141–150 of 173 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Patreon is reknown for political censorship of centrists and the right.
Oh come on, they have a ToS like all other companies. It's not "censorship" to not do business with someone. Also, "the right" here is people like Milo and Lauren Southern who are out in the real world causing harm.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Respectfully, I totally disagree. First, many exchanges (at least in the US) allow you to purchase with bank transfer, not a credit card. That completely changes the context of the risk profile. Credit card companies are much more concerned about fraud since CC's are so much easier to perpetrate fraudulent transactions. Its relevant for any kind of "riskier" transaction, like those on something like Patreon. More imp…
You are free to transfer bitcoins to anyone, maybe (provided you don't lose your wallet). But once you want to convert BTC to USD, you'd still have to play by the rules set by the banking system. Maybe you could slip under the radar if you deal with small amounts, but once it is serious, there would be checks you'd have to pass.
It seems like, however, you will be more subject to taxation issues (Coinbase is likely going to report big transactions to the government) than to arbitrary evaluations (that lead to frozen accounts) made by payment processors.
Put another way, I think it will be relatively easy to do something like Patreon in cryptocurrency. Ingress will be simple. Converting that into a fiat currency will be hard, as you say.
But, if all of sudden I can start taking trips to Thailand and only need USD to buy the ticket, but can do everything else with crypto, then it will matter a lot less. And, this comment made me think that's more and more possible: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18530642
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…
> A small note: how can ever a private company claim the right to decide about "hate speech", "illegal contents" etc? Very easily; private parties are, in fact, in many cases subject to punishment for failing to avoid involvement with illegal activity, which necessarily requires them to identify it. > If they have suspects they have to go knock the police/other public authority door to signal what they suspect and af…
That's true IF and only IF they know a crime and do not reported it to the competent authority. They are nor police nor curt to decide autonomously. Impromptu autonomous decisions should happen ONLY in case immediate of danger-life situations that's hard to happen for an internet company.
> the only time they have to do that is if they want consequences reserved to public authorities to be applied
Might be my limited English but... I do not understand what you say... If you know a crime you have to report it and competent authority act and instruct you on how to act...
> This concept is bizarre and has never been generally accepted
Mh, in the EU and in general since the ancient Roman law it's actually generally accepted... We decide after French Revolution to split power in executive, legislative and judicial authorities and those are the sole that can act.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you say that a company can legally lock out a customers without any reasonable notice and room to discuss? 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 havin…
> So you say that a company can legally lock out a customers without any reasonable notice and room to discuss? Generally, limited by terms of the contract with the customer, sure. But most consumer online services have contracts that provide broad discretion to providers. Some particular services are subject to additional public regulation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So you say that a company can legally lock out a customers without any reasonable notice and room to discuss? Generally, limited by terms of the contract with the customer, sure. But most consumer online services have contracts that provide broad discretion to providers. Some particular services are subject to additional public regulation.
Hum, nice to know, thanks. I know that for instance a telco can lock a customers phone if it was an active spammer that with it's activity compromise/endanger telco service itself, however this can apply ONLY as a safety measure against immediate threats otherwise it can led to and adverse court decision because even if telco claim is valid it must demand communication to the costumer like "cease and desist letter" w…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Patreon is reknown for political censorship of centrists and the right.
Oh come on, they have a ToS like all other companies. It's not "censorship" to not do business with someone. Also, "the right" here is people like Milo and Lauren Southern who are out in the real world causing harm.
Patreon has been on a spree to ban people that think the wrong way. Matt Christiansen had a call [1] with Patreon to discuss their banning of Sargon of Akkad. Sargon was notified of the banning by his patrons, not Patreon, and had no recourse to challenge the decision. In the call Patreon made it clear that their platform is; 1) explicitly anti free-speech 2) is not a free market (they can ban you for arbitrary reaso…
The problem is a lack of other options, driven by the incentives and actions of payment processors like Mastercard. This isn't just theoretical; those who tried switching to Subscribestar after the Sargon incident immediately lost their income again as PayPal cut ties with Subscribestar. The whole "it's a free market, build your own platform" excuse for deplatforming gets increasingly weak as the deplatforming moves…
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…
It's pretty trivial to set up a Stripe account and take payments directly. It's simple to set up if you're a beginner dev, and there are lots of plugins for Wordpress, etc. I don't even know why anybody would use something like Patreon. I'd rather give directly than to some 3rd party who's going to take a cut (yes, I'm aware of Stripe processing fees like any other cc processor would charge).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could you name some of these domestic terrorists with Patreon accounts?
https://www.patreon.com/intlantifadefence https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/worl... https://www.patreon.com/chapotraphouse https://www.reddit.com/r/ChapoTrapHouse/comments/9k14nf/why_... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_violence
