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

Patreon Bars Anti-Feminist for Racist Speech, Inciting Revolt

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

701–710 of 789 posts

Re: Patreon Bars Anti-Feminist for Racist Speech, Inciting Revolt

#701

Post by bunderbunder »

kristofferR wrote: post #447
bunderbunder wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that Twitter is way more popular than Mastodon doesn't really change anything. It's freedom of speech , not freedom of venue.

If you are only allowed to speak freely when noone can hear you - are you then allowed freedom of speech?

> If you are only allowed to speak freely when noone can hear you

No one? Hyperbole like this only serves to muddy the waters.

Furthermore, I'm curious if those who believe that having access to social media needs to be considered a fundamental right really have the courage of their convictions: If this is the case, then we've got bigger problems than whether or not Milo Yiannopoulos can use it to act like a tool in public. There are whole classes of people who don't have easy access to the hardware and constant Internet connections required to take part, and their freedom of speech has clearly been curtailed. Perhaps there's a need to set up a social fund to ensure that their basic human rights are being preserved by buying them smartphones with data plans, and forcing the nation's cellular providers to extend coverage to every nook and cranny of the country.

Re: Patreon Bars Anti-Feminist for Racist Speech, Inciting Revolt

#702

Post by bunderbunder »

toufiqbarhamov wrote: post #551
bunderbunder wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's interesting how this gets framed differently nowadays. 20 years ago, before social media, there was no assumption that everyone has a fundamental right to be able to broadcast their ideas using others' platforms. Since publication was more resource-intensive, the default for most media was to not publish things, and deciding that someone's ideas didn't merit publication wasn't seen as a violation of any great mo…

It’s interesting, and weird when you consider that the people who seem to be railing against this supposed censorship share significant overlap in the Venn diagram of people who complain about a growing sense of entitlement among others. Ironically at some point these same people decided that they deserve to be published wherever they want, and anything else is censorship. Presumably these are people who felt even ha…

I've come to believe that one of the most under-recognized forces in politics is that people tend to fear that that others will treat them the way they would treat others.

Re: Patreon Bars Anti-Feminist for Racist Speech, Inciting Revolt

#703

Post by waterhouse »

paulcole wrote: post #596
coffeemug wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Freedom of Speech is not the right to be heard. People keep saying this and repeating it, but as far as I can tell this meme is destructive and wrong. Freedom of speech isn't just a legal assurance that congress shall make no law abridging it. It is also a set of cultural norms rooted deeply in a long lineage of hard won ideas. It is Evelyn Hall's principle "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the de…

Do you happen to know Evelyn Hall’s twitter handle? Seems like an interesting person to follow.

Heh heh heh, if only. Evelyn Hall was born in the 1800s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Beatrice_Hall

Re: Patreon Bars Anti-Feminist for Racist Speech, Inciting Revolt

#704

Post by waterhouse »

TimothyBJacobs wrote: post #628
halbritt wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is concerning for the same reason that the government seems to be concerned that Facebook seems to have an anti-conservative bias. Patreon, like Facebook, has a de facto monopoly. The outstanding question is what is to be done about it.

If you take a very specific definition of Patreon's business, donate a monthly amount to creators in return for nothing, recognition, or virtual/physical benefits, then perhaps you could say they have a defacto monopoly. But if you take a slightly wider look at supporting creators whose content you enjoy, then not at all. You have Twitch subscriptions, YouTube supports/members/whatever they are calling it these days,…

Here's one competitor to Patreon. They were effectively shut down by VISA refusing to process payments for them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatreon

Here's another competitor to Patreon. They have been crippled by PayPal and Stripe refusing to process payments for them. They sound optimistic about finding replacement payment processors, and it's certainly their duty to their customers to try their best, but so far it hasn't happened. https://www.subscribestar.com/posts/5617

Elsewhere in this thread there are people pointing to indications that Patreon's banning choices were due to pressure from their own payment processors.

It's probably easy to create a Patreon competitor. If you want it to not get shut down, though, I imagine you'll have to implement ban policies at least as strict as Patreon itself. So maybe Patreon isn't a monopoly, but on the other hand, it doesn't make sense to say "It's fine if Patreon chooses whatever policies they like because, if the policies are bad, you can just start up a competitor with better policies".

The relevant monopolies/oligopolies seem to be the payment processors.

Re: Patreon Bars Anti-Feminist for Racist Speech, Inciting Revolt

#705

Post by manangatangy »

ggreer wrote: post #312
zamalek wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On the other hand, at what point do we accept that we have different viewpoints and live and let live? The government, soapboxes, homes and places of business that are happy to have them. Freedom of Speech is not the right to be heard. If people don't like what you have to say, or how you are saying it, they are free to walk away. If you don't like what someone is doing in your place of business, you can also throw…

> Freedom of Speech is not the right to be heard. If people don't like what you have to say, or how you are saying it, they are free to walk away. That's technically correct, but it doesn't get at the core of the concept. If you read the original arguments in favor of freedom of speech, you'll see they don't focus on the rights of the speaker as much as the rights of the listener. John Milton, Thomas Paine, and John…

This states the issue clearly and accurately. Very well said.

