure brown people die in the ocean using patreon funds are conservative journalists. Won't anyone think of free speech? Next he'll ban patreon crowdfunding the creation of snuff films, what a monster. It's almost like he doesn't want to be knowingly complicit in murder. I'll give you this, though, the man is devious -- can you imagine the mental gymnastics involved in watchi…

> Yes, now white supremacists trying to make sure brown people die in the ocean

This kind of gross distortion is counterproductive. (Unless your goal is to alienate others and hurt your own credibility.)

Re: Inside Patreon, the economic engine of internet culture

#385

Post by BearGoesChirp »

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.

>Either you allow free speech or you don't,

If we reduce free speech to a binary yes/no, then almost no where has free speech because everywhere has limits on what it will allow. They might have as free of speech as legally possible. They may even allow some illegal content (stuff that is technically illegal but three letter agencies won't spend time hunting you down for hosting). But if we have it as a binary option, then no where has free speech.

Also, to somewhat contradict what I just said, most places don't even have 'as allowed to the maximum extent of the law' free speech. A really good test, would a website support nude non-pornographic images that aren't illegal (at least by federal US statute) but which most everyone will assume are illegal at first glance? I'm willing to bet they won't.

Re: Inside Patreon, the economic engine of internet culture

#386

Post by sqeaky »

erikpukinskis wrote: post #218
sqeaky wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do we need to live in the body of dog to understand "benevolence to dogs"?

Yes. Luckily we live in bodies that are almost exactly the same as dogs. The reason why you empathize with a dog more than an octopus is precisely because our bodies are similar. Do you have another theory as to why we empathize with dogs more than, say, a forest, or a hive of ants?

I see how empathy can help, but I disagree its required.

We could choose to be benevolent to octupi in a number of ways. We know killing them is bad from their perspective. We know that some like making homes and all like eating certain eating food and we know many other things. We could get very far by acting in accordance with their apparent desires and simply not exploiting them or their environment.

Re: Inside Patreon, the economic engine of internet culture

#387

Post by BearGoesChirp »

specialist wrote: post #263
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.

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.

Consider the speech the US founding fathers used leading up to the American Revolutionary War. Some of that speech wouldn't be allowed under any government, including the US. Yet it is by no means immoral or wrong (at least I don't think so). This is an interesting case where the law not only isn't moral, but cannot be moral (unless we take an almost anarchist view that even libertarians would be wary of).

As to focusing on hate speech in particular, I see two major issues at play. What exactly counts as hate speech and who is protected from it. Disagreements on these lead to some people saying hate speech should because they are viewing a definition of hate speech they don't agree with.

Re: Inside Patreon, the economic engine of internet culture

#388

Post by cookiecaper »

aninhumer wrote: post #364
cookiecaper wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me". This old cliche is underappreciated in our day and age. Individuals are free to choose the way they process the information and commentary they receive. When someone physically assaults you, there is no choice involved, and your life is legitimately and immediately threatened by such activity in the real, physical, and non-abstract sense. It is grea…

>"Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me". This old cliche is underappreciated in our day and age. Because it's false. Words can and do hurt people, and it's not necessarily a result of their choices. You can argue that this harm is less severe, or that preventing it isn't worth limiting speech, but to suggest it doesn't exist is just myopic.

To clarify, I am not saying that words cannot be hurtful. I am saying that they are not equivalent to physical assault, as someone else in the thread asserted. Physical assault presents a much more immediate personal danger, and deserves to be distinguished from verbal exchange.

Re: Inside Patreon, the economic engine of internet culture

#389

Post by Torai »

raesene9 wrote: post #67
Torai wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, a donations per piece of content are obvious, but Patreon can't do it as the content (videos, music...) are hosted in other platform. Youtube, for example, could do it, but I guess it's not willing to stop milking the fat cow of ads, yet. I'm waiting for the time we will be able to donate as low as 5 cents even to a comment in HN.

Patreon works just fine per piece of content. I follow multiple artists who work on this model (e.g. https://www.patreon.com/scottbradlee , https://www.patreon.com/pomplamoose )

That's a subscription model, thus patronage. I mean donating to a piece of content you have just consumed or appreciate.

Re: Inside Patreon, the economic engine of internet culture

#390

Post by s73ver »

IGI-111 wrote: post #382
s73ver wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>Those people were there specifically for harassment. This is a lie. And you don't have a fact to back it up.

It is very much not a lie. They sat in the first three rows, and they were all pointing cameras at her. Hell, some of those people even went on youtube after to brag about what they did.

https://www.polygon.com/features/2017/6/27/15880582/anita-sa...

Post reply on HN