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

An Open Letter to Patreon

openlettertopatreon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 245 posts

Re: An Open Letter to Patreon

#71

Post by [deleted] »

yipopov wrote: post #55
Freak_NL wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Demographically it is a rather odd group too. It basically includes most of the humans on Earth (i.e., first language is not English ) and excludes what comes down to heterosexual cisgender able-bodied white Americans/Australians/British/Canadians/Kiwis. That kind of exclusive categorization of people is harmful to the debate, and comes across as trollish.

Yeah, when I hear "people of color and those whose first language is not English" my mind goes to some poor untouchables who live in a slum in India, and not speaking English can't work in a call centre so they have to resort to prostitution. In which case they probably don't give a damn about Patreon's NSFW policy if they have heard of Patreon at all. Shows how out of touch these people are with reality and the prob…

[deleted]

Re: An Open Letter to Patreon

#73

Post by lhnz »

Xylakant wrote: post #30
Majestic121 wrote: post #20

I agree with the overall point of shady limitations between porn and adult content leading to discrimination, but this kind of self-victimization : > Not only that, the most vulnerable among us – disproportionately queer, trans, disabled, people of color and those whose first language is not English – are literally scared for our lives. Hurts the whole speech. Is it possible to have this (valid and important) debate…

I fail to understand what's your issue with this. Are you questioning that the queer, trans, disabled, PoC are in a weaker (and often precarious) position than the cis white (male)? Or is it emotional blackmail to point out that a change (once again) hits hardest for the people that are in a weak position? Isn't it considered common decency to keep in mind the needs of the people that are weaker than us? That might j…

The ability to leverage performative victimhood invalidates any claim that you are weak.

If you are actually weak, you will do anything not to draw attention to your self, as you will not be able to control the perceptions or actions of others.

Re: An Open Letter to Patreon

#74

Post by aargh_aargh »

erlend_sh wrote: post #68

There’s a major opportunity for competition here. A complete open source stack for what Patreon does is already available as free open source software: https://github.com/opencollective A sex-positive alternative to Patreon could be up and running within a month. A lone developer could make a viable side-business for them self living off the 10% fee + having their own collection project. This would be good for the Op…

The benefit is not in the software or service per se. It's in the network effect the existing service already has.

Re: An Open Letter to Patreon

#75

Post by Freak_NL »

Certhas wrote: post #46
Freak_NL wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Demographically it is a rather odd group too. It basically includes most of the humans on Earth (i.e., first language is not English ) and excludes what comes down to heterosexual cisgender able-bodied white Americans/Australians/British/Canadians/Kiwis. That kind of exclusive categorization of people is harmful to the debate, and comes across as trollish.

I don't think that is how it's intended. I took it to be the typical US centric view, in which case "not speaking English" translates to "not speaking the locally dominant language". Also note that the language in the article is not exclusionary. They explicitly say: This is hurting the vulnerable among us, who are disproportionately XYZ. They don't say it only hurts XYZ, they don't say it hurts all XYZ, they say it…

I do think that it is valid to point out people who might be harmed by the policy they are opposing, but I fear that the language used appears to engender a sense of exclusivity of victimhood; e.g.:

> Stand behind your women and LGBT creators.

The gist of this is probably that Patreon is being called upon to stand behind all vulnerable, oppressed, or marginalized creators, but their language keeps using explicit categories that effectively imply 'everybody but able-bodied heterosexual white men'. I find that implication of exclusion to be troublesome, because it polarizes the debate (a clear 'them' versus 'us' separation makes itself felt), rather than attempting to find common ground.

Don't get me wrong, I support the general critique they are presenting. But language is a powerful tool that can make allies as well as alienate — I feel that their radical use of language (whether intentional or not) may unwittingly achieve the latter.

Re: An Open Letter to Patreon

#76

Post by ernst_klim »

bambax wrote: post #27
corobo wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt that. Chargebacks are the problem. As soon as you mention to a payment processor that you might be taking for adult content they drop you like a hot brick.

In this specific case, maybe chargebacks are the problem, but in general, American puritanism is insufferable (Facebook banning reproductions of 19th century paintings, etc.) Also, it's inexplicable. I would much rather have my kids exposed to a million boobs (that they can see anywhere on the beach anyway -- and why are boobs a problem in the first place is anyone's guess) than to the horrible and dehumanizing viole…

>Facebook banning reproductions of 19th century paintings, etc.

My favorite example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._One_Book_Call...

Re: An Open Letter to Patreon

#77

Post by psergeant »

astura wrote: post #41
Certhas wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So charge them a slightly higher fee to account for that. Your reasoning that that in itself would be sufficient to refuse service does not hold up.

Patreon has to follow the terms of their payment processors. If they want to be involved in porn they'd have to add a separate high risk payment processor for those content creators. I heard porn sites have a CC processing fees of 20+%.

My mental history of Patreon may be wrong but I thought they came of trying to out-permiss Gittip.

Setting up a CCBill account for adult content doesn’t seem like it’d be that big an ask, for an organisation so outwardly committed to supporting their customers.

Re: An Open Letter to Patreon

#78

Post by kbart »

kuschku wrote: post #43
lawnchair_larry wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has nothing to do with showing a nipple. This was more about the porn and private sex shows. There are all kinds of legitimate reasons why one might not want to enter that business. That's their right as a business owner.

Not when it becomes impossible to exist as a business without relying on such intermediaries, e.g. VISA or MasterCard. Then they are a monopoly, and can't choose their customers anymore.

Monopoly in what? There are plenty of sites that specialize in sex cams, private shows and amateur porn, so why not just go there? There are legitimate reasons to avoid adult content in your private site as it is very easy to get into serious problems where as site owner/administrator your are legally responsible: underage actors, abuse, prostitution claims (where it is illegal) etc. just to name few.

Re: An Open Letter to Patreon

#79

Post by erlend_sh »

aargh_aargh wrote: post #74
erlend_sh wrote: post #68

There’s a major opportunity for competition here. A complete open source stack for what Patreon does is already available as free open source software: https://github.com/opencollective A sex-positive alternative to Patreon could be up and running within a month. A lone developer could make a viable side-business for them self living off the 10% fee + having their own collection project. This would be good for the Op…

The benefit is not in the software or service per se. It's in the network effect the existing service already has.

What is the network effect of Patreon? Whatever it is, I don’t consider it to be very strong. Many creators are discovered through their own channels first before their fans learn about their Patreon.

OpenCollective made its way into the recurring payments market with relative ease. “All” they needed to do was cater to an underserved niche (open source) that could be serviced better on its own stand-alone platform as opposed to being one of many categories on Patreon.

Something very similar is happening with Kickstarter. See Fig as an example of a specialized crowdfunding platform that’s carving its own niche by catering specifically to games.

https://www.polygon.com/2017/8/10/16125828/fig-first-profita...

Re: An Open Letter to Patreon

#80

Post by imustbeevil »

_Codemonkeyism wrote: post #39
kome wrote: post #5

American puritanism is the problem. I have enough of those American companies arbitrarily deciding that a nipple is an obscene thing. But how to fight back this form of cultural imperialism?

I'm with you on puritanism, but it's not about "a nipple" it's about porn. "[...] we also must listen to and represent those who simply make porn. Who want to be creative with their porn [...]"

Porn is legal. While GP might be semantically incorrect, the point is that porn has been a legal part of American culture for at least 100 years. It makes absolutely no sense to discriminate against processing payments for one of America's largest entertainment industries.
Post reply on HN