91–100 of 173 posts
It's possible this is an account suspension (i.e. "We don't want you to have an account anymore because you do XYZ"), but it looks more like a fraud / financial flag (i.e. "We think someone has broken into your account and we're holding your funds temporarily.") As evidence, they still contact him about new subscribers and his page is still online, which it isn't in other cases when Patreon suspends an account. Still…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A small note: how can ever a private company claim the right to decide about "hate speech", "illegal contents" etc? If they have suspects they have to go knock the police/other public authority door to signal what they suspect and after comply to the public authority decision. Nowadays to many people do not comprehend really this super-important concept... And many countries try to take advantage of it pushing privat…
"Hate speech" doesn't have a legal definition in the United States that I am aware of. If it does, it's still covered by the first amendment and legal. So its not a question of Patreon determining what is legal, they're determining what is acceptable to them.
Then fix that, instead of using it as a loophole to ruin the web, and then still not having fixed that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Hate speech" doesn't have a legal definition in the United States that I am aware of. If it does, it's still covered by the first amendment and legal. So its not a question of Patreon determining what is legal, they're determining what is acceptable to them.
Ok, so my point is how a private company can ever determinate what is acceptable or not for them of their customers activities or idea. I do not know how USA legislation works, in EU a private company can't "discriminate" their customers based on their own personal assumption. If you run a company you may refuse a new customer or you may found a way to break a contract with an actual customer but nothing "suddenly",…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not if it uses cryptocurrency, right? The middleman disappears in that case.
The middleman just becomes the exchanges (who also have to deal with payment processors).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In technological terms, cryptocurrencies really have fixede this. However, the adoption is lacking behind somewhat. However, the few creators that do use cryptocurrency (even just in a rudimentary way of putting a bitcoin address in a video) - have gained from this.
It really didn't. Bitcoins ledger is public, marking every transaction from who to whom the money went. Yes, it's originally only the wallet id that is public, but this id only needs to be matched once to a person... And don't even start with exchanges. They have exactly the same problem as any private entity such as PayPal or patreon has
Modern bitcoin wallets use HD tech. Each transaction has a seperate public wallet
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A small note: how can ever a private company claim the right to decide about "hate speech", "illegal contents" etc? If they have suspects they have to go knock the police/other public authority door to signal what they suspect and after comply to the public authority decision. Nowadays to many people do not comprehend really this super-important concept... And many countries try to take advantage of it pushing privat…
"Hate speech" doesn't have a legal definition in the United States that I am aware of. If it does, it's still covered by the first amendment and legal. So its not a question of Patreon determining what is legal, they're determining what is acceptable to them.
However, individuals and businesses are free to refuse service, censor speech, etc. As long as they're not discriminating on the basis of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or disability.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder if this has to do with the Kushners (Thrive Capital) leading their latest funding round
More likely this is what happens when you create a trust and safety department run by ideologues that censor according to some elusive concept of “hate speech”. Who defines hate? Ideologues should at least not
Why would this have anything to do with ideology?
Patreon sounds like something relatively easy to replicate. Effectively every utility implements what patron provides. It's essentially just scheduling recurring payments, with a discussion forum attached. More behavior like what we've been seeing Patreon do lately, and I can see larger creators shifting to hosing their own patronage services. Essentially the same reason why EA, Blizzard, and even more niche game pub…
https://hatreon.net/ It's been tried before. You have to play ball to a certain extent or upstream service providers can and will cut you off.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Hate speech" doesn't have a legal definition in the United States that I am aware of. If it does, it's still covered by the first amendment and legal. So its not a question of Patreon determining what is legal, they're determining what is acceptable to them.
> "Hate speech" doesn't have a legal definition in the United States that I am aware of. Then fix that, instead of using it as a loophole to ruin the web, and then still not having fixed that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok, so my point is how a private company can ever determinate what is acceptable or not for them of their customers activities or idea. I do not know how USA legislation works, in EU a private company can't "discriminate" their customers based on their own personal assumption. If you run a company you may refuse a new customer or you may found a way to break a contract with an actual customer but nothing "suddenly",…
Businesses in the U.S. for the most part can discriminate however they want as long as it isn't on the basis of race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation.
In EU for instance telcos, banks etc often change conditions without "negotiation" they simply inform their customers that starting from the next month/year/end of auto-renewal period there are new conditions visible "there" and if their customers refuse the change can end the contract without penalties having, in theory, enough time to switch to another company.
This protection is not much effective in many cases since most telcos/banks etc offer nearly the same conditions and change them nearly at the same time so a "bad move" for a customer of company X typically is already present or about to arrive to others possible "competitors", regularly antitrust step into action but normally without enough strength and timing to really avoid many bad moves...
However no one can act without enough time from the over part to respond and certainly not without keep receiving money on behalf of anyone...
Oh, to clarify I hear about cases arrived in curt with motivation like "we have received (as proved by Postal Service) that communication, but inside the envelope there are only to white sheets..." and things of that level but still person to person actions with a formal responsible from both sides.