Re: Patreon Bars Anti-Feminist for Racist Speech, Inciting Revolt

#706

Post by StavrosK »

asabjorn wrote: post #633
StavrosK wrote: post #533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes but it's an insult targeted towards black people. I'm not sure it had the impact he thought it'd have, since some white racist would just think "but I'm not black", and he just ended up kind of perpetuating the insult. I mean, I know he didn't mean disrespect towards black people, it was just in poor taste.

The social justice belief you cite that a group gets harmed by forbidden words, even if none in that group heard it and it was targeted at some other groups folly, is just that; a belief. What proof do you have that is not belief that supports your claim that he targeted black people? The evidence clearly shows he was not targeting blacks. Before the regressive left dug this up I suspect no black person saw it. It wa…

> However, pretty weak of you to vote me down instead

Ugh, first of all, stop assuming I downvoted you, I only now saw your reply.

Second of all, it's not about actively harming people in that specific instance, it's about perpetuating the perception. Using a word as an insult implies that the target group is inferior and to be associated with it is undesirable. That's why I don't like people calling others "niggers" as I don't like people calling others "homos", or "whores" or a whole slew of other things.

If someone inside the group calls someone else a derogatory term of the group, hey, it's your own group you're harming. If it's someone outside, I try to show them that it's a shitty thing to be doing that.

Re: Patreon Bars Anti-Feminist for Racist Speech, Inciting Revolt

#707

Post by StavrosK »

tomp wrote: post #675
StavrosK wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's still shitty towards blacks if a black person says it, but I'm not going to get offended on their behalf in that case.

But you're happy to be offended on behalf of black people when a white person says it? That makes no sense...

If a friend of mine calls someone else a "fag" jokingly, I will tell them that's not acceptable and to cut it the fuck out, as I don't like implying that being gay is a negative. If a gay person does it, it's on them.

Insulting a group from the inside is very different from insulting it from the outside.

Re: Patreon Bars Anti-Feminist for Racist Speech, Inciting Revolt

#708

Post by _Tev »

eesmith wrote: post #648
furgooswft13 wrote: post #573

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether they wrote "he's a racist" or not they are heavily implying it by associating him with racism, as you just did, and the alt-right. I don't see a meaningful difference, especially given the source. Also I was talking about the quote from GP, in which this association is made on much flimsier and misleading evidence than this incident. The SPLC quote combined a wild extrapolation with a lie of omission that wou…

"Whether they wrote" My point is that you said they did. If they actually did not, then it comes across like you are putting words into their mouth. Do you see how this comes across as part of a criticism which says they themselves are over-interpreting the data? "it seemed to me" And it seemed to me it was an outright racist statement. Even if somehow it was not, it was definitely an own-goal given the heavy scrutin…

> I cannot conceive of how anyone would think those phrases would result in useful, effective, or even interpretable irony or sarcasm.

Well, that is the root of the disagreement (and one of the main issues with this whole fiasco). When you isolate opposing side enough, you can paint them in whatever way you want, because "I cannot understand them, therefore I assume worst interpretation possible" sounds so logical to you . . .

But from the context given in comments I see just how bad the ban is, and how detached from reality are these judgments of Sargon et al. But you will keep shunning him, understand him even less, and make more opponents to progressive cause ...

Streissand effect in full power. It makes me really sad, as I hate modern right wing ideas.

Re: Patreon Bars Anti-Feminist for Racist Speech, Inciting Revolt

#709

Post by beat »

apostacy wrote: post #317
beat wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Business itself is inherently amoral (not evil, just lacking any sense of morality one way or another). Businesses don't refuse particular customers out of a sense of social justice - they do it because continuing to service their customers harms their reputation, and thus their business. I know I don't want to do business with businesses that tell me fascism is just "speech", and I'll go to their competitors instead…

Someone like Jordan Paterson is absolutely not like Stormfront. Refusing to support a best selling author and professor because some vocal activists have launched a smear campaign against him is not some sort of proxy for morality. Businesses are doing things because their owners want to punish certain opinions, regardless of how popular they are. Visa and Mastercard are using their monopoly power as payment processo…

And yet, you believe Jordan Peterson is banned, when he is not. Think about how you came to that belief.

Now, think about how much we want the people who convinced you of it to have an unrestricted platform.

Re: Patreon Bars Anti-Feminist for Racist Speech, Inciting Revolt

#710

Post by beat »

remarkEon wrote: post #439
wsy wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference between food and waste is also obvious, still we bring the waste to the garbage can. Also, nobody censors. A distributor decided not to distribute the stuff anymore.

This “well it’s not really censorship if it’s not the government” point is useless, shallow, and ultimately meaningless. Your garbage analogy (no pun intended) fails on its face because in that case the government is explicitly telling you what is trash and what is recycling; what is compost and what requires special disposal . This idea begets that we have agreed to outsource what is and isn’t “allowed” to be said i…

A business deciding how its facilities are used isn't censorship. If I go to a movie theater, buy a ticket, and then start shouting at the audience about how Jews control Hollywood, they'll throw me out. If I mail a dick pic to the newspaper and demand they publish it, they will not. Are you saying these things are censorship? Certainly, they're about businesses limiting "free speech".

To use a closer analogy, Tumblr recently banned "adult content", including nudity. This affected friends of mine. Is that censorship?

Ok, so why can Patreon not decide what is and is not an acceptable use of its platform?

Post reply on HN